►
From YouTube: October 6, 2021 Pedestrian Advisory Committee Meeting
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
F
A
Awesome
hi
everybody
welcome
to
the
october
6
2021
full
pedestrian
advisory
committee
meeting.
I
just
want
to
notice
that
this
meeting
may
involve
the
remote
participation
by
members,
either
by
telephone
or
other
electronic
means
due
to
the
local
public
health
emergency
of
the
novel
coronavirus
pandemic.
Pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
minnesota
statute,
section
13do21,
hi
everybody
and
welcome
we'll
start
out
with
millicent's
roll
call.
A
G
D
B
G
B
H
B
B
B
I
C
B
D
A
D
C
B
K
D
J
A
K
Yep
melanie,
can
you
put
it
up
on
the
screen,
so
I
can
read
it
or
I
can
just
talk
about
it
too.
I
don't
need
to
read
from
the
thing
there
were.
We
were.
We
spent
the
day
talking
about
the
graco
park
area,
which
is
adjacent
to
plymouth,
avenue
north
and
selby
avenue
in
northeast,
and
they
gave
us
three
proposals
and
three
concepts
which
they
which
they
presented
each
one
separately,
the
they
have
been
doing.
K
K
Then
they
go
before
it'll
be
accepted
in
january,
and
then
they
start
finalizing
the
concept
development,
so
they
will
be.
They
will
pick
a
final
concept,
I
think,
by
the
end
of
november.
So
let
me
go
through
the
three
concepts
that
they
presented
and
give
you
some
of
the
things
that
they
had
in
common.
K
They
all
sort
of
involved
improvements
to
the
crossing
at
selby
and
plymouth,
which
is
a
really
dangerous
crossing,
and
they
all
talked
about
doing
some
traffic
calming
lots
of
different
strategies
to
improve
the
the
the
intersection
for
pedestrians
and
bikes
in
two
of
the
concepts
that
is
the
or
in
one
of
the
concepts.
That's
the
only
crossing
for
bicyclists
and
pedestrians
is
at
the
plymouth
and
selby
intersection.
K
K
It
has
a
viewing
platform
that
extends
from
within
the
park
out
into
the
river
so
that
you
can
look
over
at
hill
island
which
will
be
an
refuge,
a
natural
refuge.
There
will
be
no
paths
on
hill
island,
no
pedestrians,
no
bikes
or
anything.
It's
just
meant
to
be
a
wildlife
refuge
and
that's
true
for
all
three
concepts,
but
this
particular
one
has
an
extended
viewing
platform
that
goes
to
the
island
with
a
platform
on
the
island
looking
over
the
island.
K
K
K
It
was
so
I'll
go
on
to
concept
two,
which
was
the
only
one
that
did
not
have
an
underpass.
This
one
has
just
a
single
building
to
the
north
edge
of
the
park.
It
also
adds
kayak
rental
and
storage
and
an
activity
and
access
plaza
where
trucks
could
come
in,
so
we
could
have
food
vendors
on
the
plaza.
K
K
The
final
concept
was
concept.
Three,
this
concept
was
had
lots
and
lots
of
greenery.
It
has.
Let
me
see,
I've
got
it
here.
It
has
one
building
with
the
mrp
offices
and
public
restrooms
in
it.
It
includes
a
plaza
with
an
overlook
to
the
river,
but
not
I
don't
think
it's
a
driving
on
so
food
vendors
would
have
to
come
in
on
their
own
offers.
K
K
One
of
the
things
that
I
will
say
about
this
is
that
I
think
two
of
the
concepts
have
parking.
One
and
two
both
offer
some
parking
concept.
Three
does
not
offer
any
parking.
There
is
parking
across
the
street
in
boom
island,
there's
quite
a
bit
of
parking
there,
so
people
could
park
there
and
walk
across
the
street
or
walk
across
or
if
there's
an
underpass
go
through
the
underpass
to
get
to
the
park.
K
That's
pretty
much.
What
we
talked
about.
The
pack
has
some
questions
about
flooding
that
they
had
comments
about.
Also
the
underpass
a
couple
pack
members
were
opposed
to
it
because
they
thought,
if
there's
greater
flooding
than
just
a
hundred
year,
flood
if
it
gets.
If
we
get
more
and
more
water,
as
we
have
seen
over
the
past
few
years
and
as
climate
change
progresses,
that
it
might
end
up
flooding
that
and
all
that
expense
would
be
for
naught
and
it
would
have
to
be
permanently
closed.
K
Other
people
really
thought
it
was
the
safest
way
for
pedestrians
and
bicyclists
to
get
to
and
from
this
park.
So
that
was,
I
think
there
were
more
people
talking
about
that
in
terms
of
the
underpass
being
a
safe
way
for
pedestrians
and
bicyclists.
Even
if
there
are
improvements
to
the
intersection,
it
was
felt
that
that
needed
to
be
there.
K
We
also
talked
about
lighting
and
kerry,
who
presented
said
that
they
are
going
to
have
lighting,
but
they
wanted
to
keep
it
low
because
of
the
wildlife
refuge,
so
maybe
pedestrian
level
lighting
would
be
all
there
would
be,
not
gigantic
lights.
That
would
light
up
the
whole
area
which,
but
they
do
want
lighting
for
safety
and
for
people
walking
in
the
evening
hours
and
when
it's
after
dark.
K
K
People
were
talking
about
buyback
for,
but
they
had
involved
indigenous
members
of
the
tribal
community
and
had
talked
to
them
and
they'd
also
brought
mostly
indigenous
kids
to
the
park
area.
To
look
over
it.
So
they'd
really
try
to
involve
those
people,
members
of
tribes
in
consulting
on
how
they
developed
these
concepts.
K
I
think
those
were
all
the
main
questions
that
we
talked
about.
One
thing
was
talked
one
thing
that
I
think
julia
brought
up
was
of
the
current
climate
change.
Emergency
was
considered
when
preparing
these
and
carrie
indicated
that
they
had
not
used
that
in
looking
at
the
100
year
flood,
but
that
she
appreciated
that
comment,
and
she
would
certainly
bring
it
back
to
the
design
team
that
she
really
liked
hearing
that.
K
K
J
A
Yeah,
I
don't
know
if
anybody
else
has
a
comment
on
it,
because
I
missed
the
meeting,
but
I
remember
reading
over
it
after
and
the
reason
we
don't
have
a
resolution
is,
are
they
going
to
be
coming
back?
Did
they
want
us
to
have
a
resolution
on
the
concept,
or
is
it
because
we
couldn't
decide
on
one.
K
I
think
they
do
want
a
resolution.
We
talked
at
the
executive
meeting
that
we
should
probably
get
one
prepared
it
was
we
hadn't
written
one
at
the
meeting,
because
we
thought
they'd
be
coming
back
before
the
november
before
they
found
the
before
or
right
after
they
created
the
final
concept.
So
we
could
have
input,
but
chris
didn't
think
that
he
thought
it
would
be
good
for
them
to
have
input
right
now,
so
we
were
going
to
try
to
compose
one
at
this
meeting.
As
my
recollection
from
the
executive
meeting
is
that
right,
chris.
F
K
Also,
when
you
look
at,
if
you
look
at
the
information
that
they
gathered
through
the
public
engagement,
the
the
strongest
thing
that
they
say
that
they
got
from
members
of
the
community
was
that
they
wanted
the
natural
habitat
on
the
hill
island
that
they
didn't
want
pedestrians
and
vice
to
have
access
to
it
that
it
they
really.
That
was
that
was
the
number
one
thing
in
terms
of
percentage
of
responses
and
and
the
underpass
and
the
tunnel,
and
were
way
down
in
what
the
public
wanted.
K
L
I
think,
as
far
as
our
group
goes,
it
would
be
pretty
easy
to
pull
together
something
that
would
encapsulate
all
of
our
views,
because
I
think
ultimately,
we
would
agree
that
the
more
points
of
pedestrian
access
we
have,
the
better
sort
of
the
more
porous
every
crafting
is
the
better
for
pedestrians,
but
never
as
an
excuse
to
maintain
high
speeds
or
vehicular
traffic
at
a
location
like
the
at-grade
crossing.
So
we
support
it
because
we
want
more
crossings
of
barriers
as
pedestrians
and
with
concerns
about
how
it
would
hold
up
within
flooding.
M
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
I
just.
I
really
agree
with
what
julia
said,
especially
how
you
finished
there
about
the
at
grade
crossing.
That's
something
that
I
think
is
really
really
important
for
pet
bike
access
and
just
welcoming
people
to
the
park
that
are
not
driving
there.
I
think
that's
just
so
important
so
that
corner
at
sibley
and
in
eighth
or
plymouth
is
really
important
and
then
also
I.
M
I
just
think
it's
really
important
to
to
note
that
this
is
a
major
regional
trail
for
city,
for
the
city
of
minneapolis
as
well,
and
so
having
that
through
movement
be
very
comfortable,
seems
very
critical
to
me,
and
so
I
mean
all
along
the
river
and
then
connecting
up
east
west
for
the
great
northern
greenway
along
18th,
avenue
and
and
farther.
So
those
are
two
aspects
that
I've
been
looking
at
as
well.
F
Well,
I
I
was
just
gonna
say
like
if,
if
it's
a
simple,
straightforward
resolution
with
like
one
to
three
points
like,
I
think
we
could
just
write
it
now,
I'm
I'm
happy
to
pull
up
a
document
and
we
can
just
do
that.
I
think
we've
maybe
not
online
but
like
in
the
history
of
the
pack.
That's
a
very
normal
thing
to
have
I've
done.
So
if
it
feels
like
it's
going
to
be
easy
enough
to
do
that.
F
M
Let's
make
it
easy,
and
let's
let's
do
that
together,
because
I
think
I
think
it
could
start
out
like
the
pack
has
the
following
comments
about
this
project.
At
this
point
right
and
like
the
underpass
important
or
not
like
the
the
crossing
that
sibling
important,
the
regional
connection
you
know
like
we
could
it
could
be
that
simple.
So.
C
F
D
M
F
M
N
K
K
L
M
And
I'll
just
say
in
terms
of
like
the
way
coordination
typically
works
with
that
is
you
know
the
like
the
park
is
a
is
a
specific
parcel
that
the
park
board
owns
and
then
there's
a
lot
of
coordination
between
the
park
board
and
minneapolis
public
works.
So
I'll
just
say:
that's
something
that
we
are
looking
at.
You
know
inner
jurisdictionally,
okay,
but
but
the
city
controls
the
street.
K
K
F
F
K
D
N
M
J
D
D
H
C
F
I
I
don't
know
if
they
were
like
set
in
stone
and
it
kind
of
depended.
There
were
different
options
in
some
some
of
them.
One
building
was
like
a
kayak.
Rental
was
an
idea.
Another
building
could
be
like.
I
think
there
was
the
potential
for
like
a
coffee
shop
or
like
some
sort
of
activated
space.
Like
that,
I
I
don't
remember
what
the
other
options
were.
K
There
was
a-
and
I
think
in
every
concept,
there
was
a
building
that
was
for
the
minneapolis
park
board
and
then
I
think
two
of
them
had
off
a
public
restrooms.
There
were
there
was
one
plan
and
I
think
it
was
plan
concept,
one
that
had
two
buildings,
one
of
which
was
for
vendors
to
be
maybe
developed
later,
for
maybe
soft
drinks
or
whatever
I
mean
some
sort
of
vendor
thing
and
the
other
one
was
the
offices
for
minneapolis
park
board.
So
there
will
be
buildings
on.
K
I
think
there
were
buildings
set
on
any
of
the
concepts
that
were
for
many
of
us
park
board
and
some
included
public
restrooms,
but
there
is
parking.
My
understanding
is,
there
is
some
parking
on
adjacent
streets
and
they'll
imply?
You
know
that
there
was
adequate
parking,
so
I
don't
know
if
the
park
board
had
intended
that
for
staff
or
if
they
thought
of
that,
for
visitors
and
deliveries
that
sort
of
thing
and
handicapped
accessibility.
L
Maybe
maybe,
instead
we
can
ask
them
to
explore
working
with
metro
transit
since
they're,
also
looking
across
the
river
with
the
upper
harbor
terminal,
you
know
that
that
would
be
a
new
line.
So
I
don't
know,
if
that's
you
know
getting
more
river
riverway
transit
going
and
there
used
to
be
the
line
on.
L
K
L
Way,
I
wouldn't
feel
comfortable
with
that
without
being
clear
that
the
plan
needs
to
really
be
in
alignment
with
the
ipcc
report
and
whatever
the
the
working
group
report
from
that
same
group
comes
up
with
it.
I
think
already
it's
not
close
enough
to
being
in
alignment
with
what
we
need
to
be
doing,
and
I
just
worry
about
yeah
giving
permission
without
being
explicit
that
it
really
needs
to
be
in
alignment
with
science.
H
Yeah,
well,
I
guess
I
just
hate
to
see
that
you
know
if
there's
going
to
be
buildings
like
a
coffee
shop
or
whatever
and
a
vendor
doesn't
want
to
come
in
because
there's
no
parking
near
his
site,
so
it's
going
to
be
used
by
the
community.
I
guess
you
know.
We
should
just
make
sure
that
you
know
I
agree.
The
parking
should
be
minimum,
but
you
know
we
shouldn't
disallow
any
additional
parking
as
part
of
our
resolution.
L
H
H
L
It's
not
a
fairly
definite
destination
and
it's
within
easy
walking,
distance
of
other
kind
of
regional
destinations.
I
end
up
there
a
surprising
amount
of
time
it's
one
of
the
places
in
northeast.
I
probably
am
the
most
and
it
seems
like
during
the
ine.
A
lot
of
us
had
have
spent
time
there,
despite
not
necessarily
living
close,
so
I
think
it
maybe
it'll
be
seasonal,
but
I
do
think
we
need
to
give
recommendations
based
on
what's
good
for
for
walkability,
and
hopefully,
business
will
sort
itself
out.
M
A
Well,
I
think
I
think
we
have
two
options:
one.
We
could
actually
go
around
and
say
how
we
feel
about
parking,
so
we
can
get
a
consensus
where
we
can
get
a
majority
vote
on
the
parking
or
we
remove
the
bullet
on
parking.
I
think
those
are
our
two
options:
barb
I'll
leave
it
to
you,
which
one
do
you
think
we
should
go
through.
K
C
K
K
A
O
Yeah
I
agree
with
barb.
You
know
I
also
missed
the
subcommittee
meeting,
so
I
don't
know
exactly
how
many
parking
spots
were.
I
guess
contemplated,
but
I
do
think
that
we
need
to
take
a
pretty
strong
stance
that
that,
if
we're
going
to
put
in
additional
parking
it'd
be
limited
to
those
who
need
the
handicap.
Access.
N
I
do
support
the
limitation
of
parking
and
I
agree,
though,
that
maybe
less
people
will
visit
if
there
is
no
parking.
I
think
that
sends
a
message,
though,
that
we
are
trying
to
change
the
culture
in
the
city
from
a
car
center
culture
to
a
pedestrian
bicycle
from
the
culture,
with
the
exception
for
accessibility
for
folks
with
disabilities,
I
think
we
should
try
to
limit
parking
in
this
development.
That's
what.
A
N
E
G
Yeah,
I
I
don't
have
a
good
enough
sense
of
the
transit
or
the
parking
options
in
the
area
really
to
have
a
strong
opinion,
one
way
or
the
other.
I
definitely
try
just
in
favor
of
limiting
cars,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
not
limiting
accessibility.
So
I
don't
really
on
this
specific
issue,
have
an
opinion.
L
I
actually
do
I,
I
think
if
we
keep
it
in
and
if
we
talk
about
the
accessibility,
I
want
to
really
highlight
that
that
we
also
need
to
look
at
transit,
because
people
should
not
people
who
use
wheelchairs
or
other
mobility
devices
should
not
have
to
own.
You
know
what
thousands
of
dollars
objects
to
get
around
to
our
parks
so
to
I
am
a
little
bit
iffy
about
adding
parking
to
any
new
development.
K
I
don't
think
so,
unless
we-
the
only
other
thing
I
can
think
of,
is
if
we
have
a
strong
statement
about
that,
the
passenger
bridge
or
the
pedestrian
bridge
that
goes
from
the
graco
park
to
hill
hill
park
hill
island.
I'm
opposed
to
that.
I
don't
think
we
should
get
pedestrians
or
bicyclists
anywhere
near
that
island.
I
think
it
should
be
a
reserve
and
we
should
keep
people
and
bikes
away
from
that.
K
K
G
A
F
C
C
I
C
I
Here
regarding
the
transit
service,
there's
high
frequency
service
on
second
street
northeast
via
route
11..
That's!
If
you're
measuring
the
sibley,
that's
0.3
miles,
there's
service
on
broadway
again
about
0.3
miles,
that's
on
route,
30,
that's
30,
minutes
service
and
then
across
the
river
on
washington
and
plymouth,
you
have
route
14,
which
is
20
minute
service.
A
A
I
I
Yeah
well
well,
plymouth,
it's
if
you're
measuring
to
eighth
avenue
sibley.
Is
it
just
on
the
east
side
of
the
bridge?
It's
point
six
miles
to
plymouth
and
washington
on
the
on
north
minneapolis
and
that's
route
14.
But
the
high
frequency
round
is
route
11
on
2nd
street
northeast
and
that's,
I
think,
0.3
miles.
D
O
C
D
D
K
B
J
B
J
J
J
A
L
That's
me,
I
would
so
I
was,
I
think,
what
peter
and
I
have
been
doing.
The
last
few
meetings
is
just
asking
people
to
if
there's
questions
that
are
coming
up
from
from
the
minutes
or
after
that,
but
just
to
go
over.
We
went
through
the
complete
streets
updates,
katie,
white
and
ethan
foley
presented
on
that
and
after
jim
left,
the
committee
abigail
took
over
as
our
appointed
member
there.
L
So
the
minutes
are
thorough
and
excellent
and
I
would
highly
recommend
reading
those
if
you
haven't
had
a
chance.
Does
anyone
have
any
questions
from
those
or
is
it
okay
to
jump
into
the
resolution
and
feel
free
to
have
questions?
It
looks
like
we've
still
got
a
full
hour
and
nine
minutes
for
a
lot
of
conversation.
C
N
D
L
I
know:
there's
been
some
division
around
how
effective
or
ideal
it
would
be
versus
putting
that
effort
and
advocacy
work
into
designing
better
streets
that
do
not
smoke.
Speeding
like
most
of
our
community
corridors.
Currently
do
so.
That's
that's
my
understanding
of
the
history
of
it.
I
don't
think
we've
really
discussed
it
specifically,
except
tangentially,
with
enforcement
conversations
overall,
but
would
anybody
like
to
add
to
that.
D
L
H
H
D
I
Yes,
I
I
thought
I
had
definitely
heard
in
a
meeting
with
public
works
staff,
but
this
was
probably
2019
that
they,
they
meant
to
put
this
on
their
legislative
docket,
and
maybe
it
got
shifted
off
because
of
you
know
where
we
are.
You
know
all
the
other
things
that
have
come
up
during
the
meantime,
but
but
I
do
think
they
had
intended
to
try
and
move
this
forward
again,
which
you
know
would,
I
believe,
be
a
good
thing.
A
A
A
Sure
sounds
good,
so
why
don't
we
just
keep
it
in
mind
when
we
talk
about
next
month's
agenda
or
this
month's
agenda
for
pnp
and
then
see
if
it'll
fit
in
either
this
or
the
next
one
and
see
how
to
kind
of
formulate
it
cool
awesome.
Thanks
for
the
question
austin,
this
is
important.
Hopefully
that
gives
you
a
little
more
of
an
overview.
L
A
A
C
L
Complete
streets
resolution,
the
pedestrian
advisory
committee
appreciates
the
time
that
public
works
staff
took
to
update
the
complete
streets
policy.
We
have
a
few
edits
highlighted
below.
Overall,
the
pac
thinks
that
the
complete
street
policy
is
fine.
The
problem
lies
in
when
we
see
designs
that
do
not
meet
our
interpretation
or
the
policies
definition
of
a
complete
street,
yet
that
design
is
sent
forth
without
clearly
advancing
the
modal
hierarchy
laid
out
in
this
policy.
L
That
being
said,
we
hope
that
the
updated
policy
will
support
designers
increased
adherence
to
the
modal
hierarchy
on
page
two
in
the
fourth
bullet
point
change
advance
to
achieve.
It
is
important
that
no
framing
allows
us
to
seek
half
measures
as
acceptable
in
the
policy
framework
section
on
page
three,
the
third
paragraph.
After
the
bullet
points,
we
suggest
adding
winter
and
winter
maintenance
concerns
as
part
of
prioritizing
pedestrians,
in
addition
to
snow
storage,
which
is
something
else
in
the
paragraph
on
page
five,
starting
with
individual
routine
maintenance
activities,
winter
maintenance
must
be
included.
L
Winter
maintenance
for
sidewalks
and
bike
lanes,
especially
given
the
increase
in
the
number
of
yearly
freeze
saw.
Cycles
must
be
addressed
as
a
priority
on
page
six
planning
paragraph
two
reiterate
that
automobile
traffic
traffic
travel
delay
will
be
de-prioritized
in
transportation,
decision
making
and
add
language
around
the
importance
of
improving
year-round
travel
time
for
people
walking
biking
and
especially
using.
J
L
Minneapolis
public
works
should
state
that
they
will
not
pursue
projects
that
require
car
centric
designs
in
order
to
secure
funding
if
they
hope
to
achieve
achieve
a
truly
safe
and
equitable
transportation
system
for
walking
rolling,
viking
and
transit
and
finally,
on
page
seven
last
paragraph
public
works
goal
is
to
obtain
more
data
to
identify
and
understand
issues
sentence
about
winter
maintenance
is
unclear.
We
do
not
need
more
winter
maintenance
data
on
how
dangerous
and
impactful
sidewalks
can
be
in
winter.
A
And
if
in
case,
you
missed
the
pmp
meeting
for
anybody
who
might
not
have
been
there,
this
is
some
of
these.
Edits
are
based
on
the
edits
that,
as
julia
mentioned,
like
I
and
and
other
complete
streets
kind
of
group,
you
know
with
the
bicycle
advisory
committee
and
like
move
minneapolis
and
our
streets
kind
of
we
had
edits
on
the
policy.
A
Some
of
those
got
incorporated
into
the
draft
that
then
we
saw
at
the
pedestrian
advisory
committee,
and
then
some
of
these
bullets
are
kind
of
new
based
on
kind
of
the
discussions
we
had
around
the
policy
and
just
the
thoughts
that
we
have
generally
as
the
pedestrian
advisory
committee,
when
I
kind
of
reread
the
policy.
So
if
anybody
has
edits
or
questions
for
sure.
L
I've
got
a
question:
abigail
yeah
does,
do
you
think
complete
streets
would
be
applying
to
like.
We
know
that
people
use
the
car
lanes
as
especially
wheelchair
movement
lanes
in
the
winter
because
of
the
lack
of
sidewalk
maintenance.
Is
that
something
that's
addressed
in
there
or
is
that
something
completely
separate.
A
P
L
M
M
C
L
M
A
L
M
I
I
think,
maybe
just
just
to
further
this
conversation
a
little
bit
the
it
it
could
be
argued
that
it,
the
bac
is
maybe
thinking
like
it
might
be
too
flexible.
So
there's
some
conversation
because,
like
depending
on
your
perspective,
what
flexible,
what
does
flexibility
turn
into
you
know?
Does
it
so
I'll?
Do
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
back
up?
Yes,
it's
flexible
and
whether
that's
a
good
thing
or
not
is
is
probably
a
good
question.
L
M
L
N
Well,
so,
along
those
lines,
this
is
austin
along
those
lines
like
there
was
a
concern
that
projects
get
exceptions,
frequently
get
exceptions
to
these
this
policy
and
that
people
then
don't
prioritize
the
way
the
hierarchy
should
be,
and
so
my
question
throughout
this
whole
process
is
like
well,
where
are
the?
How
do
we
ensure
that
the
the
project's
coming
forward
after
this
policy
goes
into
place,
that
there
is
compliance
with
that
that
people
don't
get
exceptions
or
variances
based
on
certain
circumstances?
N
And
maybe
that's
just
my
limited
knowledge
of
how
this
process
works
since
I'm
so
new?
But
I
think
that's
along
the
lines
of
what
matt
and
julia
were
talking
about
is
making
sure
that
yeah,
the
policy
is
flexible,
that
it
can
meet
different
project
needs,
but
not
too
flexible,
so
that
we
start
deviating
from
the
policy
itself
or
the
spirit
of
the
policy.
A
Right
and
that
kind
of
lends
itself
to
my
first
paragraph
before
the
bullets
just
saying
how,
like
we've,
had
this
policy
forever,
no
one's
ever
asked
for
an
exemption,
but
we
keep
seeing
things
that
are
like
totally
car
centric
and
like
sometimes
there's
not
a
sidewalk
on
one
side
of
the
street
and
like
at
a
bare
minimum.
So
that's
kind
of
I
think
what
I
tried
to
lay
out
in
the
first
paragraph,
and
maybe
it
could
be
clearer.
Maybe
this
was
kind
of
just
really
a
draft.
I
tried
my
best
on
so.
A
L
A
L
A
B
So
so
far,
I've
changed
it
to.
Overall,
the
pac
thinks
that
the
complete
streets
policy
is
fine.
The
problem
lies
and
when,
in
in
when
we
see
designs
that
do
not
prioritize
pedestrians,
let
alone
meet
our
definition
of
meet
our
definition
in
parentheses
or
the
policies
definition
of
a
complete
street.