Minutes

Semi-Monthly Meeting — Full Council — Tuesday, July 14, 2026; 6:00 p.m.
Administration Building, Conference Room A, One Capitol Hill, Providence, RI

 

In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, a meeting was held on Tuesday, July 14, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. located at the Administration Building, Conference Room A, One Capitol Hill, Providence, RI.

Members Present
Raymond Coia, Chair
Ronald Gagnon, DEM
Steven Izzi
Carder Starr
W. Michael Sullivan
Richard Bernardo
Scott Rabideau

Staff Present
Jeffrey M. Willis, Executive Director
Laura Miguel, Deputy Director
Richard Lucia, Environmental Engineer IV
Amy Silvia, Spv Environmental Scientist
Mark Hartmann, Associate Legal Counsel
Laura Dwyer, Education/Information Coor -- remote
Ryan Moore, IT
Lisa Turner, Recording Secretary

 

1. CALL TO ORDER

Chair Coia called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.

2. Review/Action of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting, June 23, 2026

Council Discussion and Motion:

• Motion: Dr. Sullivan
• Seconded: Mr. Bernardo
• Motion carried on unanimous voice vote.

3. Subcommittee Reports – Buttonwoods – hold public hearings in the City of Warwick

Mr. Willis: No subcommittee.

4. Staff Reports

Mr. Willis reported to the Council the following:

• CRMC Annual Presentation to Environmental Business Council – July 23rd
• CRMC, RI Sea Grant, and Woonasquatucket River Council conducting walk and presentation of the Woonasquatucket Greenway to highlight access along the river – July 22nd at 5:30 p.m.

5. Application requiring Special Exception before the Council for Public Hearing and Review and Action:

2026-01-003 – NRI TT RGG LLC et al & CITY OF NEWPORT-- The current plan includes conducting maintenance activities along the entire 550-foot Cliff Walk length between Webster Street and Narragansett Avenue - Newport RI.

For ease of reference, the project description has been divided the area into 5 sections:

Section 1 (STA 0+00 to 1+25) - Exposed Cliff Face. A geotextile fabric is proposed with crushed stone and rip rap cover. The wall will extend to approximately MLW with a 1.5:1 slope. Grout or concrete will be used to fill existing cavity(s) in the cliff face. Large stones are proposed at the toe, landward of a new cast-in-place concrete block, and armor stones reduced in size past the 100-Year Flood Water Level. Nearly all activities will be above the MLW line.

Section 2 (STA 1+25 to 2+00) - Granite Block Wall. Rip-rap is proposed along the face of the existing granite block wall from the base flood elevation of 25’ NAVD88. Wall construction will be at a 1.5:1 slope. Grout or concrete will be used to fill cavity(s) in the wall face, and/or to create base slope. Large 5’-6’ stones will be placed at the toe, landward of a new cast-in-place concrete block, and armor stones will be placed beyond the 100-Year Flood Water Level. Nearly all activities will be above the MLW line.

Section 3 (STA 2+00 to 3+25) - March 3, 2022, Collapsed Area. A modular stone block wall is proposed directly below and adjacent to the Cliff Walk path. The wall will be supported by concrete filled micropiles drilled 5-feet below bedrock.     A rip-rap wall is proposed to extend seaward at a 1.5:1 slope. Grout or concrete will be used to fill cavity(ies) in the cliff face. Large 5’-6’ stones will be placed at the toe, landward of new cast-in-place concrete blocks, and armor stones reduced in size will be placed beyond the 100-Year Flood Water Level. Nearly all activities will be above the MLW line.

Section 4 (STA 3+25 to 4+25) - Exposed Cliff Face. Rip-rap is proposed to extend seaward from the base flood elevation of 25’ NAVD88, sloping at 1.5:1. Grout or concrete will be used to fill cavity(ies) in the cliff face. Large 5’-6’ stones will be placed at the toe in front of new cast-in-place concrete blocks, and armor stones reduced in size will be placed beyond the 100-Year Flood Water Level. Nearly all activities will be above the MLW line.

Section 5 (STA 4+25 to 5+50) – Granite Block Wall. The collapsed area of Section 5, landward of the existing granite block wall is proposed to be filled with crushed stone and topped with a layer of RIDOT R-8 Armor Stone. Seaward of the existing granite block wall, rip-rap is proposed to extend at a slope of 1.5:1. Large 5’-6’ stones will be placed at the toe in front of new cast-in-place concrete blocks, and armor stones reduced in size will be placed beyond the 100-Year Flood Water Level. Nearly all activities will be above the MLW line.

The current estimate is that approximately 18,242 square feet (SF) (3830 cubic yards) of permanent impacts will occur in Rhode Island tidal waters (below high tide line). At the location of the bedrock outcrop there will be filling at Section F-F (approximately stations 3+75 to 4+50). This portion of the project is considered Prohibited per CRMP Red Book Section §1.3.1.G.3.c (Shoreline Protection, Prohibitions) “Filling on a coastal feature or tidal waters beyond that which is consistent with §1.3.1(G)(5)(a) of this Part is prohibited.” CRMP Red Book Section§1.3.1(G)(5)(a) (Shoreline Protection, Standards) states “All applicable standards for earthwork in § 1.3.1(B) of this Part shall be met. The base of the seawall, bulkhead, revetment or toe-of-slope protection for hybrid shoreline protection must be located as close as practicable to the shoreline feature it is designed to protect….”. Also, per CRMP Red Book Section 1.3.1.J.3(a) (Filling in Tidal Waters, Prohibitions) “Filling in Type 1 and 2 waters is prohibited.”

Ms. Silva gave a brief overview of the application stating:

• The application is for the repair of a 550’ length of the Newport Cliff Walk
• Type 1 shoreline, between Webster Street and Narragansett Avenue. 
• CRMC agrees that maintenance to the Cliff Walk as a public resource is of high importance to all parties. 
• There is a portion of the project that will have a permanent impact which includes stone along a bedrock outcrop that staff would not support
• The purpose of the riprap along the bedrock is for the protection of private property.
• CRMC staff suggested that the private property owner submit a separate application for the protection of the private overlook.
• It is CRMC staff’s opinion that the proposed work on either side of the outcrop meets the special exception but the portion along the bedrock does not.
• CRMC staff recommends approval of the application by modifying the proposal to disallow the work along the bedrock outcrop.

Ms. Silva confirmed for Mr. Rabideau that the Council’s charge is to approve, deny, or modify application that come before them.

Mr. Hartman also confirmed that the Council can modify an application or approve with a condition that a portion be struck in accordance with staff’s recommendation.

Present for the Applicant:
Girard Galvin, Asst City Solicitor, City of Newport

Mr. Galvin addressed the Council and stated that:

• The City of Newport requested that the entirety of the application be approved. 
• The Outcrop supported the Cliff Walk
• A number of designs were submitted at staff’s request to reduce the amount of riprap at the portion along the bedrock.
• there was an incidental benefit to each property owner when the City makes repairs to the Cliff Walk.
• The Cliff Walk is a public easement that runs over private land and for this project, there is a need for access to the work area which will be provided by the owner of the Overlook through an access agreement which is essential for this entire project.
• The property owner is not willing to  authorize the City to use the land to do this project unless the 50-foot area of riprap adjacent to the outcrop is approved.
• The City of Newport had worked to put together $22 million dollars in funding for this project from several sources.
• The Public Benefit for the project is substantial and that they think that all of criteria of 1.1.8A are met.

Mr. Galvin finished up by introducing other members of the City’s Team all of whom can answer questions – Teresa Crean, Director of Resilience and Sustainability; William Riccio, Director of Public Services; and Russell Morgan, PE, the Principal for GZA GeoEnvironmental.

At the request of Mr. Bernardo, Mr. Galvin explained that the Gilette family owned the Mansion in question and confirmed that the Gilette family would be responsible for the maintenance of the overlook bridge itself.

Turner Scott, Attorney for the Gilette family, addressed the Council:

• He explained that, on behalf of the Gilette family, he was working with the City of Newport from the very beginning when the Cliff Walk fell.
• There was no condition from the property owner that they would not provide access.
• The Gilette family would like for the project to be done completely and correctly. 
• He explained that, on behalf of the Gilette family, he negotiated with the City to use property for the full project. 

No questions for Atty Scott.

Sworn in and identified for the record:
Russ Morgan from GZA
Bob Fairbanks.

Russell Morgan, Principal from GZA:

• Gave a summary of the project stating that GZA was engaged to look at southern portion of the Cliff Walk. 
• He did an inspection of the length of the property and there was another failure at the northern end of the property. 
• The Design calculations were based on soils and rock in the area which are predominantly shale which is pliable with hands, bedrock and conglomerate/pudding stone – very very hard.
• The old retaining wall succumbed to erosion and collapse with are of undermining of retaining walls.
• Ran design calculations and discovered it was a 15 ton stone.
• Initially we stopped the riprap at outcrop and continued  but it was immediately apparent there was physical need.
• Bob Fairbanks got involved and identified issues with the rock outcrop
• They decided to include that rock outcrop tying the northern riprap to the southern riprap forming a linear barrier to that piece of shoreline and a holistic resilient approach to the entire system.
• Designed to withstand 100-year storm, ACOE regulation and for sea-level rise.

Mr. Bernardo asked questions about the type of rock at the knob area.  Mr. Morgan stated that the rock was conglomerate with shale bedrock, and that the design would protect both rock types within the wave energy zone.  Mr. Morgan explained the design using plans sheet 18 section F.

Tim Smith GZA  was sworn in and identified for the record.  He explained:

• That specific bedrock outcrop nub is highly variable in shape and the reasoning behind the steeper slope of riprap in the area.
• If the outcrop and overlook were not there, we would still design protection around this rock knob.
• If not following this design in this area, the cost savings would be approximately $1 million.

Mr. Gagnon asked why the original set of plans, that did not have the riprap around the outcrop, were changed to the current design.   

Mr. Morgan stated the initial design was based on rates of erosion of the shoreline there. Mr. Morgan stated that Robert Fairbanks got involved and looked deeper into the structure on top of the rock knob and noticed cracking.  They ran stability calculations and found that it was on the edge of stability.  The riprap was added making the project more resilient

Mr. Gagnon confirmed that the design changed when Robert Fairbanks was contracted and that there was an email from Mr. Scott explaining that access would not be granted unless the riprap to the outcrop was added.  The reason for the change was not engineering.

Mr. Rabideau asked about alternatives to stabilize the structure so that safety to the public could be attained, which is one criterion for a special exception.  Mr. Morgan stated that the point is to fix that global stability issue.

Attorney Turner Scott called for Robert Fairbanks to testify.

Mr. Fairbanks explained his letter (in the record) to the Council and his thoughts and engineering review of the project as well as the history with the City and GZA.

• Stands by his conclusion with this repair as designed by GZA.
• Meets the Special Exception criterion of compelling public purpose
• Only concern with the bedrock knob is the fact that that bridge, which weighs 10 tons, can fall onto the Cliff Walk
• Gave history of the maintenance of this Cliff Walk
• If bridge falls, could hurt someone.
• Explained his experience with revetment work
• Talking about a 25’ wide section of the 600’ Cliff Walk repair
• Bridge over Cliff Walk is very unique structure which the Cliff Walk Commission does not want to remove.
• The owners of the bridge and retaining wall maintain this area diligently.
• Main responsibilities are to the public using the Cliff Walk.
• Makes sense to revet the entire shoreline.

Mr. Rabideau asked what the alternatives were for shoring up the bridge without doing the revetment.

Mr. Fairbanks:

• We can try to support that bridge on independently drilled piles, but this could still drop the bridge.
• Put the bridge on a deep foundation that's drilled through the softer rock into the harder rock.

Mr. Rabideau reminded the applicant that they were not meeting the Special Exception criterion of minimization.

Mr. Rabideau asked Mr. Morgan what the cost would be to conduct by approaching from the water.  Mr. Russell did not have an estimate.  Mr. Russell stated that contractors would not sit a barge in the area as there is so much rock outcrop – no sand to ground a barge.

Dr. Sullivan asked Mr. Fairbanks about the alternative of creating a different structure to support the bridge.  Mr. Fairbanks explained the process stating that the bridge would be supported by rock anchors through existing rock.  Mr. Fairbanks stated that the bridge could still fall if there was a significant failure.

Mr. Bernardo asked about the maintenance records of the bridge.  Mr. Fairbanks stated that the owners  are very active in inspecting their entire property and the existing retaining wall and they just spent about $400,000 redoing the existing retaining wall and addressing the bridge – prior to the 2022 failure.

Mr. Gagnon asked if the bridge was safe now.  Mr. Fairbanks stated that it is fenced off so not accessible.

Mr. Fairbanks stated that they have been monitoring the wall to check for lateral movement and there is a little movement.  All spoken about in the notes on the plans.

Dr. Sullivan expressed concern that there are differing opinion from three professional engineers.  Dr. Sullivan asked if the owner was providing financial help or just the access on their property to fix the Cliff Walk.  Mr. Fairbanks spoke of his professional integrity and said that he would design the project this way no matter what.

Mr. Gagnon stated that something has to give because the current project does not meet the CRMC regulations.  CRMC staff stated that the revetment is not necessary in this area and it does not meet the special exception criteria.

Mr. Fairbanks mentioned that if we can just chip away the end of that nub and fill it in with revetment stone; this would increase the forces on the nub.  

Mr. Izzi asked Mr. Lucia to weigh in the effect of wave energy.

Mr. Lucia stated if they were to make, you know, a tunnel, but they can put a return so it returns gradually to each side of that bedrock – the original plan. Just need to make sure you make a return that goes gradually into the north and south flanks, so you'll have that tunnelling effect that they speak about.  Mr. Lucia added that putting the stone up to the FEMA Flood elevation of 25’ would serve little purpose to protect the shale.

Mr. Lucia also stated that maintenance can be performed on the bridge/overlook.

Mr. Lucia clarified for Dr. Sullivan that he did not think it was going to be any protection putting riprap stone in front of this bedrock.

Mr. Rabideau asked if any alternatives were discussed.  Ms. Silva stated that 3 pre-app meetings were held and various alternatives were discussed.  Ms. Silva stated that staff repeatedly stated that they did not believe the riprap was necessary.  The applicant told them that they wanted to proceed as submitted with the riprap revetment.  Mr. Lucia confirmed that staff did not receive any alternatives for the structural stability of the bridge.  Mr. Rabideau stated that No. 3 of the special exception criteria requires alternatives, that no reasonable alternative means of or location or serving the compelling public purpose were cited.

Ms. Silva clarified for the Council that the initial application did not include the bridge, just the repair of the two falling sections.

No further witnesses for either attorney.

Chair Coia asked if anyone from the public wished to speak.

Christopher Dodge, Narragansett Bay Keeper with Save The Bay, spoke in support of most of the project with the exception of the unnecessary filling in state's intertidal waters and that the project plans represents work that is with the sole purpose of shoring up some of this private structure, and thus, would not be eligible for the Special Exception.  Save the Bay is in agreement with staff that we would see approval of this, pending any amendments 3 or modifications necessary to allow for the Special Exception.

Sam Sacco, Salve Regina University faculty member and Salve’s representative on the Cliff Walk Commission.  Mr. Sacco stated that he was authorized by the Commission to  say that they support the submitted design and concur with the analysis and conclusions outlined in in the engineering study that was developed by Mr. Fairbanks.

No further comments.

Mr. Galvin stated that they he believes the standard is met for the Special Exception based on Mr. Fairbanks report and recommendation.  Mr. Galvin asked the Council approve the application without eliminating the revetment at the outcrop.

*Mr. Scott echoed Mr. Galvin’s comments and stated that the owners of the property had been in communication with the City of Newport from the beginning and that the Gilette Family would like the project to be done in a comprehensive and coordinated manner.  Mr. Scott stated that this application meets those requirements.  Mr. Scott further stated that the reason the cliff walk has problems is because the maintenance work is always the bare minimum needed.

*Mr. Scott stated that he took offense at the comment that he said political pressure should have been asserted with CRMC.

*Mr. Sullivan explained that CRMC received a forwarded email from the City of Newport sent to them by Mr. Scott which clearly exhorts the City to apply political pressure.

*Mr. Scott replied that, at this point, he agreed that there should have been some political pressure because the City needs the Cliff Walk and the work needs to be done correctly.

*Mr. Scott stated that it was a mistake for the staff to look at the project without looking at future consequences and that Mr. Fairbanks plan was the way to go.

Ms. Teresa Crean, City of Newport was sworn in and identified for the record.  Ms. Crean stated that they do not have the PROTECT grant signed agreement as of yet and that there the time limits on other grants aligned with work to be done by 2031.

Chair Coia asked for a motion on the Special Exception.

Mr. Galvin asked to speak and stated that it was his understanding that if the staff's recommendations were to be followed, that the recommendation to approve the project on  either side of the outcrop would be granted subject to just removing that section and modifying the plan – not an all or nothing scenario.  Mr. Willis and Mr. Lucia confirmed and agreed.

Special Exception Motion:

Motion: Mr. Rabideau motioned that the application as presented does not meet the three criteria for Special Exception and, as such, the Special Exception should not be granted.  Mr. Hartman confirmed that the motion was made based on the discussion tonight and the testimony provided.

Second: Dr. Sullivan.

Discussion on the aspects of the matter, from access to alternatives.

Mr. Rabideau suggested sending the application back to staff for further consideration.

Dr. Sullivan stated that he would like to see the alternative analysis to see what else might be done.

Mr. Hartmann was asked if a continuance could be give to afford the applicant the opportunity to provide alternatives.

Mr. Gagnon stated they had the original plan that was submitted and supported by staff and discussed by Mr. Lucia.  Mr. Rabideau stated that the access was still an issue.

Discussion on amongst Council members regarding continuance.

Mr. Izzi asked if the denial to the Special Exception was without prejudice?  Mr. Hartman stated that motion would need to be amended.

Mr. Starr stated he was in favor of the continuance affording the opportunity for further discussion on alternatives.

Mr. Rabideau stated that if the City was willing to meet with staff than he would withdraw motion.

Mr. Galvin stated that the City of Newport was willing to work with CRMC staff.
Mr. Scott concurred as well.

Dr. Sullivan withdrew his second and Mr. Rabideau withdrew his motion.
Motion on Continuance

Motion:  Dr. Sullivan motioned to grant a continuance on the matter.

Second:  Mr. Bernardo

Chair Coia did a roll call vote:
Mr. Starr Aye
Mr. Izzi Aye
Dr. Sullivan Aye
Mr. Rabideau Aye
Mr. Gagnon Aye
Chair Coia Aye
Mr. Bernardo Aye

Outcome: Motion passed.

9. ADJOURN

Motion to adjourn:
Motion: Dr. Sullivan
Second: Mr. Bernardo

Motion to adjourn approved on a unanimous voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 pm.

 

Minutes respectfully submitted,
Lisa A. Turner, Recording Secretary