Laserfiche WebLink
Member Stenlund noted the multiple negatives in the last sentence of the third <br />paragraph needing revision; and need to reconstruct the sentence related to traffic <br />engineering principles. <br />Ms. Bloom advised that staff had attempted to include that language; however, it <br />was difficult finding other policies focusing on pedestrians and bicycles and <br />providing equal footing for both. <br />Section 4.0 Procedure Summary <br />Discussion included resolutions contemplated in identifying project requests and <br />groups affected based on a percentage of signatures on an application; with <br />"Project Neighborhood" and "Affected Neighborhood" definitions added. <br />the policy — W be developed and presented — that will address examples <br />It was the consensus of members that pathways be included as a traffic <br />management tool; with Ms. Bloom advising that in Table 2, if they were added as <br />a tool, case studies needed to be provided showing what each of those tools <br />encompassed; and how to prioritize City resources as applications came forward. <br />Member Stenlund opined that such studies were part of other documents, and he <br />didn't consider them to be part of this policy; opining that bicycles and <br />pedestrians, if part of a roadscape, may also need to slow down. Member <br />Stenlund opined that it was imperative that cars, trucks, bicycles, and pedestrians <br />could be integrated to maintain the quality of life aspects, perhaps necessitating a <br />volume reduction with fewer cars. <br />Page 6 of 12 <br />