Watertown Special City Council (Monday August 10, 2026)

The meeting of the City Council sitting as the Redevelopment Authority was called to order by Council President Mark S. Sideris. Councilor Vincent J. Piccirilli called the roll.

• Councilors Present: John G. Gannon, Emily Izzo, Nicole Gardner, Caroline Bays, Lisa J. Feltner, Anthony Palomba, Vincent J. Piccirilli, and Mark S. Sideris.

Council President Mark S. Sideris established the scope of the meeting, emphasizing that the discussion was limited to the central question: "Do we want a parking garage?"

• The President noted that specific details regarding floors, housing, open space, or streetscape would be addressed in future meetings.
• He clarified that no decisions or votes would be taken during this session, other than a motion to adjourn.

City Manager George Proakis provided a presentation on the "demonstration plan" for Watertown Square, focusing on the strategic need for a parking garage.

• Land Use Efficiency: Proakis argued that structured parking is essential to "unlock more developable space" for housing, ground-floor retail, and green space.
• Capacity: The current surface lots (from the library to CVS) comprise approximately 4 acres and 350 spaces. A new garage could provide between 250 and 600 spaces depending on height.
• Economic Development: Proakis cited case studies including Arsenal Yards (Watertown), Lowell, Salem, and Portsmouth, NH, to demonstrate how structured parking supports walkable, vibrant downtowns.
• Key Quote: "If you create a walkable place, people are going to want to drive there... by structuring parking and opening up opportunities to economic development, it's a very real, very local difference."

The Council heard testimony from numerous residents and stakeholders. The following is a summary of key remarks:

• Russ Rosarico: Strongly opposed the garage, citing encroachment on residential neighborhoods. He stated, "We have proven to the city council that the neighborhood rejects this garage... Do not force us to use a garage that we do not want."
• Marius Collier (59 Windsor Avenue): Supported the garage as a means to reduce on-street parking and facilitate future pedestrianization.
• Ilana Mainelli (97 Duff Street): Supported the garage, noting that aging residents and those with medical issues rely on accessible parking near the square.
• David Morrison (33 Green Street): Representing First Parish of Watertown, he expressed concern over the loss of local businesses like Tresca’s and called the garage "unproven, unnecessary, and a non-starter."
• Antoine Boe (Grey’s Laundromat): Expressed concern for the survival of his business, which is slated for demolition under the current plan. He requested a "generous" relocation and compensation plan.
• Max Wolf (Charles River Regional Chamber): Supported the garage to attract new businesses and turn the square into an economic hub.
• Doug Orifice (Watertown Business Coalition): Supported the general Area Plan and the need for a central parking strategy but emphasized the need for a "comprehensive temporary parking plan" during construction.
• Joan Gumbleton (Thelmouth Road): Opposed the garage due to safety concerns for seniors, potential traffic increases on Spring and Church Streets, and the high cost of retail rents in new structures.
• Marcy Merninghan (134 Fayette Street): Supported the garage with conditions, suggesting the "demonstration project" is a unique opportunity to reestablish public trust while unlocking green potential.

Councilors shared initial thoughts following public testimony:

• Councilor Vincent J. Piccirilli: Acknowledged the tension between the desire for green space and the parking needs of small businesses. He stated, "If we want to add green space and take away parking spaces, we need to replicate those parking spaces somewhere else. And a garage like it or not is pretty much the only solution that we have."
• Council President Mark S. Sideris: Acknowledged the lack of data currently available and committed to holding additional meetings to gather information and continue the conversation with stakeholders.

A motion to adjourn was made and seconded.

• Vote Outcome: The motion passed unanimously via voice vote.