WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=sQUo0moc34U

Part: 1

1
00:01:27.680 --> 00:01:44.200
Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the June 18th Traffic Commission. Can we all please stand 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,

2
00:01:44.200 --> 00:02:09.000
one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. We'll do a quick roll call. Chief Avida. >> Here. >> Askorski. >> Here. >> Nicholas Raiser. >> Here. >> And Chief Colon. >> Here.

3
00:02:09.000 --> 00:02:22.520
>> Uh we are all here, present and accounted for. It's a long agenda, so let's jump right into it. Public hearings. Item number one, amend schedule 11 of title 10 handicap persons parking by

4
00:02:22.520 --> 00:02:41.800
adding 77 Reservoir Ave. Um I did review this last month when we had this in front of us for the agenda items. I see no issue with this application. There is no legal uh driveway at this

5
00:02:41.800 --> 00:03:03.160
address, so I believe it's justified, but is there anyone here to speak in favor for public hearing item number one? Seeing and hearing none, anyone against public item number one?

6
00:03:03.600 --> 00:03:19.880
Closing that side. >> Motion to approve. >> Motion to approve. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. All those in favor? >> I. >> I. >> All those opposed? Public hearing item number one is approved.

7
00:03:24.440 --> 00:03:40.480
Item number two, amend schedule eight parking restrictions generally by adding Ensign Street direction westerly from Harmon Street to Sullivan Street no parking anytime.

8
00:03:40.480 --> 00:04:03.007
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this item? And then just state your name and address for the record, please. >> Celia Watson. >> Is there a >> Oh, brilliant. Right where it says press to talk. Amazing.

9
00:04:03.007 --> 00:04:18.680
>> [laughter] >> Uh Suzanne DelGrosso, 31 Enson Street. Uh so, I have a few points. Um not the least of which is that um at the moment on the left-hand side as you head towards Malden,

10
00:04:18.680 --> 00:04:33.600
um there's typically four to five or more cars parked along that side. The street's extremely narrow. There are no sidewalks on either side. It's um a highly used uh method to get to the Abraham Lincoln school. So, there's a lot of children

11
00:04:33.600 --> 00:04:50.040
walking, parents with their children, um and you have to walk in the middle of the street. Um people use Enson Street to go from Newhall uh bypass that intersection um

12
00:04:50.040 --> 00:05:05.640
by Vinnie's Market and then, you know, bypass all of Malden. So, they come flying down from Fenley Street um down Enson and actually up Enson as well, but >> [snorts] >> um so, that it creates it's just a dangerous situation with people having to walk in the street. Uh I also have a

13
00:05:05.640 --> 00:05:21.040
neighbor that had double knee replacement, so she has like the the arm um style crutches, the wrist style crutches, um and she takes walks daily. I've seen her having to walk in the middle of the street, um avoid cars. Uh those of us with dogs walking in the

14
00:05:21.040 --> 00:05:37.760
street uh it makes it very difficult for me personally to maintain my property. I can't mow along my property um or weed whack typically cuz there's cars uh always parked there. They're parked there illegally. They've been ticketed multiple times. I've put in um

15
00:05:37.760 --> 00:05:54.360
service requests for that and they've been ticketed upwards of two three times. Um and there's been uh pickup trucks full of it looks like cleanout items like sofas mattresses furniture.

16
00:05:54.360 --> 00:06:11.640
So I think there may be a junk removal cleanout business being run from one of the residences on my street as well. >> Okay, I'm sorry. Just one question. You say that they were parked illegally. Is that what you >> They don't live there. But they're parking overnight constantly. But they don't live No, they

17
00:06:11.640 --> 00:06:29.640
don't live on the my street. The cars that I'm speaking of. >> Okay. >> So. >> And this would just stop people from parking on the left side on that block? It >> Yeah. >> I'm I'm just There's no sidewalks

18
00:06:29.640 --> 00:06:46.440
currently there. I understand that >> Yeah. >> the issue with with um cars speeding around. But just in my experience, the wider you make that lane, the faster cars will go. So if you >> That's a good point. >> Removing parking usually

19
00:06:46.440 --> 00:07:10.440
kind of gives people like a direct line of sight and they actually tend to speed up. Unfortunately, I know that's not the way we want things to work. >> sense. >> But um Is there any other reason? Is it Is it just this corner they're having an issue or is the whole street? I'm just curious like

20
00:07:10.440 --> 00:07:25.240
>> So closer >> Usually we would restrict the parking on an entire like one side, not just like one section of the street. >> mean it could be the whole It could be done the whole way as well. As people come around friendly in either direction, uh

21
00:07:25.240 --> 00:07:41.200
the people are taking typically taking that corner in the middle of the road. Um so if you were to restrict parking all the way up, uh it would also prevent people like they're in the the the So if

22
00:07:41.200 --> 00:07:57.480
there were no parking here, then maybe it would just ease the traffic up or even a stop sign at the end of Fenley might be helpful. Um but then also before Hamman uh there have been there are cars parking

23
00:07:57.480 --> 00:08:14.200
there also um that don't live on the the street. >> So, is that the problem that they they don't live on the street? So, is there something you like a a 24 like a resident overnight resident parking only situation that would benefit

24
00:08:14.200 --> 00:08:30.560
>> Um >> I'm just I I just I'm wary of just restricting parking. If they're not if they don't actually live there, if that's the issue, then I mean it might be better to look into something like resident only parking overnight for that area. >> Yeah, I mean that I think that would currently uh with the vehicles that are

25
00:08:30.560 --> 00:08:47.360
constantly parking there, they they don't live at any of the residences. I think there's there are clearly staying there, but um so, to do something along the the lines of um doing a resident only would prohibit

26
00:08:47.360 --> 00:09:09.120
>> Okay. >> parking there. >> Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. Are there any other proponents? No? Any opponents? No? Commission, do we have any comments?

27
00:09:11.600 --> 00:09:26.800
>> I tend to agree with you um and would like to consider establishing a parking resident only district as opposed to prohibiting it entirely, although the residents on this block on the other side do have driveways. The driveways are pretty

28
00:09:26.800 --> 00:09:43.600
small. Um if you have guests or anyone coming over that could be difficult to park. And I also agree with your point as to the traffic calming of actually having that narrowing of the roadway with those cars that we see this all the time when we eliminate parking

29
00:09:43.600 --> 00:10:01.480
then you've got a wide lane for cars to drive even faster through. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. >> Um Just have some concern about making there you know, restricting parking on just one of the blocks

30
00:10:01.480 --> 00:10:19.320
that's on Ensign there's essentially three um from all the way up to Finley. Um and to have that on just one of them um is some is a little bit of concern for me just in terms of um pedestrians and you know, traffic. Um

31
00:10:19.320 --> 00:10:36.720
I mean I I would tend to say that maybe other traffic calming measures you know, might be more appropriate. Um or even some type of a um you know, parking restriction you know, for the whole side or something to that effect. Um but I do have some concern about just uh

32
00:10:36.720 --> 00:10:53.040
restricting it on that one block. >> Thank you. Well, Director Bobo's here actually. Do you mind if I put you on the spot? >> Yes, so. I'm waiting for it. >> [laughter] >> Good afternoon, commission members. Um Mr. Chairman.

33
00:10:53.040 --> 00:11:09.440
>> Is this area currently overnight resident parking only? >> Correct. Midnight to 6. >> Okay. And to um answer some of the um we did receive a a few Q-alerts recently. Um during our canvass in the area a car that may have been on scene at one point was not there. The other three

34
00:11:09.440 --> 00:11:26.520
remaining were residents uh of across the roadway uh from this requested no parking area. Their cars were registered out of there. One was a rental vehicle that they just got recently. I have seen photographs through other violations um of street sweeping and some other Q-alert photos

35
00:11:26.520 --> 00:11:42.440
that do show during the day there are pickup trucks showing up in the area with a lot of trash debris in the back, seeming that they're maybe using their housing unit for something that isn't appropriate for the neighborhood. Um but again here, we're trying to talk about parking. So, I do understand the

36
00:11:42.440 --> 00:11:57.680
frustration the resident is seeing. But along with the same line with the traffic commission, if we were going to move forward, I would say entire length, not just one section of the roadway if we wanted to restrict parking um to better serve the area. But again, as you see, overflow will

37
00:11:57.680 --> 00:12:13.520
turn onto Haaman and Sullivan. Um So, we're taking additional cars that may be able to fit on Ensign. And when guests come over or, you know, additional visitors, we are pushing them onto the side street. So, don't envy your position here, but I uh I understand the concerns of the resident.

38
00:12:13.520 --> 00:12:30.040
>> Yeah, I I completely understand the concerns of the resident. I would like the ability to at least speak with Inspectional Services about this. If they're running some some scrapyard, junkyard business out of a residential neighborhood, I think that can be addressed through that process.

39
00:12:30.040 --> 00:12:45.240
Instead of respec- restricting parking so people can't have visitors that are actually appropriately using the a home. >> And a tool we have in our toolbox that we use for another request coming up in front of you tonight. Um when we have a a roadway that seems to have a few residents or or neighbors kind of

40
00:12:45.240 --> 00:13:01.680
disrupting the parking, we do what I like to create rolling queue alert where my team will show up every night for 2 weeks straight to canvas the neighborhood and enforce any regulations they can find and present that data to the traffic commission to see if there is um you know, an outgrowing need. If there is a lot of vehicles popping up in

41
00:13:01.680 --> 00:13:18.160
the neighborhood that aren't residents and if that is a concern, uh we can definitely help with that. Um I have no problem leaving here tonight um and and starting a 2-week enforcement period of Ensign Street to see if we can create some relief for the neighborhood and start there. >> Okay. I think that with in tandem of

42
00:13:18.160 --> 00:13:32.880
let me reach out to Inspectional Services to see if we can address the problem with the business. And my recommendation would be to table this till the next agenda meeting. See if we can correct this through the proper channels.

43
00:13:32.880 --> 00:13:48.480
And if not, at that point we can enforce some no parking on this side. Does that seem appropriate? Commission. >> I think so. >> Okay. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second.

44
00:13:48.480 --> 00:14:13.760
>> Okay. Item number two will be tabled till our next agenda meeting. Director Babble, thank you. If you don't mind doing that two week um Well, he's busy. I'll reach out to inspectional services to get that started though.

45
00:14:13.760 --> 00:14:30.080
Item number three, amend schedule four of title 10, isolated stop signs by adding the following. A stop sign location, Central Avenue for eastbound traffic to Campbell Ave. And that goes in hand with item number

46
00:14:30.080 --> 00:14:46.600
four which is the same schedule Central Avenue westbound traffic at Campbell. And um I believe this is right where the new dog park was installed and this was

47
00:14:46.600 --> 00:15:01.560
Uh yeah, we actually all agreed on this. This actually made a lot of sense to help slow the traffic and create a safe passage for people to get to and from that park. Is there any proponents on this? Item number three and four. Any opponents to item number three and four?

48
00:15:01.560 --> 00:15:17.040
Seeing and hearing none. Commission. >> So we did a speed study on this street. The 85th percentile speed exceeded the speed limit and then some. It was among the highest actually of among the roads we've done this far. Um but because of the

49
00:15:17.040 --> 00:15:32.880
um slope of the roadway uh a speed hump wasn't appropriate and some of the other measures are a bit more expensive than putting a stop sign in. So, we discussed with the counselor just installing the stop sign, monitoring the situation, and seeing if more aggressive interventions will be

50
00:15:32.880 --> 00:15:49.040
needed. But, I'm certainly in favor of doing this for now. >> Awesome. Is there a motion to approve on the floor? >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye. >> All those opposed?

51
00:15:49.040 --> 00:16:15.360
Item number three and four have been approved. All right, moving on. Item number five. Amend schedule four of title 10 I isolate stop signs by adding the following. Ooh, item number six as well is actually

52
00:16:15.360 --> 00:16:31.520
in the same just street, the next block. Shirley Avenue eastbound traffic at Thornton Street. Shirley Avenue eastbound traffic at Nahant Street. These stop signs are already existing. The counselor wanted to clean up the

53
00:16:31.520 --> 00:16:50.440
books and make sure they were accurately um recorded. I have no issue with this. Are there any um proponents for this item? Any opponents for this item? Commissioners,

54
00:16:50.440 --> 00:17:12.640
would you >> Motion to approve. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye. >> All those opposed? Item number four, I'm sorry, five and six have been approved. Item number seven. Amend schedule Oh,

55
00:17:12.640 --> 00:17:28.840
yep. Nope, sorry. Item number seven. Amend schedule eight parking restrictions generally by adding Prospect Avenue direction north I'm sorry, northeast from Broadway to 74 Prospect Ave resident sticker

56
00:17:28.840 --> 00:17:46.920
parking only 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I believe this also goes in hand with item number eight, which is Reservoir Ave northeast direction northeast from six Reservoir Ave to 46 Reservoir Ave resident sticker

57
00:17:46.920 --> 00:18:02.440
parking only 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Then Rooney Councilor, thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman members. Uh Paul Attenzio, 245 Reservoir Avenue. I'm the Ward 4 councilor that represents the area.

58
00:18:02.440 --> 00:18:18.360
Um thank you very much for hearing this. Uh number seven and number eight are pretty much essentially the same thing, so I'll speak about both uh at the same time. Number eight is Reservoir Avenue. The traffic commission several years ago passed this

59
00:18:18.360 --> 00:18:33.800
and the signs are up and it's being enforced. Uh when I was doing some research on Prospect Avenue, I noticed that this never made it into the ordinance. So, this is more or less Reservoir Ave is more or less a housekeeping item. It's been there. It's It's working and

60
00:18:33.800 --> 00:18:48.960
it's It's been enforced. I think it was about six years ago uh when I was sitting where you were, Mr. Chairman. Uh we passed that. Now, Prospect Avenue, uh we looked at do the same thing. Uh the residents at that end of Prospect

61
00:18:48.960 --> 00:19:04.760
Ave are having several problems. Uh one of them, uh people using the businesses on Broadway to avoid the meters uh coming up Prospect and parking. Uh people that want to get on the bus um to go to Boston are also using Prospect

62
00:19:04.760 --> 00:19:20.480
Ave as a parking area. And then uh third, uh residents from 250 uh Broadway that have a parking area and they're not entitled to any kind of stickers are also using that during the

63
00:19:20.480 --> 00:19:36.960
day. So, it's it's become quite a problem for those residents. So, that's I hope you look in favor of that. There are several residents here. I believe they want to speak on this. And I also have a letter that I'd like to read into the record

64
00:19:36.960 --> 00:19:51.480
from Mr. Paul Deacon, the former superintendent of schools. He lives at 74 Prospect and he writes and bear with me, I forgot my glasses. I write in support of the proposed resident parking on Prospect Ave. Having

65
00:19:51.480 --> 00:20:07.480
living lived here for 44 years after living on Ridge Road for 30 years, I have seen changes over those seven decades. We now have single-family homes housing two families, two-family homes housing three or more families.

66
00:20:07.480 --> 00:20:22.600
There are ever-growing number of cars for those apartments. Many of these homes have residents changing month to month, which also contributes to legal parking confusion. Those living in some of the extra apartments uh

67
00:20:22.600 --> 00:20:39.560
told to only park on the street. Thus, there is just not enough parking spaces for everyone. In addition, more and more outsiders are parking on the street and with their Prospect friends Uber to the airport leaving cars for from

68
00:20:39.560 --> 00:20:56.520
outside the city parked in spaces for a week or more. Prospect has also become a parking lot for people traveling to Logan Airport. Please approve resident parking that stands to eliminate this problem and the ongoing parking problems created by

69
00:20:56.520 --> 00:21:13.160
temporary residents. So, the congestion now that's being that he's referring to on Prospect is exacerbating this issue. They need a place to park, but we have these situations that I described earlier. So, thank you very much. >> Thank you, counselor.

70
00:21:13.160 --> 00:21:33.280
Are there any other proponents that would like to speak? Just name and record for the for the record, please. >> My name is uh Bob Laspennato, 58 Prospect Ave. Lifetime um president of Revere. This problem

71
00:21:33.280 --> 00:21:49.880
has been It's outrageous. I can only when Mayor Keefe was our Ward 4 counselor, he helped me out a lot. But when we were here the last time, and this was when um

72
00:21:49.880 --> 00:22:05.880
Captain Guido uh put the 12:00 to 6:00 restriction on Prospect Ave. He told me that it was not a parking issue, that it's a housing issue. Now that everything's gone crazy in Revere with the amount of the housing

73
00:22:05.880 --> 00:22:22.920
and everything else and the cars, me, my wife, we have two cars in the house. I have a legal three-family house, which today I don't even know what legal and zoning is or anymore, so I'm not even going to go there. Um

74
00:22:22.920 --> 00:22:37.840
Again, if I come home at night, I'm 69 years old this year. I don't feel like coming home and not being able to park in front of my own house. Every night I've got cars, and I know the cars by heart.

75
00:22:37.840 --> 00:22:53.000
Before we used to have a permit parking sticker on the car. Now we went to a digital. >> Mhm. >> I know Jimmy Rose, who took was uh ahead of the transportation I know Zach. They've all been working with me. Um I

76
00:22:53.000 --> 00:23:09.880
have uh documented a number of um 311 calls. And Nick Romano knows me very well now, too. I am not an unreasonable person. I'm very straightforward, but I don't I don't really want to get into

77
00:23:09.880 --> 00:23:26.000
politics or anything. This has been insane. We We're held captive to our houses. Um I don't I want to go to bed at night 9:00 9:30 at night. I come home, and there was no parking. On a Thursday night, I don't even know

78
00:23:26.000 --> 00:23:43.200
what Thursdays are. It's from all the way up the street all the way down to the park. Um if you know Prospect Ave, I sort of think that the park should be like free parking because there's eight spots that go all the way down um

79
00:23:43.200 --> 00:24:00.720
Prospect Ave that there are no residents there. Where were these cars coming from? I know uh as a matter of fact, there are so many cars that I don't understand before we used to be able to look at the permit sticker and say, "Hey, this car

80
00:24:00.720 --> 00:24:16.200
is parked there illegally. They don't have a permit sticker." I've again talked with Zach about this, and they went to the digital system. Great for them, and I all power to them, you know? But the thing with us, we have we don't know if they're legal

81
00:24:16.200 --> 00:24:30.600
or not legal. So, I'm not going to say alleged legal illegal cars or whatever. Um but I know for example, there is this one car that keeps on coming. I have his license plate. I've sit keep on putting

82
00:24:30.600 --> 00:24:47.360
his license plate in the 311 call, and he gets tickets. He doesn't care. They box me in. They turn around. They boxed in my car. They >> I completely understand, and you guys shouldn't be saddled with the responsibilities of enforcing your own

83
00:24:47.360 --> 00:25:03.242
parking. >> That's getting It's getting crazy. I mean, if I bring groceries home, I can't even do that, you know? Because I had There's no way to park to put the groceries. I'm going to leave it short like that. You get the point. >> We Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> You don't look in your 60s, by the way.

84
00:25:03.242 --> 00:25:21.680
>> [laughter] >> Anyone else any proponents? >> Good evening. My name is Steven Damiano. I live at 172 Prospect Ave. I'm here to speak in favor of the change. We have a new problem on that hill. The 172 is up a ways. I'm up on the next

85
00:25:21.680 --> 00:25:36.560
block on the corner of Homer Street. And I have myself my own parking quarrels that isn't necessarily related to the bottom of the hill, but I have myself witnessed folks walk about a third of a mile down the hill to get to wherever

86
00:25:36.560 --> 00:25:52.440
they're going. And um this is a problem that has evolved over time. The whole area is just in it's just completely swarmed. And I believe that by making this change, it's going to enhance the residents and the homeowners who live

87
00:25:52.440 --> 00:26:08.720
there. Like Bobby said, he can't even park his car. I mean, I'm a I have the same problems up by me, but it's much less cuz I'm further up. I think the bottom of that fork there cuz it's so close to the commercial district being Broadway, they get a lot of that. They get a lot of bus takers. They get a lot of business jumpers. They get all the

88
00:26:08.720 --> 00:26:25.680
stuff that um isn't just residents putting their groceries away. I do want to also mention one thing. Being at the top of the hill and seeing people walk down the hill, if we do make this change, which I think would be good. Um I do want to continue to have you

89
00:26:25.680 --> 00:26:43.440
guys closely monitor any unintended over spill cuz it's going to what's going to happen is they're going to go other places and you know, there's another problem at hand here and there's just too many people. But it's going to just creep up. So, I don't think that the whole street should be 24/7, but down by down by the the fork,

90
00:26:43.440 --> 00:27:03.840
most definitely. So, thank you for your time and your consideration. >> Thanks, Steven. Any other proponents? Um Zach, what I think There's one more resident I'd like to speak. There's Just name and address for the record, please.

91
00:27:03.840 --> 00:27:20.000
Um There you go. >> Okay. My name is Frank Quaterone. I live at 50 Prospect Ave. Lifelong resident. Okay. Right now, I just left my house to come here to the meeting.

92
00:27:20.000 --> 00:27:37.400
The car parks there and and if everyone stays there, I can't park. Okay? Because of the way it is now. That's why I'm speaking in favor of this motion. Okay? Uh you've heard the stories.

93
00:27:37.400 --> 00:27:53.360
There are illegally car illegally registered cars. Why should a car, even though the person lives in Revere, if it's registered in another city, it should be there. Would you like a car from another city to be parked in front of your house? I'll And I don't

94
00:27:53.360 --> 00:28:09.320
mean to be disrespectful. Second >> I think we're all on your side, sir. >> And that's that. The other thing is, you know, we don't know. As Counselor Gen- Genzio said, 250. I You know, I watch this. I'm not, you know, spying or anything, but these people

95
00:28:09.320 --> 00:28:24.520
just park and they park overnight, particularly weekends. People come, they stay. And uh it it it's a crap shoot and it's uh mainly in the evening. That's where, you know, cuz now it's 12:00 to 6:00, so

96
00:28:24.520 --> 00:28:41.080
they can park there. I mean, I think you people know now we have a problem in the city and we're trying to rectify it as as we can and every one size doesn't fit all. You know, but I think this is good for our city. It at least allows me a chance

97
00:28:41.080 --> 00:28:56.760
to at least, you know, I I don't want to be entitled to a parking spot, but at least coming home, cuz some nights I do have to go out, I like to come home and at least be nearby. And uh >> Thank you very much. >> that that's about it. Thank you.

98
00:28:56.760 --> 00:29:11.640
Appreciate it. >> Thank you for your time. Sorry. Thank you, Zach. Director Bobo. >> Members of the commission, you guys met Bob. He's passionate. >> [laughter] >> But no, it's um all kidding aside, you

99
00:29:11.640 --> 00:29:28.520
know, so Bob has reached out to me a couple times, stopped down my office and you know, he we were we were what we've done is a rolling queue alert, continue to rotate through the neighborhood to canvas how many vehicles do not have parking permits. Um so from just for the month of June, from the 1st to the 14th,

100
00:29:28.520 --> 00:29:45.280
we've recorded 19 violations for unpermitted vehicles and we go up to about 120. We do normally go the whole length, but for this motion, we tried to canvas the study area. From March 1st until June 14th, 160 residential parking

101
00:29:45.280 --> 00:30:01.720
violations on this roadway. Um so the neighbors are seeing an influx of vehicles and I can understand why. The parking lot at 250 blows right into the side of the roadway. Um there are there's a charge for a parking space in that lot. If

102
00:30:01.720 --> 00:30:18.880
people do not want to pay, there there's no consequences up until midnight to 6:00 a.m. Um with the 508 streets, we can't cover them all, so I do see the need for this for this neighborhood. >> Fair enough. Thank you, Director Bobo. >> Thank you. >> Well, you guys won me over, so

103
00:30:18.880 --> 00:30:38.400
you got to left for opponents, though. >> I'm sure. >> I'm not sure there are any, but on this matter, it doesn't look like it. >> [laughter] >> Yeah, they'll they'll they'll kick them out anyway. >> Hearing none, I think the data speaks for itself. I think everything that they

104
00:30:38.400 --> 00:30:53.880
said makes sense and >> I agree. I I think we should a motion to approve. Eight and seven. >> So moved. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> All those opposed?

105
00:30:53.880 --> 00:31:16.640
Item number seven and eight have been approved. That brings us to the end of our public hearings. Now onto the agenda. Agenda item one, Mayor Patrick Keefe requests that the traffic commission consider establishing a traffic commission regulation limiting the

106
00:31:16.640 --> 00:31:34.040
number of residential parking permits issued per address or unit to four with a stipulation that residents may apply for additional parking permits through an appeal process administered by the parking department. Now, seeing what everyone

107
00:31:34.040 --> 00:32:02.160
Yeah, I believe so. Are there any proponents? Anyone like to speak behalf? Proponents, opponents? Director Babo? Uh Zach. >> Sorry about that. Zachary Babo, 300 Broadway, director of parking. To help

108
00:32:02.160 --> 00:32:18.640
address the the motion on the floor for Councillor Sawaya regarding limiting the resident parking permits per address to four. I have presented a data packet showing the historical use of the parking permit data from 2004, 2024,

109
00:32:18.640 --> 00:32:34.560
2025, and 2026. Um I believe the data was very interesting and provided a more in-depth review of this. I do not believe that right now with the current

110
00:32:34.560 --> 00:32:51.160
situation that the commission has enough information and we have a good plan for the community to move forward with this. I would request this to go into a work working group. I know the the vote is within the traffic commission, but I'd be more than willing to work with

111
00:32:51.160 --> 00:33:06.400
members of the traffic commission, the ward councilors, community development to make sure we provide a modern-day robust system. And just some preliminary ideas right off the top was do we consider a hard cap where maybe we set

112
00:33:06.400 --> 00:33:22.800
four as a president or six. If that doesn't work for our community, maybe we gear towards more like some other cities are doing around us. City like Cambridge right now charges $40 per parking permit and they're going up to $100 per parking permit. I think that's too steep. It's not something

113
00:33:22.800 --> 00:33:39.080
that I'm looking to do here. But those are those are the in-betweens. It's either a hard cap or it's an unlimited number based on a price to try to deter on-street parking and try to promote use of the driveway. There are also considerations to see how we can back to the neighbors or the residents who

114
00:33:39.080 --> 00:33:55.440
decide not to seek on-street parking. How can we incentivize that? Um those are all preliminary discussions. A few ideas being thrown around, but I'd be happy to answer any questions presenting this data on this packet that the traffic commission may have tonight. >> I didn't see any of that data in the

115
00:33:55.440 --> 00:34:10.280
packet. It Okay. Is there just out of curiosity, how many how often are they above four per unit? It's per unit, correct? >> Correct. >> Per unit or house? Single-family house? >> So it's the ones to threes that are

116
00:34:10.280 --> 00:34:26.320
carrying the most burden on the city. You have some single families with 11. Some single families with 14. You have three families with 19. The data would go to show you the permit distribution is heaviest five plus permits per address. Three seems to be

117
00:34:26.320 --> 00:34:42.560
the average, but it's really five plus you're seeing a big increase throughout the neighbor neighborhoods. >> Wow. Okay. Well, I definitely like to review be able to look take a look at that data. I don't think this is a bad thing to set in motion though. I think

118
00:34:42.560 --> 00:35:00.160
this might be a nice little benefit to our parking issue we seem to be currently having in the city. >> Moving towards the technology field, the parking department has done the way we've been recording the the permit data in our system and the way we've gone, we're able to track this a little bit better. Uh we partnered with uh the IT

119
00:35:00.160 --> 00:35:16.600
team and built this into the Teleme system building blocks. It's really able to break down neighborhoods. But again, the data is needs to be reviewed, needs to be thought upon. Um I think this motion should go be tabled until a traffic um working group can be created to further

120
00:35:16.600 --> 00:35:32.720
discuss. We have started it uh myself and the DPCD team, um but we think we need to bring more on to it especially as we develop this. Um bringing more ward councilors as they will be in effect to this. We want to make sure that we are putting out the best product for the entire city. And

121
00:35:32.720 --> 00:35:48.520
whether we start with transit oriented neighborhoods first before we moving on to the overnight midnight to 6:00 neighborhoods, that's up for consideration. How we start charging for the permits, do we start charging, do we place a hard cap? Um these are all decisions to be made by the traffic commission.

122
00:35:48.520 --> 00:36:05.800
Um but I'd be happy to guide you through that decision-making process. >> That's fair enough. Commission, do you have any opinions? >> I'd just echo everything that Zach had mentioned. I mean, the the data is pretty eye-opening. Um clearly is being abused in certain

123
00:36:05.800 --> 00:36:20.240
areas, particularly in and around the T. It seems like people are using it as a cheap way to get into Boston. Um but even not exclusively and and I think the data Wait, I there's a single-family home with what, like 12 permits, right? >> Correct.

124
00:36:20.240 --> 00:36:36.520
>> Wait, that had a driveway as well. So, I I think whether you're instituting a hard cap or using pricing to limit a proliferation of parking permits. I think something has to be done. Um I do agree with the recommendation to send it

125
00:36:36.520 --> 00:36:53.400
to a working group. If there's any other members on the commission that would like um you will certainly be reaching out to a counselor Gwyneth So Raya. Um counselor Argenzio, um if I could ask um for you to join us as well. I think given your expertise at sitting at this table once upon a time

126
00:36:53.400 --> 00:37:09.160
as well, I think it would be beneficial and there's a lot of different ways we could do it. Um but but I think it does take some a little bit more time and deliberation to get this right. >> Okay. I think that's fair enough. So I believe we should table this to our

127
00:37:09.160 --> 00:37:25.920
next commission meeting and assemble a working group to kind of hammer out what actually this entails. Are there any >> Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to table

128
00:37:25.920 --> 00:37:41.560
um this request um until the such time as we can work it through working group and really hammer out all the details that I think and the nuances that are going to come up are going to come up

129
00:37:41.560 --> 00:37:57.000
with something that's you know very significant for us. So >> Yeah, that's that that's going to be a substantial change worth actually coming up with a great clear process before we just run forward with it. Is there a second? >> Second.

130
00:37:57.000 --> 00:38:19.960
>> All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. All opposed? >> Item number two, amend schedule four of title 10 I Street stop signs by adding the following. A stop sign located on Bixby Street

131
00:38:19.960 --> 00:38:40.000
for southbound traffic at Sewall Street. And item number three is the same intersection located on Sewall Street for westbound traffic westbound traffic at Bixby Street.

132
00:38:40.040 --> 00:39:02.840
Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of item number [snorts] two and three? No. Commission, do we have any insight on item number two and three? >> Go ahead. >> Mr. Chairman, just a question. So, this is a three-way stop

133
00:39:02.840 --> 00:39:19.640
and we're looking at just two two directions. Is the other direction a one-way? Is that why we're not looking at three? >> Not currently a one-way. >> Is there existing stop sign at that other third leg? >> No. >> Do we know? >> There's not.

134
00:39:19.640 --> 00:39:36.560
I'd suspect it's just given the volume that you're seeing in in the Sewall Street direction that's outlined. Maybe it it was just not a concern coming the other direction. I mean, to your point though, maybe you want to have them on all three sides.

135
00:39:36.560 --> 00:39:52.120
And and I know there the other items are further down on the agenda. >> there's other items further down that we we really should be looking at first before we make any commitment with cuz I believe some of them actually change the traffic pattern on Sewall Street in general and may solve some of the issues they're seeing with the heavy

136
00:39:52.120 --> 00:40:07.600
volumes of traffic, so >> I would I would recommend tabling this for now. It it might make the conversation next month a little bit more complicated than it needs to be. And if we just table this, depending on where those votes go next month, we can

137
00:40:07.600 --> 00:40:23.600
then make a determination as to whether or not to send these to a public hearing. >> Fair enough. >> following meeting. >> Motion to table item number two and three. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? All those opposed?

138
00:40:23.600 --> 00:40:43.840
Item number two and three have been tabled. Item number four, amend schedule 11 of title 10 handicap persons parking by adding 84 Florence Avenue. Motion to send to a public hearing. Motion said is there a second? >> Second.

139
00:40:43.840 --> 00:41:05.640
>> All those in favor? All those opposed? Item number four has been sent to a public hearing. Item number five, amend schedule 11 of title 10 handicap persons parking by adding 178 Constitution Avenue.

140
00:41:05.640 --> 00:41:28.360
Motion to send to a public hearing. Is there a second? All those in favor? All those opposed? Item number five has been sent to a public hearing. Okay, items number six, seven, eight, nine,

141
00:41:28.360 --> 00:41:52.920
10, 11, 12, 13, 14 all seem to be the same dealing with um school parking lot parking restrictions. It is amend schedule eight of

142
00:41:52.920 --> 00:42:11.400
parking restrictions generally by adding the all of the schools with a restricted parking school staff only Monday through Friday 6:00 a.m. to

143
00:42:11.400 --> 00:42:29.280
6:00 p.m. year round, all other vehicles will be towed by the vehicles owners expense. No parking before, during, or after snow events. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this motion, these motions?

144
00:42:29.640 --> 00:42:43.640
No. I believe these came from the school committee if I uh >> So, I can speak to it um briefly. Our school resource officers have been having an issue with uh

145
00:42:43.640 --> 00:43:00.400
the parking at the schools. And um there are I guess some signs up, but really unenforceable. So, there was some discussion about trying to um ensure that faculty members had somewhere to park. There was a lot of residents overflow that were

146
00:43:00.400 --> 00:43:16.000
um parked at the school and it was creating an issue. I I The last I heard, I thought that they were going to try and make it so it was during school. It It So, not including the summers.

147
00:43:16.000 --> 00:43:31.880
>> Okay, that makes more sense to me. >> Right. And and that year round is I I thought was modified, but it doesn't look like it made it in >> Okay. >> um to the agenda. So, that that was some discussion about you know, uh making sure that during

148
00:43:31.880 --> 00:43:48.240
school hours. So, 6:00 to 6:00 while school's in session from um you know, September to to um June. >> Okay. Um so, I don't have an objection to this, but I would definitely like to change the

149
00:43:48.240 --> 00:44:04.360
wording. I would like to remove the summers and I 6:00 p.m. is kind of late, especially for the SBA that area. I mean, I know the people use that park. I don't think it'd be correct to do the entire I mean, maybe behind the

150
00:44:04.360 --> 00:44:20.080
school itself, but that strip going down into the the Whalen School, I don't think that would be proper restricted parking all day. Maybe dirt like in in session. What time does school get out? 3:00? At least 3:00. What?

151
00:44:20.080 --> 00:44:37.920
>> I don't think it'd be necessary to bring this to 6:00. You would want a buffer. You know, but yeah. And >> Yeah, but you would think if they're there between 6:00 and 3:00, I mean, they're not going to leave at 3:00 and come back

152
00:44:37.920 --> 00:44:53.640
and try to park at 4:00. >> [laughter] >> I think both not both the hours the year-round and and frankly that the snow event one is one I'd like to talk about with Director Babo as well because

153
00:44:53.640 --> 00:45:09.800
I think people need places to park in a snow emergency. I I'm on board with the concept of making some enforceable rules while school is in session, but I think those are three items that are going to need to be tweaked and could get you know, sort of discussed out in the public hearing. Hopefully, we have folks

154
00:45:09.800 --> 00:45:26.200
from the school >> Yeah, I think that that would be beneficial. >> Okay. We we can send this to a public hearing. Uh I'm sorry, is there a motion to send this to a public hearing? >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? Aye.

155
00:45:26.200 --> 00:45:50.040
All those opposed? We will send the school restricted parking to public hearing. That shortens our agenda very much so. So, now we're on 15. Amend schedule eight parking restrictions generally by adding

156
00:45:50.040 --> 00:46:06.720
Sewall Street westerly from Harris Street to 50 ft from the southern side along the fence of the housing authority. No parking request to make this a permanent change. Thank you.

157
00:46:06.720 --> 00:46:24.560
>> Good evening everybody. Julie DeMar of the Department of Planning and Community Development. I am here with Ian McKinnon from Howes and Hudson. This request for a public hearing is part of a larger goal to reduce traffic impacts in the

158
00:46:24.560 --> 00:46:40.560
Harris Street School neighborhood. We have four or five different public hearing requests that we'd like to propose for the next meeting. So we can take them all at once or we can take them one at one at a time. Um

159
00:46:40.560 --> 00:46:58.640
but this first one is to prohibit parking on um Sewall Street from Harris Street 50 ft southerly side along the fencing of the Housing Department. And that would be 24-hour no parking.

160
00:46:58.640 --> 00:47:17.320
>> Okay. And they all go in hand or they do they conflict any of these changes or they is the one like a substitution of another are they all >> Well, they would be >> 16, 17, 18, 19 >> I think the the intention here is to put

161
00:47:17.320 --> 00:47:32.000
all options on the table for a public hearing for next round and then it would be up to the commission to vote for the best uh based on public input to vote for the best options here moving forward. So it could

162
00:47:32.000 --> 00:47:48.160
be a combination of 15 and 16 or it could be a combination of 17 and 19. Um but I I just want to make sure that we when we do go forward with converting

163
00:47:48.160 --> 00:48:03.880
the pilot for Harris Street either to a permanent pilot or a pilot or a permanent uh policy with some adjustments that everything is out on the table for the next public hearing. >> Okay.

164
00:48:03.880 --> 00:48:19.960
Well, I have no objection to sending it to public hearing. I know this is a well-debated street area neighborhood at the time, so. >> Yep. >> Commission, do you have any issues with this?

165
00:48:19.960 --> 00:48:36.960
>> I don't have any issues with it. Like Julie had mentioned, it's being both options are being published because last time we went around with this in, um, 2024, there were concerns that we were considering things that weren't on the agenda, even though all of this is kind

166
00:48:36.960 --> 00:48:52.400
of on the agenda when we're discussing the change. So, um, you have the first two items, 15 and 16, is essentially taking what is currently a pilot, making it permanent. And then, um, 17, 18, and 19 would be what we would do if Harris

167
00:48:52.400 --> 00:49:08.440
Street was to be converted to one-way all the way, um, from the intersection to Beach Street. So, um, Butler Street technically is a one-way street. It's used as a two-way street today. If we made all of Harris Street one-way, um, along that

168
00:49:08.440 --> 00:49:25.560
stretch, Butler Street would necessarily need to be a two-way street, so traffic from Harris Street could get back to Winthrop Ave. Um, and then, Sewall Street, I'd say number 19, I'm making it one-way eastbound from, um, Harris, or I guess from Bixby to Harris.

169
00:49:25.560 --> 00:49:40.720
That's one that I'd say is more optional, but was brought up in previous meetings. So, that would effectively cut out cut-through traffic from the neighborhood entirely. Um, but it is a relatively low volume that are going into that intersection, turning

170
00:49:40.720 --> 00:49:55.440
down Sewall just to get out to Winthrop Ave, compared to the high volume we have currently going down Harris Street, um, towards the Winthrop Ave intersection. So, I'd say 19 doesn't necessarily have to happen, um, but could and and then

171
00:49:55.440 --> 00:50:11.720
otherwise we're looking at 15 and 16 and 17 and 18. >> Okay. >> I think we just we would like to finalize a direction for Harris Street at the next Traffic Commission meeting. >> No, I agree. That has to be done.

172
00:50:11.720 --> 00:50:27.560
I just ask one thing. I would like to make sure we get a good sense on the community outreach on this. I want to make sure we get everyone in the room so we do this once and we'd once and then that's it. I don't want to have a second group of neighbors coming out saying, "Oh, I didn't know about it and I'm upset with

173
00:50:27.560 --> 00:50:42.240
the new changes." >> So, we had a public meeting with the neighborhood back actually last week on June 9th. In that meeting group the attendance was much lower than our first meeting that we had with the

174
00:50:42.240 --> 00:50:58.440
neighbors. But the neighbors generally that were at that meeting were Harris, Tool, Big C, and Butler. And they are the ones that are are most affected by the cut-through traffic now. I think what we did do is we told them the

175
00:50:58.440 --> 00:51:14.200
process of how this would work. We also told them the dates of the meeting. We do have a direct just distribution list with these neighbors and they know that tonight was a request for a public hearing only. If

176
00:51:14.200 --> 00:51:31.280
they had any opposition, they would need to attend the meeting in July. We made it very clear to them. So, and then they will be reminded of this process again after tonight's decision. We'll send them another email.

177
00:51:31.280 --> 00:51:47.880
But then you advertise it in the journal >> it in the newspaper. I mean, it doesn't actually hit everyone, but just if you guys have something written up that you're sending out to the residents, let us know. Let us We can send it out on Facebook, Instagram, and try to reach out to everyone that we can. >> Yep. All right, thank you.

178
00:51:47.880 --> 00:52:08.000
>> Thank you. >> Commission, motion to approve, send to a public hearing. >> Motion to send to a public hearing. >> Is there a second? All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed? Item number 17, 18, and 19 will be sent

179
00:52:08.000 --> 00:52:34.240
to a public hearing. >> 15 and 16 as well. >> Ooh. 15 and 16 15 through 19 will be sent to a public hearing. And last but not least, number 20, request to have a speed hump placed on

180
00:52:34.240 --> 00:52:51.920
Charger Street due to the amount of speeding vehicles. >> Good evening, commissioners. Christine Robertson, 187 Charger Street. Very famous, now. Once again, I'm before you on behalf of a petition that was submitted more than a year ago for the placement of [snorts] a speed hump on Charger Street. There is

181
00:52:51.920 --> 00:53:07.480
documented evidence of the need for this speed hump. There have been LED boards placed to collect data and other studies that show that the street is way above the 85th percentile in need of a traffic calming measure. I don't know why this has been delayed for so long. We were the first neighborhood that submitted a

182
00:53:07.480 --> 00:53:23.840
petition to Mr. Marrow, but other surrounding streets who have much less traffic than Charger Street are getting speed humps. As of yet, other than a stop sign, of which we are grateful for, uh and within 200 ft beyond that, a flashing LED your spine your speed is

183
00:53:23.840 --> 00:53:39.360
sign, which is of no use because if a vehicle does does stop at the stop sign, which is rare, it is accelerating after a full stop. This this their speed is always below the 25 mph speed limit. I have observed many, many vehicles blow through the stop sign

184
00:53:39.360 --> 00:53:54.400
and put the pedal to the metal when the light is green at the intersection of Charger and Squire Road. With all the data that has been collected over the years, there is absolutely positive proof that the speed bump is definitely needed and warranted. Could we at least do a 90-day trial of a temporary speed

185
00:53:54.400 --> 00:54:10.040
bump? We need some relief and a speed bump would be just the ticket. Thank you for your time and for listening. I will say congratulations on the one on Lanton Road. It's beautiful. And I'm so happy that it's there and hopefully we'll be

186
00:54:10.040 --> 00:54:26.640
next. That's it's >> No. >> it's getting worse by the day, especially with a lot of the traffic um houses now they're building like duplexes like on the other streets. So, that's contributing to more traffic coming down

187
00:54:26.640 --> 00:54:42.320
Charger Street and Sagamore Street. We are the only two streets that cross over to Northgate Shopping Center in the commercial end of Charger Street. And I have showed you pictures. We get Pepsi trucks, we get Sam Adams trucks, we get tow trucks, we get those vehicles that

188
00:54:42.320 --> 00:54:58.680
you put all the cars on. We get those coming down our street. >> DBW trucks >> We used to you. We used to you and we know you live down the end of the street. But, the issue is we we need help. We it's it's >> No, we understand. We understand.

189
00:54:58.680 --> 00:55:14.920
>> car that and I don't know the We try to get the plate number, but it's a gray car. You can hear him from that stop sign. He must be doing I say 70. My husband says he's got to be doing 90 when that light is green. >> Blows the light every day.

190
00:55:14.920 --> 00:55:31.360
>> He blows that light every day. >> He glances over to see if the cars are moving. If they're not moving, they straight across. >> But, any help any help >> I mean, he's he's way ahead of us and he's moving. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. So, yes, I I do

191
00:55:31.360 --> 00:55:45.960
This doesn't have to This has to go to the traffic work group, which it has. I believe we we've justified that there is need for a speed bump here. I do ask though if the speed bump is installed can the No, I'm I'm sorry. Can the the

192
00:55:45.960 --> 00:56:17.040
the radar sign be utilized elsewhere? That's I'm just I'm afraid of layering all these traffic calming measures on the same street. It's Hopefully tells people that they're speeding and requests them to slow down.

193
00:56:19.920 --> 00:56:35.320
Julie tomorrow, do you have anything to add? >> No. I I thought I So, I just want to I spoke with Ms. Robinson this week and I have ordered the Revere Police Department to put the sign boards back out on Charger Street

194
00:56:35.320 --> 00:56:52.600
because that was the original decision of the traffic working group. We noticed that there was a large volume of cars on Charger Street but speeding was not exceeding the 25% percent tile at the time. Lanton Road was a different

195
00:56:52.600 --> 00:57:08.200
story. There was clearly a speeding problem. It was in that block of 136 163 Lanton Road. So, now we have the temporary speed hump. I think the measures the DPW has put in with putting sidewalks on

196
00:57:08.200 --> 00:57:24.440
a portion of Steeple and Lanton Road has helped calm traffic a little bit along with the portable temporary speed hump. I think for the next step for Charger so that we are following the policy that we put in with the traffic working group is that

197
00:57:24.440 --> 00:57:40.680
we need to see how the traffic calming measures that were implemented last summer spring summer are doing now, and we'll know that after next week's traffic collection. >> Okay. >> All right. In in the event that we're

198
00:57:40.680 --> 00:57:57.680
noticing that it's very little effect, then we can look into installing a temporary speed hump. If there is a permanent speed hump, it has to come back to the traffic commission cuz we need to notify the neighbors and make sure that everybody

199
00:57:57.680 --> 00:58:13.400
is on board of its placement when it goes down for good. So, I want to make that clear. We want to make sure that everybody knows about the placement of the speed hump going forward. >> That's fair enough. We can do that. >> And so, just to clarify, too, from

200
00:58:13.400 --> 00:58:29.400
the original study that we did, um actually think So, I'm looking at it right now, and I think that the 85th percentile was 27 mph. So, it was above the speed limit. I think what the the confusion is the the

201
00:58:29.400 --> 00:58:44.960
the choice was made to implement first the electronic speed signs to see if that would curb speeding, and then revisit if it didn't. And so, the only, I guess, um amendment I would have to Ms.

202
00:58:44.960 --> 00:58:59.600
Tomorrow's suggestion is if Normally, how we would handle these things is we we look at the speeds, we come together back as a group, and we talk about it, we implement a solution shortly thereafter. I'd say, if we get the report back and it still continues

203
00:58:59.600 --> 00:59:15.640
to show that the 85th percentile is, you know, above the speed limit, we should just get them out immediately. >> Yeah, we'll do that. >> And I suspect that it will show that given what we've seen before. >> That's fine. >> And then, I also want to just acknowledge that there was some issues

204
00:59:15.640 --> 00:59:32.880
with some stop signs not being properly seen because of trees, and I believe your staff has taken care of that already. They've cut back those >> Good to hear. >> any type of vegetation that's hanging over that. Okay? >> All right. I don't believe this needs to go to a public hearing. I think we have

205
00:59:32.880 --> 00:59:52.120
this one squared away in house. Would you guys agree? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> I think so. >> They're both set. >> So, um motion to adjourn. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Meeting adjourned.