Behind you.

Oh.

That's almost loved microphone at 6 30 also.

All right.

So I'm going to declare it that it's 6 30.

And call the meeting to order.

Tonight we have a lot of reports to hear, and we have uh some amendments to the newport zoning ordinance to consider.

Uh let's start.

Jared, if you would do the roll call.

Uh Marvin Polski.

Here.

Richard Connelly.

Here.

Here.

Teresa Stows.

Here.

Turn your mic on.

Thank you.

Oh.

It's not on.

My bad.

Paul Green.

Here.

Patricia Antonelli.

Here.

Frederick Huntsbury.

Here.

No, Kevin Mechan.

And John Christian is not here today.

Okay.

Thanks.

We have a quorum, I believe.

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh next order of business is to approve the minutes of December 1st.

Paul, I think you had uh correction to the minute.

Yeah, I would just like to make an amendment to add my name to the attendees.

Uh any other additions to the minutes?

Any other corrections that are needed?

Okay.

Um may I have a motion to approve the minutes of December 1, 2025.

So moved.

Second.

All right.

Any discussion?

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Okay.

The ayes have it unanimously.

Uh staff, we have some communications regarding planning board training requirements.

Wanna cover those now?

Is this on?

Yes.

Okay, great.

This is gonna be really brief.

Uh just because it's the new year, we wanted to give you a little um brief refresher that is kind of from inspired by the other slides that we give to new planning board members uh created by Hayden.

So if you go to the next slide.

Uh so these are things that most of us know, just as a refresher, the planning board has nine full members.

A quorum consists of five board members.

Uh board members are required to attend a minimum of 75% of the annual meetings.

And um board members can also volunteer on topic-specific subcommittees or as liaisons to other boards and commissions.

So if we go to the next slide, this is what we have currently for her liaisons.

Is does this look right to everybody?

Is there anything missing?

Only my name is always wrong.

It's Guzman Stokes.

Okay.

Thank you.

We will make that correction.

No problem.

Um, and then I just wanted to confirm is there any board member that is currently the liaison for the BPAC, the bike and ped.

I don't think we have anyone currently serving as liaison.

Is anyone interested in doing that?

I'm not a bike.

Uh so recently staff have been attending the BPAC meetings a lot, as you will hear later on for the development of the green incomplete streets process.

Um, and for further coordination on ongoing transportation projects.

So staff can serve as liaison when we do attend the meetings.

And if we go to the next slide.

So this is the fun, frequently asked question.

Uh, these are our continuing education requirements.

So the first two you'll see up there, the three-hour and the one hour are set by the statewide planning office.

So they're only offered certain times.

Those dates are released to us.

We get provide you those dates as soon as we get them.

Uh, I know that's tricky, and it would be nice if we just had an annual calendar so everyone could plan their year, but this these what we have.

So for the three-hour introductory course, I know that we have some members that weren't able to take it last year.

It wasn't offered after people were appointed.

So as soon as that is available for those members and our newest member.

Um we will make sure to shoot you an email.

Uh, we just don't have those dates yet from the state.

And so right now we have the two February uh one-hour workshops.

Those are required for every year.

They're just general refreshers since you have such important roles.

Those are the two February ones offered by the state.

There will be more.

We just don't know when those are yet.

Any other questions for those?

Okay.

And um, just for those one-hour trainings in the three-hour when they are offered, those are for the whole entire state.

So it is as soon as you see it, if you're available and you need to fulfill it, we recommend just hopping on it.

Uh, and easily the two-hour URI Nemo course for every two years is self-paced.

So that is a huge help.

Um, if we go to the next slide.

So we are in the process of making sure all of our records are up to date.

The Rhode Island General Law requests that you send your training certificate to the clerk.

Planning staff are prepared to do that to bring all the certificates to the clerk.

If you are comfortable sending it to us first, that helps us keep our records up to date so we can make sure the state is up to date and there's no hiccups.

So, whatever form that certificate takes, if there's a signature line, then we do need it to be signed.

If there's not, we just need the certificate of completion.

Any questions?

Can you send us this?

Yes.

Thank you.

No problem.

And I think there's just one more slide.

Uh so you guys are really great about this and we appreciate it.

Just recusing.

Uh-oh.

Sorry.

Speed it up.

Um recusing.

If there's a conflict of interest, we do have a form.

You can just let us know ahead of time.

We'll provide you with that form, and you will just leave the dais when that item is heard.

And with that, thank you for all that you do.

We'll get on to the more interesting stuff.

Any questions?

No.

This is uh this presentation is also on our meeting site, and you can download it from there as well.

So thanks, guys.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, we're going to our the next item on our agenda was to the green and complete streets annual report and uh overview, but we're gonna defer that until after we consider uh the uh amendments to the the review of amendments to uh newport zoning ordinance chapters unless anyone has an objection to that.

Okay, um, so pursuant to city council resolution number 2025 88 dated 14 May 2025, the city staff has proposed amendments pertaining to guest houses to the Newport zoning ordinance chapters, and those chapters are 17.04 general provisions, 17.08 definitions, 17.14 permitted uses, 17.56 waterfront business district, 17.6 general business district, and 17.104 parking and loading standards.

The ultimate authority to amend municipal zoning ordinances resides with the city council.

Uh however, Rhode Island General Law outlines a role for planning board review, and our role is advisory to the council.

So what we're gonna do tonight is just review these proposed amendments.

Uh we're obliged to seek the advice of the planning department.

We have their staff report in conducting a review and making a recommendation.

Uh the planning staff has provided us with a number of uh background uh materials.

Uh the city council resolution number 2025-88, I just mentioned, a memorandum from the zoning officer to the city council, their own staff report, and a draft recommendation to the city council.

We have all those materials and had them in advance to review for this meeting.

Uh staff, it looks like Becky is going to be uh presenting the zoning changes at a high level for us, and and then we'll evaluate the proposed amendments.

Okay.

Great.

So what I'm going to do is just walk us through the table in section two of the staff report.

And I will give us a high-level overview of what that entails, and then I'm going to let you all discuss.

So the I hate to interrupt, but I just want to start uh with sort of definitions changes or definition information.

Okay.

Because the city has a different language when we talk about rentals.

So what we normally think of as a short-term short-term rental when we talk about an Airbnb.

Those are considered in our zoning ordinance, a guest house use.

So when you hear guest house, that's synonymous with short-term rental Airbnb.

The other thing we have is transient guest facilities, and you may hear that term.

That means hotel.

It's smaller and they have kitchens.

And we have a historic guest house, which must be a historic building in a historic district.

So those are the different types of things that we have in the overall umbrella called guest facilities.

Yeah.

So it's thanks for clarifying that, Trish.

Okay.

Any questions about any of those definitions?

Okay.

That's perfect.

Thank you, Trish.

So the first code section that an amendment is proposed for is 17.04.050 off street parking and loading.

Currently, uh there when a use on a property is converted to a new use.

If the new use has an equal or lesser parking requirement, no additional parking shall be required.

So this can be referred to as the parking credit.

Additionally, in this section, if the new use has a higher parking requirement, the net increase in parking must be provided on the property, or the applicant must obtain a variance, a parking variance.

The amendment is that the parking credit, so when the use on the property is converted to a new use, that parking credit will no longer apply to guest house conversions.

So the result of that amendment is requiring all new guest houses to fully comply with parking standards regardless of the property's previous use.

Any questions on that one?

Yeah, I've read this a couple of times today.

And I don't what's the how does the parking credit work or did it work if it was changed?

So if you sorry.

So if uh you have a use that's been established and you already have less than required parking there.

So hypothetically, you have uh a use for retail use and you're supposed to have five spots there, but you only have two.

If somebody comes in and they want to do a use that's the same as yours, you get to keep those two.

Or if you do something that requires more than two parking spots, then you have to provide the difference.

But if they're equal, that's considered to be your credit for the difference is what you have to provide.

Only three more, even if you don't have what you need for the other one.

So in other words, if some previous decision allowed them to get away with two, and by you get the benefit of that in perpetuity.

No longer.

So it resets when you re use.

Okay, that's that's not what I understand from this, but that's what you're trying to do.

I understand now.

It isn't uh an easy concept.

Any other questions?

There will be eventually, of course.

Okay, I'm gonna move on to the next code section, which is 17.08.010 definitions, guest house.

So the current definition of a guest house is a building in which one or more dwelling units or rooms for sleeping are rented for lodging accommodations for periods of 29 consecutive days or less, with or without the furnishing of meals and with the owner or a manager, excuse me, who is in charge and manages such rentals residing on the guest house property.

That is the current definition.

The proposed amendments are an addition.

Add an on-site manager must reside on the subject property within a long-term dwelling unit.

Additionally, add that no guest house unit or manager dwelling shall be created through the conversion of an existing ground floor commercial space.

So if you're in a commercial district and there's a little store, the little someone buys it, they want that to be um part of their guest house facility, that can no longer happen.

Well, that's proposed with this.

Also, the addition of all on-site parking requirements for the guest house use must be provided on the property, regardless of the previous uses.

And so the result of those proposed amendments are an addition of a permanent on-site manager and an additional long-term dwelling unit on that site as well.

Additionally, uh the preservation of street-facing commercial units within the city's business district.

Um, and applicants can no longer seek a dimensional variance to supersede the parking requirement, as it will no longer be a dimensional regulation.

Any questions on that?

Okay.

It's okay if you have them later.

Uh next code 17.104 parking and loading standards related to guest house parking.

The current requirement is one space for each guest bedroom, one space for the manager.

The proposed amendment is an addition that says one space for each guest bedroom, one space for the manager, unless the manager parking spot has been accounted for due to the on-site manager drilling unit parking.

And the anticipated result of this proposed amendment is it provides clarity on the application for the number and type of parking spaces in order for an application to receive approval.

Okay.

Next, we have 17.56 in 17.60, general business and waterfront districts.

So our current conditions are guest houses are allowed by right in GB, general business, and water business.

Vacation guest facilities are a use allowed by right in the general business district, and historic guest houses are prohibited.

Use are a prohibited use in the general business district and a use allowed by right in the waterfront business district.

So our proposed amendments are that we have in front of us today.

Guest houses change to a use allowed through special use permit in the general business and waterfront business district.

For vacation guest facilities, change to a use allowed only through special use permit in the general business district.

So it was allowed by right.

It's being proposed to allow through special use permit.

So the anticipated results of these proposed amendments that all new and converted guest houses would be required to have an on-site property manager, as we clarified earlier, with a long-term residential dwelling unit.

And all those parking requirements would be evaluated through the special use permit, which is a different process than uses allowed by right.

Vacation guest facilities proposed in the general business district will have additional standards to meet through the special use permit process.

And the no portion of the waterfront business district is located within the local historic district.

So being in the historic district is a prerequisite to be being considered a historic guest house.

So that's a clarification error that is geared towards making it easier to process applications or know what you're applying for.

Any questions?

So is it fair to say that what we're doing here is aligning guest houses and vacation guest facilities with the standard that we apply to a hotel?

That is a good question.

They will be um in the same category.

I think it's uh special use permit category three, and those standards will now apply with those.

So we're we're we're just sort of you know the guest houses and uh timeshares and all their newer concept than hotels relatively to whenever these were updated before.

It just sounds like we're aligning if you if you rent out to short-term people for less than 30 days, you're treated the same way as a hotel.

I think that's fair to say.

Okay.

Um how do guest houses on the water fit into this puzzle?

That is a good question.

Let's on a boat or just in waterfront business.

Uh on a boat.

Oh, okay.

We don't consider those.

Who considers those?

Should which leads to my next question?

Should we consider putting something in there about that?

I think we can bring that up, but that's a much bigger change than we're looking at here for what we already have existing and how to address those.

Um I know that uh there's a lot of sort of not clarity about these um houses that are on the water.

We don't necessarily have the same rules for them as we do as houses on land.

But a guest house on the land and a guest house on the water, basically are the same thing, aren't they?

Well, kind of, but one is fixed, and one is in a docking situation, right?

It's not it doesn't have to be there year-round, it just might be right and the permitting process for those, right?

They don't go through our traditional building permit process and through zoning review and those sort of issues.

It could be also offer that the whole driving factor here is the council wants less buildings turned into short-term rentals.

But we we do have this issue that you want it just to simplify it a little further that we do have boats out on the harbor that are guest houses that there's nothing prohibiting them from continuing or expanding um their use as a guest house.

Um and I'm thinking since we're gonna go through this exercise anyway, it's not very difficult to put a line in here that says, you know, guest houses on the water require a special permit.

Well, I think one of the reasons that's cited in the resolution originally 20 2025 88 was it's meant to address the conversion of existing dwellings into guest house uses as it causes loss of housing units.

And so I think that uh they weren't thinking of vacation of I don't know, there are people out there living year-round, but I don't think it's appropriate to we're right now making a recommendation on this.

We could say something that they should consider what's happening um with those, but it's not part of what this actual resolution was addressing.

I think that was about I actually have a question about who would have jurisdiction who has jurisdiction over permitting and usage of boats on the harbor.

Boats on the harbor in general or boats on the harbor used as short-term guest facilities.

Used a short term, well, she used a short-term guest facility.

I wasn't um I guess it would depend on the permitted use.

We actually don't know that.

We deal with the land side, yeah.

So uh it's a good question, and we can ask those questions, but um it it it it's a bit of a debate right now at the waterfront commission, you know, because they're trying to to manage houseboats.

Um and um I've and I think that um you know operating a business on the water falls under the purview of the harbormaster.

So if you whatever business you want to operate, whether it's uh you know a jet ski or uh uh or charter boat, it would fall under him.

And so um, yeah, the questi the question is then do we you know I I hear what you're saying, we want to get this done.

Um and you know, we don't want to overcomplicate it, but you know, is this an opportunity to you know ask the question and say, okay, can we address this now?

Because it is it is a guest house.

You know, uh, you know, you take uh certain boats out there, they look and smell like a house.

Um it's very easy and it's going on where they're they're being used as guest facilities.

Now, you know, I understand we're we're trying to curb the the use of homes as um as um a commercial you know conversions away from that, but it are we are we trying to you know it we also don't want the harbor to become a facility where there are a bunch of guest houses and it's not people with their individual boats using them on a on a recreational basis, and it's already a lot of competition for the moorings out there.

May I suggest there's a finding um we could make uh in the housing chapter, the housing chapter talks about not supporting um houseboats because uh we should be preserving the harbor for uh recreational uses, not turning it into more of a neighborhood.

So we could add that um that element from the comp plan to the to the list and then suggest that the council think about how we should address um any kind of proliferation.

The defin the definition of a houseboat is a lot more complicated than you know, definition of a vacation rental versus a guest house.

Um, because you know what defines a houseboat, uh what you might visualize as one and my I might they're very different, it's more subjective instead of objective.

The um uh I I think you know I think we need I don't even think we have to go that far with houseboats.

I think we just have to say we use the use of uh of guest uh of a guest house on the water is is subject to a special permit.

Um offer could I have we don't have any zoning on the water, right?

So we don't have any ability to uh have a special use permit on houseboat.

There's no setbacks, there's no zoning per se, except for the only thing that's similar to that is CRMC regulations.

Um, but we as a city don't have any kind of special use permitting process on the water.

Can I offer before we weigh in changing this particular that we refer this to the waterfront commission?

Because oh yeah, I've I've already talked to them.

Well, but uh well they need to make a recommendation about what they get before we start mucking around to it.

Yeah, I think I heard several good ideas here.

One um to go to the waterfront commission with this, and also as part of the comprehensive plan update, take a look at the issue and really try to, as part of um an analysis of what kind of housing there is in Newport.

Take a look at actually how much housing do we have on the water right now?

And how do we regulate that?

Who regulates it?

That might be a good issue to really go into the comp plan.

And it has it has all kinds of implications for the climate chapter and and so on.

Okay, thank you.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, no, I I I hear you.

I I hear you.

I just would like to at least get the discussion points out there.

Yeah, no, it's a good point.

But I don't want to, I don't want to hold this up.

Yeah, it's an interesting problem.

Yeah.

So in that case, um, the discussion will be reflected in the minutes.

Uh I just want to clarify if there's anything being added to the materials that are being recommended to council.

They can do that when they make the motion.

Understood.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, any other questions on any of those that we've gone through thus far?

And this table is on page three of the staff report.

Yep.

So it starts on page two.

We're currently on page three.

Okay.

Uh and we're moving on to actually page four.

Oh, that might be it.

Yes.

I believe that was it for the table.

So that concludes my time standing here.

But I'm here for I'm up here for questions before you go into your discussion.

We're also over there for questions.

We're not going anywhere.

So before you leave, Becky, um, just for the members, we're gonna do two things.

We're gonna uh it the way we're gonna evaluate the amendments.

First, we're gonna consider the purposes of zoning, which are outlined on pages four to five of the staff report, and then we're gonna consider the relevant goals, policies, and actions under the comp plan.

Those are the two ways we're going to assess these proposed amendments.

Um, so with that in mind, anything further you want to hear from the staff, any clarifications of what's in the staff report.

Um, and I guess we'll proceed with our evaluation.

And I'm gonna refer you to uh pages four to five of the staff report and the standards of review, and this is the purposes of zoning.

Um we can discuss any of these.

We can ask questions of the staff or the solicitor.

Uh the general purposes of the uh of zoning are outlined in the various ordinances and Rhode Island law.

Uh, they're referenced in the staff report.

The basic elements here are promoting the health safety and general welfare, providing for a range of uses and intensities of use appropriate to the character of the city and reflecting current and expected future needs, providing for orderly growth and development, providing for the control protection and abatement of air, water, groundwater, noise pollution, soil erosion and sedimentation, providing for the protection of the natural historic, cultural and scenic character of the city or areas they're in, promoting a balance of housing choices, promoting implementation of the comp plan, promoting a high level of quality and design and the development of private and public facilities, providing for efficient review of development proposals, um, and expediting the voting the zoning approval process and providing for procedures for the administration of the zoning code.

So those are the basic elements of the purposes of zoning.

Um questions about any of this, any discussions, any points that people want to make or are or take issue with any of the elements of the staff report.

The only point I would make on the the last two, the providing for efficient review and providing for procedures for administration.

The idea that this is really just standardizing all these guest facilities, these guest houses, facilities and so forth, uh probably makes everyone's life a lot easier, both the applicant and ours and the administration.

I think that's a really good point.

Paul, yeah.

Okay.

The basic point here is to implement uh the uh resolution of the council uh and to make to allow for more affordable housing in the city is that's the big picture here.

Okay, let's move on.

Um to the comp plan and the consistency of these amendments with respect to the implementing the comp plan.

The staff is provided on page six and seven, a list of uh goals and uh that this addresses in the comp plan.

Any issues with respect to any of those goals listed in the uh staff report.

Anything anybody would like to add?

Are there any other comp plan goals that are perhaps addressed here?

Well, the requirement of now having to go and get a special use permit and go through that application process, definitely puts more oversight with the city.

And you know, if you're in the applicant shoes being out there, now you have some definite, you know, it's not like, well, we might be able to go for a variance, et cetera.

So it fulfills that that goal, the land use goal of you know, making it so that the ordinance is a uniform, et cetera, and easy for people to understand.

Anything else?

Uh there's goal T5 as well, uh provide sufficient and suitably located parking designed to eliminate, mitigate, or reduce impacts uh by having a person living on site.

You're not having traffic coming in and out.

You're also going to have it's going to create less um congestion wherever these facilities do end up being.

Okay.

Well, with no further, unless there's further discussion, um, I will entertain a motion to uh find the proposed amendments are consistent with the comp plan and the purposes of zoning, and therefore uh forwarding to the city council a recommendation as drafted by staff, a positive recommendation as drafted by staff.

May I have a motion?

So moved.

Second.

Any discussion?

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

There we have it.

Madam Chair, we did suggest, and I don't hear if this was said that uh just a slight change in the language.

I know the motion's already been made, but uh in the language it calls it a long-term rental, which we think could be just more than 29 days, if short term is 29 and less.

Ah, yes.

So we are suggesting the language be changed to inconsistency with the planning board's past practices to a 12-month lease for the the manager unit.

So we are suggesting that change in language.

That seems like a suitable clarification.

Any questions about that?

May I have a second motion to uh adopt that recommendation?

So moved.

Second.

Okay, any discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Ayes have it, unanimously.

Okay.

Thank you, staff for for the work you've done on this and for putting this all together in such an orderly way for us.

It was easy to follow and very complicated matter.

Easy to follow.

And thanks, members, for being so careful with it.

All right.

I think now we're on to presentation and discussion of reports.

The administrative actions are listed in the agenda.

There are five items.

These are provided to us for information only.

Any questions about any of these items?

You may recognize 1731 75 Cog Shell as an application that we had heard for development plan review and a subdivision, which the planning board approved.

The applicant is reserving his right to do a different project.

And so they've come in and asking then asking demolition approval for the carriage house building.

Right.

And it was approved.

It was approved.

It was the TRC only has review privileges.

They don't they don't approve or deny it.

A bill a demolition permit is allowed by right.

So the TRC puts conditions on it, things like uh surveys of the building, providing archaeology, those kinds of things, but they can't in the same manner the planning board couldn't outright deny it.

They don't outright deny demolitions.

They make a recommendation to the building official about things that should be incorporated to mitigate any adverse impacts.

I'd like to just reiterate my suggestion that we strongly need demolition policies, particularly for buildings that are not in the historic district, but are, however, historic.

This was an important building in my mind.

And now it's going to be destroyed.

Photographing it isn't enough.

We should have had something in place that allows them to deny such demolitions.

We are in 100% agreement with that.

We see this as an issue that needs to be dealt with for a couple of different reasons for the loss of historic resources and the loss of housing units.

Does do you as staff have the right to say to send it to the board for discussion?

Or do you have to either approve or deny?

The TRC can is a branch of the planning board.

Right.

And so uh we would have the ability to refer it, but there's nothing the planning board, it's not in the purview of the planning board any longer to review these things.

So it would be the same issue that the TRC has that in the same way when we were reviewing them at the planning board level, it was very difficult to protect buildings that are outside of historic protection.

Perhaps it makes it a little bit more public.

And I I know your sympathetic, and and Dick is speaking to the same thing.

What is required to put more teeth into this?

What is required to have a policy in this area?

We're reviewing a couple of different mechanisms.

The best and the most tried and true method is having historic district zoning and overlay on these buildings.

Yeah.

That's the real true way that we can have review by the historic district commission, and they actually have the authority to deny um demolition.

Does the um historic district overlay have to be contiguous, or can you have a spot?

You can have spots, and we already do have some spots of historic overlays uh with uh buildings that are eligible for the national register.

We also have a lot of buildings that in most communities would have historic district zoning, but we don't have any protection here.

It was a decision made during the years when we were instituting this that um there was a limit to how much the community would be able to um support.

You say that there's some overlays already in existence for homes that are eligible for the national uh register.

This building is eligible.

So what was the holdup?

Why didn't they do it?

So uh for those kinds of buildings, it really has to be initiated by the property owner.

They need to request a zone change to have an overlay on their building to help preserve it.

So going and doing a sort of a whole wholesale um, you know, rezonings of all of those different things.

We are looking at all of these possible tools that we can.

We're looking at cultural overlays, anything that we might be able to do uh so that we get a better level of review of of buildings before they're demolished demolished.

And it's not just historic buildings that's happening quite a bit.

Um it's also vernacular housing that we're seeing consistently demolished and rebuilt in much bigger, larger uh modern living structures.

I very much appreciate the enormous amount of time and effort that the staff put into attempting to preserve this structure and to preserve and increase housing on this property.

Um I hope that there's still an opportunity to work something out.

And we we think that there might be, we haven't given up hope on this yet.

It's a really important um issue for us also.

Yeah.

Thanks a lot, Trish.

Anything more.

Any questions any further questions or discussion about these administrative actions?

Well, there being no further discussion on this in this area.

Let's move to the green and green report green and complete streets.

Hi, so this is going to be an overview of Newport's first uh green complete streets policy annual report.

So, as some of you may be familiar, the green complete streets policy has been in place since 2022.

Um the vision of the green complete streets policy is to ensure that every transportation project serves all road users, modes of transportation, abutting properties, and also to enhance the natural environment.

The goal of the policy is to create through a public process a connected network of high quality rights of way and open spaces, providing public access to the water, accommodating all modes of travel and all transportation users, including those with mobility challenges.

So this policy is, as I said, been in place for three years.

Um the um it gave staff in the city um a free year timeline to incorporate the policy um into all aspects of um governance.

Um there were two key processes called for in the policy that had not yet been established until um the end of last year.

Um the policy called for uh a public process for major roadway design decisions that incorporated input from the Vice Found Pedestrian Advisory Committee, trained open space committee, and um energy and environment commission, um, and a formal process for evaluating and granting an exception to the green and complete streets design standards for those instances in which um uh implementing the full design guides of the policy may not be possible.

Um in 2025, both processes were developed, and the exception process was trialed using the roads that were candid for the city's 2026 regular roadway improvement program.

So here's the um public input requirement from the policy that measured design decisions regarding all uh roadways at a minimum have a public meeting subject to the open meetings act um and receive uh we have uh input from those three named commissions.

And then the exceptions process requirement.

So there's three cases in which the um policy allows for exceptions from the design standards.

Um it's not necessary on streets where specific users are prohibited, such as highways or pedestrian bicycle pathways that don't allow cars where specific users are prohibited, um, where there's clear limited right-of-way um or topographic conditions that physically prevent applying the green complete street standards, and then the last one um is a little bit more difficult to prove that the cost of establishing green complete streets facilities would be excessively disproportionate to the need.

Um this decision to grant an exception shall be supported by uh data and evidence showing the need for an exception and it says that a formal process need to be created to ensure adherence to the policy.

The proposed exception process is that when a road is proposed to be improved, constructed or extended, the city, or in the very rare case that a private developer proposes a street improvement, which maybe every couple of years will complete a street evaluation form and/or exception application if an exception's requested.

This form inventories, the existing conditions, features, and safety concerns of that roadway, assesses the vision for that roadway across all relevant city plans, documenting the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, drivers, stormwater management, and tree camping in that area.

And to help this process, it attaches about a dozen maps from various city plans to uh quickly identifies city goals for that roadway.

So it takes from the network implementation and uh plan out from the transportation master plan, the pedestrian network plan, um the bicycle network of both the master plan and take some data about bicycle level of traffic stress from the Ride Island Plan.

Um the transit network, um, the the transportation master plan also identifies roadways that experience are flood prone using FEMA data.

Um the 2025 safety action plan has some excellent data.

Um, this is one is a um heat map of crash hot spots in Newport.

Um and it also has two ones showing the high injury network um of for all users and roadways where specifically there was high injuries of um vulnerable road users of bicycle and pedestrians.

Um this is uh data for the green aspect of green police streets.

We had a technical assistance grant last year to have an analysis of our tree canopy.

Um the map on the left shows our existing tree canopy compared with all pervious existing area in the um red, orange, and yellow, where uh that's existing purbus area that can support a tree that's um 20 feet uh diameter can be or higher that can provide shade.

Um, and then one that um we would hope to on the right is some goals to increase tree canopy in the in uh by neighborhood that the technical assistance uh grant recommended um that we would actually be hoping to incorporate in the upcoming comprehensive um plan update.

So if an exception from the green complete streets policy is requested, a rubric using the information is used to score the roads to create an objective um measure.

A higher score indicates a greater need for green complete streets design improvements, um roads identifying the transformation master plan, major roads, roads with high volumes of accents or obstruction or other major issues are prioritized and are scored.

It's a higher score that is less likely to grant an exception, and a lower score would demonstrate as the policy calls for that the cost of establishing green complete streets may be a disproportionate to need and exceptions warranted.

Um, in the case of the city's regular roadway improvement program, the scoring system can be used to prioritize projects and make financial decisions about where funds and efforts should be um prioritized.

Um examples of criteria are on the right.

This is the scoring movement that would be used.

Um where it go it goes to a maximum of 35 points and 35 when the higher it is, the more likely it's a need of design improvements.

So summarize.

Um when a road is proposed to be improved, city staff will uh fill out the evaluation form and give a preliminary score and recommendation on whether or not that road needs an exception or if they should adhere to the green complete streets policy.

If an exception is requested to incorporate some public input early on, staff will seek an advisory opinion from the bicycle and pedestrian advisory commission as their mission central to all roadway projects.

They'll vote if they agree with the exception being warranted.

Um, in the case that this is a roadway incorporated in a major subdivision of private development, that opinion would then actually present it to you instead of the city, um, so that you can consider it as part of your subdivision application review.

Um but in the case of the more frequent example of the city's large annual roadway improvement program that's uh the candidate list is reviewed every year.

Uh the bicycle pedestrian advisory committee can use the evaluation scores to rank post projects by what's important to them and give an opinion to staff on what streets need nature improvements.

Uh the city uh administration can then use this recommendation to construct improvements in alignment with those priority rankings.

Um, and if the roadway projects not granted an exception and requires um advanced redesign, a major design change in the public input process called for what needs to be followed.

And once preliminary design drawings are available for those roads where major design movements uh are recommended, then um or design zorangs will be shown to the those three commissions for public input.

Um I just settled before I'm gonna pause and see if there was any questions.

Um what about streets that are controlled by the state?

Yes, how does that integrate with this?

So that's great.

So this um process mostly controls um city owned right of ways, and then any alteration to private right-of-ways that might um be part of a development application.

Um, the state usually collaborates with the city in altering um state roadways, and we would hope to still use the green and complete streets policy and that process to the extent possible to still be able to get that input from our commission members when there's changes to state roads.

We do have less control in that situation, but we would do our best to still implement the green and complete streets policy.

So, yeah, America's Cup obviously is such an important throwaway, right?

Almost, and uh, you know, when you think about what we want to get done with with respect to bicycle paths and all that, it becomes challenging then, I suppose, to to uh request that and also get get the state directly to become involved and actually help us execute on that, right?

Or not there's a process for any work that's proposed to be done on state roads, it's called the STIP, which stands for state transportation improvement program or plan.

Um, and they open up to communities uh solicitations for the kinds of roads that they want that are state roads in their community, um, what kinds of things that they want to have done there.

Uh, there's usually um for most of my career there have been regular solicitations for the communities to weigh in on the STIP, but for some reason there's been quite a long hiatus.

But just last year they reopened the STIP, and we do have America's Cup on the list, which is a really big coup for the city.

Before that gets done, they'll they'll work with us, they'll see what we want to have done there.

Uh, we'll be able to look at different options in the same way we did with the the ramp realignment project.

There were several options that the community looked at, voted on, and and the DOT supports that.

This process was developed because they understand that while they are state roads, we are the ones that live with them, and so we have the best sort of local knowledge of what needs to be done.

Thank you.

Just note that I find it interesting that most of the accidents happen at the hospital.

Yeah.

Yeah, I highly recommend reading the safety action plan.

It has some very valuable data in it that can help them form when we update the transportation chapter in the complexure.

We did just get a very significant grant, uh, safe streets for all that was based on the fact that we had an approved safety action plan.

So it's an island-wide grant.

Um 19 million, I think.

Yep, and four million, and that's specifically for Newport.

And that will be for a sidewalk and how much for Newport?

Four four million.

Nice.

That'll help.

So moving on.

So public input process, once we know that there is a major design change that needs to happen to a road and it does not qualify for an exception, this is fairly straightforward.

Um, but the bicycle and pedestrian advisory commission will be asked for input on roadway design projects impacting pedestrian bicyclists, which is all road projects.

Uh, the train open space commission will be asked for input on all projects involving planting, removing or disturbing the area within the drip line of existing trees or possibly adjacent to um public open space.

Um, and the NG Environment Commission will be asked for input on roadway projects in areas that experience inundation, stormwater management issues.

Um, we'd ask for this input by requesting when we know either an individual road or the whole um city roadway improvement candidate list um needs to be reviewed.

Um we'd fill out that evaluation form for them to make an informed decision request that it be placed on one of their meeting agendas so that we have that uh which are subject to the open meetings app so that we have that public process.

Oh, so this is uh defining what we consider major design changes that require that public input process versus simple projects.

Essentially, um anything that changes the pat um travel patterns for any road users would qualify as major sign traces, a new road construction or extension, altering the number of direction of car travel lanes, installing new sidewalks, a new bike plane or multi-use pathway, or constructing multiple sidewalk bump outs kind of like the Broadway streetscape project would require that major design um public input process, and then simple projects like uh repaving a roadway, um replacing existing uh sidewalk with um uh compliant ADA compliant one or adding pavement markings like one crosswalk or sharerows.

That would that's regular maintenance that we would not consider needing to go through this whole process.

Okay.

So in the fall, we piloted this exception process with the candidates for the city's 2026 roadway improvement and program planning stuff.

Use the new evaluation form to assess 70 roads that public services identified as possibly being that is being in need of repaving or reconstruction and possible being on the 2026 um improvement schedule.

Um we presented the road evaluations and the and also provide project recommendations for certain roads at the November BPAC meeting.

Um, BPAC meeting voted or looked at that list um and voted on which roads warranted an exception um from the policy, and additionally provided priority rankings from nine roads that we thought needed um advanced redesign um which ones were top priorities for them.

So this is the long uh list of 70 roads that were possibly improvements for repaving this year of this.

This list um remains fairly similar year to year.

Um, about 10 to 20 of these roads are actually improved every year after comparing the needs of the uh infrastructure, the road to the infrastructure underneath the road um construction schedules need to align between utility entities and public services.

Um, and they were identified as being candidates for improvements based on a 2023 study showing the conditions of the roads, all of these roads were either poor or very poor condition, and it's the per repaving is the perfect time to make uh green complete streets improvements.

Um so each roadway that was presented to BPAC was given a priorities for and a project recommendation.

Um either it's that green complete street improvements weren't practical, that they need just simple improvements, or that these were um advanced projects in need of redesign.

These advanced projects that need engineering um and likely and need public input process, um, about one can be completed every couple of years.

So BPAC voted to agree with uh staff's project and exception recommendations for the 70 road candidates.

Um, nine streets were voted to pursue advanced green complete street redesign.

Um staff will now pursue funding opportunities for that work.

Um about 28 streets were voted to pursue simple improvements, such as uh replacing uh an inaccessible uh sidewalk.

Um 33 streets were voted to grant an exception with no design improvements recommended.

Um if you uh you have access to this PowerPoint if you would like to review these were the recommendations for each street that was on that list.

And if you have any questions about one specific street, um I have the full evaluation data available if you have any questions.

Uh so these were the nine streets that were going to be in need of advanced major design that were candidates for improvements.

Uh Narragansit, Oaker Point, Hillside, uh K Lee, Hellam, Man, Washington, Roshant.

Um the next few slides go into depth about the needs of the ones that BPAC voted were high priorities.

And I just wanted to make a note that the ones uh voted low priorities weren't low due to lack of need.

Um, as we can see, each road has an evaluation score with out of 35 with 35 being the most in need, and Washington was street ranked pretty up there, but um, after comparing it to the um utility line under lines underneath um those projects need to be delayed, need due to uh needing to align with our Rhode Island Energy's gas improvement um schedule line improvement schedule.

Um these are the existing conditions of the four intersections called out in the the transportation master plan to improve and some ideas present and to be pack on how to improve that area uh um and bring attention to the crossings without disturbing the bike lanes was to have painted bump out so unlike Broadway that has physical um bump outs to have painted it at once so that it doesn't obstruct bicyclists and could be uses a fun public art project um and other ideas included using light safety system um systems or uh distinctive crosswalk materials and textures um narragansett avenue um these are some preliminary drawings to add a uh bike lanes and a sidewalk to Narragansett um obviously that was very high up on the list um and truth that was part of the um grant coming up right there's fund so there is funding set aside for this project uh for this project actually um we'll he you'll probably hear about that in press conferences coming up um and then because it's in the vicinity of um narraganset and do the high foot traffic from both tourists and students um on oak point um uh this is local point avenue was rated very highly by B Pack is a priority as well as you can see especially the western sidewalk it has curbing but it doesn't have um uh stable material in particular the crosswalks as you can see in the bottom right um it's er roading uh so for uh the green aspects of the green complete streets through the evaluation process um I identified all uh of the road candidates I identified roads that were candidates for improvements that also uh lacked um um significant shade trees and were are identified in the technical assistance grant as having pervious areas um that could sustain tree growth um the city through that technical assistance grant also has funding to provide to homeowners that consent to it it um either discounted or in um the north end free trees and we can use this list to do outreach to these entities to um improve of our tree camp be along our right of ways um and then I also compare the area um the candidates to the um roadways that experience inundation the trans identifying the transportation master plan and these can be provided to utilities to see where the construction schedule between public services and utilities can align to maybe increase um drainage in that area and under related to the green complete street um exceptions process we also have some good news so in June of last year bike newport partnered with the city um to uh renew our status with the League of American bicyclists as a bicycle friendly community uh we received notice of that award I think just last week um that we received uh bronze status and are now one of about a little over 450 communities nationwide recognized as bicycle friendly communities again um the league league um was actually founded in Newport in the 1800s now in national org based out of Washington uh DC but their um bicycle friendly community program is an excellent tool that guides communities into making bicycling a viable transportation recreation option for all people in the coming weeks we'll also receive an excellent tool from them called the BFC report card which recommends uh specific actionable items that Newport can take to improve our policies in infrastructure and eventually move towards solar status for them and that is all I have for you uh any questions it's a great overview thanks Hayden any any questions for him there's a lot of communities that are adopting green and complete streets um and this is a first of its kind evaluation system and it's uh it's generated a lot of interest around in other communities too so really so once again setting the bar for other community planning efforts thanks great more all right let's um if there's no other uh questions about the green and complete streets reporting uh let's move on to liaison reports sunny do you want to talk about tree and open space commission tree and open space due to weather had to postpone their meeting they postponed it to tonight downstairs so lucky you dick waterfront commission um waterfront commission uh they're presently putting together a program uh to present to the city council on improvements to the harbor and the on the waterfront um and prioritizing um changes that they see in this in the long

Tree and Open Space Due to Weather had to postpone their meeting.

They postpone it to tonight down.

So lucky you waterfront commission.

Um waterfront commission.

Uh they're presently putting together a program to present to the city council on the improvements to the harbor and the on the waterfront um and prioritizing um changes that they see in this in the long term.

And so they're working on that and we'll be presenting it probably sometime in March.

Is that Dick, is that an update to their strategic plan?

Well to their to their harbor management plan.

It's basically sort of the next step, you know, to say, okay, these are things we need to start thinking about and addressing.

Yeah.

Uh Dick, I don't know if it falls under that purview, but when the Harbomaster was here last year, you mentioned that the you know the changes to the facility and also Parati Park and the landing for who ship passengers that that would initiate, I think November of this year is coming.

Yeah, they're gonna start this this late this fall.

Okay.

Yeah.

All that parate park, they're gonna take down the Harbor Master House and um so that's still on on track.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

This what they're talking about is more of a on a long term, you know, things that need to happen and what they'd like to see happen.

Thank you.

How is the Harbor Master uh and how is their planning effort integrated into the update to the comp plan?

That's a good question.

Um he'll be insulted at uh insulted we're going to insult them.

He'll be consulted uh by the consultants when they're when they're around.

He's very eager to talk to them, and we will be considering water as a big aspect of our plan in general.

So okay, Jared, the EEC.

I was not able to attend, but I know they did have their leadership leadership elections for 26.

Um, and I'll be at their next meeting on the 18th.

Okay, thanks for that.

Uh comp plan group, Sunny Frederick and Kevin.

Briefly, uh in between the EEC and the comp plan.

Uh staff just wanted to update that we are working directly with the EEC on their 10-year plan.

Good.

Um within the comp plan planning effort.

So we've begun those discussions as we approach the establishment of focus groups uh on certain chapters to um combine efforts and make sure we're all moving in the same direction.

And all integrating all the whole resiliency theme and so on, right?

Okay, great.

Glad to hear a lot of people pushed hard to make sure that that happened.

Uh complan, anything to report?

Anything else to report on that?

So our consultants will be um we we took a a lapse in meetings in January, so we can load February with the meetings for the working group.

So there might not be specific updates within that small group, but in general, our timeline is looking like the second week of March for the consultants to come for a longer period.

So instead of three days, maybe five or six, um, and doing we're kind of calling it a focus group marathon.

So as we uh start those February coordination meetings, which start this week, we will have more thorough updates on what that timeline looks like.

Um we still have the survey up.

And if you haven't taken it, we highly uh we very much request that you take it.

Staff are working with other staff on establishing a comp plan web page through a new software.

So in addition to the city, the city's um website, a more engaging web page where you can get project updates that's under development.

Um the advisory committee application period has closed, and staff will be working with city council taking their um the city council taking their lead to uh work through those applications and get that up and running.

Okay, so we're moving right along.

Are we basically on plan?

So um, in terms of a project management, we are on task.

Um it's it's a weird time where there's a lot of concurrent moving parts.

So it might seem like oh well, what is going on?

But unfortunately, all the cogs are turning behind the machine.

So thanks.

Uh anything more we need to hear about bicycle and pedestrian advisory commission?

Nope, that's the latest.

Okay.

All right.

Uh anything else from anybody else about anything?

All right.

May I have a motion to adjourn?

So any discussion about adjourning?

Then all in favor?

Okay.

All right.

And we're adjourned at 742 or accredited.