Members of this group identified three broad priority subject areas/areas of concern that we feel should be areas of emphasis for city policy and programs in the effort to “make Portsmouth the best place to live and work for everyone. All agreed that we treasure Portsmouth for its natural beauty, diversity of economic, cultural, and recreational opportunities, and for the diversity and character of people that this attracts and retains.

I. Eironmental/Green/

Natural Resource Values and Visual Impact

a. Greenery & Natural beauty. Portsmouth is a city blessed with a lot of natural beauty - the riverfront, esp. Prescott Park, Peirce Island, the South End, and North and South Mill Ponds, the Great Bog, and the many mature trees throughout the city. But that beauty has also been compromised in many places, especially places other than those mentioned above, by adjacent but unconnected commercial developments that run together in large expanses of asphalt - parking lots, medians, space between curb and sidewalk that is just paved or becomes barren ground due to lack of maintenance of greenery. We would encourage greater community stewardship in this area, i.e., adopt-a-spots and ways to encourage businesses to maintain greenery on their properties (perhaps exempting green space from taxation or requiring businesses as a part of their renovation/ improvement permitting to add green space). The city should ensure that its trees are cared for, that new trees are planted so that they can mature in time to replace the many 80-100 year old trees we have, and that they are maintained so they don't die. In some cities various landscape companies have been invited to adopt significant pieces of green space and maintain them as a way of advertising/showcasing their expertise. There is strong linkage here to the topic of sidewalks, walkways, and overall pedestrian-friendliness.

b. Sightlines and open space, especially within the downtown area, are considered important. There aren't that many views of the river from downtown, those that exist should be preserved and opportunities should be sought to add more or enhance existing ones. This should particularly be taken into account in the potential redevelopment of the McIntyre federal building site. In addition, we would hate to see additional developments in downtown (ex. the condos currently under construction on Porter St., potential development of Eagle Photo parking lot, the old Bank of NH site on Court St., the Worth lot, lead to the creation of “urban canyon” effects in downtown (i.e., sunlight and views blocked by buildings along whole city blocks). We recognize that development must take place on commercial property but would encourage site plans and building forms that avoid completely blocking cross-town sightlines and natural vistas.

c. Accumulated visual clutter from utility poles and lines, and official signage, is another concern - mostly traffic rule (No parking, No left turn, etc.) and tourist guidance signage. Examples include the intersection of Middle and Court Streets, and Market Street extension on the way in to town from I-95. (The concern here is not with commercial signage; there is no desire for uniformity regulations or prohibition of bill posting.) We simply encourage the city to be more judicious in the placement of additional signs and sign poles, make an effort to consolidate, and work with utilities (electric and cable company) to reduce the volume of poles and wires wherever possible. Putting utilities underground, especially in the downtown area, should be strongly considered whenever possible (although we're aware it is expensive).

d. Green Building practices should be adopted as the standard for municipal construction and renovation projects, and strongly encouraged - perhaps required -- by the city of commercial developers and even residential builders. This is a matter of good stewardship and respect for ourselves and the environment in which we live. Portsmouth has been around for more than 350 years - we know the value of things that last, that convey a sense of permanence. Buildings that are cheaply constructed - with “expected lifetimes” of just a few decades - represent a squandering of resources, a “throwaway mentality” that is unbefitting a community like Portsmouth. Such buildings usually consume much more energy than necessary to operate (which contributes to air pollution) and may start to look shoddy after only a few years. By contrast, green buildings are designed and constructed in ways that aim to minimize the buildings' impact on the natural environment - local, regional, and even global - by maximizing energy efficiency and using natural, recycled, and durable materials in their construction. Green buildings also support the productivity, health, and happiness of their occupants - through the use of natural daylight rather than artificial electric light, and assurance of good indoor air quality. This is the type of “built environment” of which our community ought to be composed. The potential redevelopment of the McIntyre Feceral Building site offers a tremendous opportunity to showcase these principles and practices in a substantial, highly visible project. Any historic district barriers to the use of solar energy and daylighting of buildings, commercial or residential, should be minimized.

e. Light Pollution is a growing concern, primarily from commercial establishments. The city ought to adopt and enforce strict regulations regarding “light trespass” from commercial establishments into the public right of way, and against lighting fixtures that aim or allow light to escape upward into the night sky. There are national and international reference sources for information on this topic; the city should appoint a volunteer task force to review the situation in Portsmouth and make recommendations. The worst offenders are auto dealerships, but many other businesses' “security lighting” in which parking lots or rear entryways are brightly illuminated with unshielded floodlights are common. An egregious example is the recently privately installed “street” lighting (in addition to the pre-existing security lighting) in the lot behind the Blockbuster Video/Cleary's Cleaners Building that send glare all the way across the Islington Street/Barrett St. intersection. A clear comparison between bad and good are the Sunoco and Mobil stations on Islington Street, whose canopy lighting cast glare into and even across the street, and the Irving gas station down on Rt. 1, whose recessed canopy lighting illuminates only the area below it. The light intensity of many internally illuminated signs is also a problem.

f. Citywide recycling exemptions. While Portsmouth has recently adopted a plan for requiring citywide recycling, the exemption of any commercial or residential property that has its own privately contracted trash pickup is a significant shortcoming. Although any resident may voluntarily take recyclables to the Peverly Hill Road facility, the lack of “curbside” or on-the-property recycling services at a condominium or apartment building is a huge impediment to implementing recycling to the fullest extent possible. It is a widely recognized that if you make it easy for people to recycle (via curbside service or other means) that it leads to a higher degree of adoption. The citywide ordinance should be amended to require that all commercial or residential properties that use privately contracted trash services must also either provide curbside recycling themselves, or also contract with the city recycling program.

II.Transportation/Parking/

Mobility/Accessibility

Our concerns and desires with respect to this subject have to do mainly with expanding the number and range of alternatives to the automobile for residents of as well as visitors to Portsmouth.

a. Pedestrian-friendliness of downtown. Most members of the group felt that efforts should be made to enhance access and “friendliness” for people in the core downtown area , rather than cars. This was not universal; some members felt that there was no problem with the way things are now. However, a majority of the group feels that the city should consider converting some blocks downtown to pedestrian malls, similar to Church St. in Burlington, Vermont, Inn Street in Newburyport, or the current proposal for Middle/Shattuck/Palmer streets in Lowell, MA. Market St. between Bow and Congress (in front of the Portsmouth Brewery), and Pleasant St. between Court and Congress (in front of Me &Ollie's and Café Brioche) seem the best candidates. Perhaps this could be piloted on weekends.

b. Connecting neighborhoods to downtown. Notwithstanding the above, we are concerned that emphasis on pedestrian access in downtown doesn't spill over into making Portsmouth a tourist-only town. Additional emphasis should placed be on connecting the neighborhoods of Portsmouth to downtown in ways that enable those who live and work here to get downtown by means other than a car. Walking, bicycling, in-line skating, or other options can promote health and lower stress levels - but only if they are safe and pleasant. This is discussed in greater detail in d. below

c. Parking downtown. The “conventional wisdom” seems to be that city needs more; city officials have already made public statements about one or two more garages - on the redeveloped McIntyre site and on the Worth lot. We don't necessarily agree, and are strongly concerned about the “if you build it, they will come” effect. How often is the High-Hanover garage completely full? Have options been fully explored with downtown parking lot owners, such as the Sheraton, Parade Mall, and Portsmouth Herald about revenue-generating use of their lots for weekends and evenings? Any additional parking development downtown should be coupled with measures discussed in a. and b. above.

d. Bike paths and bike lanes. Most roads in Portsmouth have little or no shoulder - it feels unsafe to bike or to use in-line skates, especially for kids. Middle St., Miller Avenue, Maplewood Avenue, Peverly Hill Road, Sagamore Avenue, Marcy Street, and Islington St. are the main routes in town for which marked bicycle lanes should be considered. Route 1 is particularly bad - although there are large residential neighborhoods and developments - i.e., Elwyn Park and some large apartment and condo developments, Route 1 is a pretty “hostile environment” for anyone not in a car. Marked bicycle lanes and a small separation between the road and sidewalk - say, a 2 ft. median - would make a big difference.

The city should seriously explore the potential for the Rail-to-Trail conversion of the lightly-used rail line that connects Greenland and Newmarket with Portsmouth, crossing over Barrett St. and behind Ricci Lumber down across Maplewood Ave. to the waterfront, to a recreational bike/in-line skating/walking trail. A nice model is the Minuteman Rail-Trail that runs from Arlington through Lexington to Bedford, MA.

e. Public transportation system. We are concerned that the public transportation system as currently constituted (COAST Trolley) is a waste of money, it appears to have very low ridership. Long, circuitous routes mean that it may take you 30-40 minutes to get somewhere on the bus that would take 5-10 in a car, so it's not conducive to use on a regular basis. Only those who must, i.e., who have no car or other means of transportation, will use it. Consider reconfiguring routes, make them shorter and more direct from neighborhoods to destinations.

f. The Route 1 Bypass is an ugly road, and an unsafe one, as demonstrated only too well by recent serious accidents. Furthermore, its car & truck-only character and the type of businesses that has attracted - truck stops, porn shops, moving and storage businesses, etc. detracts from property values on that whole side of town. Can anything be done to re-make that corridor into a more pleasant and well connected part of the city's street layout, rather than a high-speed thoroughfare?

g. Rail service for Portsmouth. We are not in favor of ever bringing commuter rail service directly to Portsmouth, i.e., the extension of the MBTA's Purple line from Newburyport that some have proposed. That would really make Portsmouth just a suburb of Boston, putting even more pressure on housing prices. Amtrak's “Downeaster” connecting Portland, ME and Boston, with stops in Exeter, Durham, and Dover provides the option for those who live in Portsmouth.

III. Land Use and Affordable housing

Portsmouth is a city that is close to being “built out;” almost all land available for residential or commercial development has already been developed. There is a strong sense that any remaining open space should be preserved as such. Thus, the type, character, and economic implications of any future development or redevelopment is extremely important.

a. Affordable housing. Any future residential developments or redevelopments should emphasize compact, small to medium size living spaces that are affordable for single people, couples, and retirees - middle-income people. This means town homes, apartments, condominiums (non-luxury). This is the class of housing that is becoming increasingly scarce in Portsmouth as the cost of detached single-family homes has climbed. The use of any more residential land for the construction of high end, single-family homes on large lots - such as the proposed development off Market St. extension described in the March 9, 2003 Portsmouth Herald article “Creating Workforce Housing Proves To Be A Vexing Challenge,” should be actively discouraged, as that is the opposite of what Portsmouth needs.

b. Mixed-use development and land uses. Related to the concerns about transportation, future development and redevelopment should emphasize and support the integration and connection of land uses - i.e., residential, commercial, office spaces in close proximity - to allow for efficient living, so that people can live, shop, and work within a small area. Traditional zoning - the rigid segmentation and separation of different land uses, creates traffic and congestion, requiring an individual to make numerous car trips for the daily needs of life, and also contributes to the emergence of large areas (as described in Sections I and II), that are visually unappealing and relatively inhospitable to any means of mobility other than a car.

c. City involvement in commercial development. We would like to see the city be more proactive in attracting/obtaining the types of developments/redevelopments it needs in the places it is needed, including actively seeking to attract or support the founding of certain types of businesses that may be lacking in certain parts of town. For example, the city could have used the relocation of the old Public Works facility, which opened up a large lot in the heart of an older section of town adjacent to both commercial and residential areas, as an opportunity to considerably reshape that area, perhaps reconfigure the roads that lead to and around it, make it more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, and perhaps to promote the construction of some affordable housing. Instead it was sold as one piece to a developer who will simply develop by right whatever commercial uses are allowed through the standard process. The city should more actively explore public-private partnerships with businesses and landowners to ensure that the uses of the few remaining parcels of undeveloped land, as well as the redevelopment of other sites, fill unmet needs of the community (i.e., affordable artist's studios.)

d. Growth. We want to hear more precision in the use of this term as it relates to Portsmouth's future. “Growth”in most people's minds means “more, bigger.” We believe that mere growth in quantity is exactly what Portsmouth does not need, but we would like to growth of quality, which may involve increases in some things. It is a certainty that the land area of Portsmouth is not going to grow, so if goals for “growth” involve increases in housing quantity to support a higher population, or increases in the amount of commercial and office space to increase the commercial tax base, it must be done in a way that minimizes the growth of traffic congestion and environmental degradation.