Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />Mr. Williams opposed the motion. He felt substantial money was being <br />spent on bikes, noting the bike paths and lanes marked off in the street <br />system. He felt the amount would be more than the $75,000 Mr. Delay <br />referred to earlier. He felt to reject the concept of attempting to use <br />fees for bikes any more than for autos seemed to be inappropriate. <br /> <br />Mr. Delay did not suggest the concept be categorically rejected. He felt <br />it was not serious or fruitful at this time. Also, he felt the financing <br />comparison he had used earlier was correct, noting it was dealing with <br />local funds as a comparison. <br /> <br />Vote was taken on the motion, which was defeated, with Delay, <br />Lieuallen, and Hamel voting aye; Smith, Obie, and Williams voting <br />no; and Mayor Keller voting no to break the tie. <br /> <br />Mayor Keller felt it to be a portion of the transportation plan and felt <br />it did not imply any negative impact on bike riders. It would provide an <br />alternative source for financing. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Mayor Keller questioned policy No.9, as to how it was arrived at. Mr. <br />Farah said in a state of chaos! TPC felt that if it was trying to build <br />the most effective transportation system, that is building facilities and <br />preventing service level E, that arterial streets and traffic capacities <br />that might be gained from removing parking on arterial streets to be a <br />key. The first function of arterial streets would be to carry through <br />traffic, with parking as a secondary function. Removal of parking would <br />allow gains for greater 'capacity. Assistant Manager noted this was a <br />statement of a long-standing City policy. Mayor Keller then wondered <br />where the bike paths would fit in. Mr. Farah said the plan was an attempt <br />to provide for movement of people by increasing capacity through use of <br />all modes of transit, even use of sidewalks. <br /> <br />Mr. Obie wondered, in light of the City.s apparent move in the direction <br />of potentially reducing minimum lot size and allowing more on-street <br />parking, whether these would be in conflict with this goal. Assistant <br />Manager said there was a balancing effect already ongoing. This plan <br />would be dealing with arterials as distinguised from residential streets. <br />He noted there would always be areas of policy conflicts which would need <br />to be resolved on a case-by-case basis. <br /> <br />Manager noted the Council would be in a jOint meeting May 18 with the <br />other jurisdictions. Part of the effort would be to arrive at tentative <br />agreement today, or at least prior to that meeting. Following that joint <br />meeting, there will be further discussion and, hopefully, final adoption. <br /> <br />Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to tentatively adopt the <br />Policies for the T-2000 Plan as recommended by the Planning <br />Commission. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />5/10/78--11 <br /> <br />350 <br />