During the Sedona City Council meeting on Wednesday, Sept. 23, council members and staff brought up the term NIMBY — Not In My Back Yard — several times related to a plan to connect city streets for pedestrian use. As the plan moves forward, NIMBY is a term one expects to hear quite often.

The meeting, which was for discussion and direc­tion only, surrounded the draft GO Sedona Pathways Plan for the Sedona Trails and Pathways System. The goal is to improve the city’s connectivity between neighborhoods and to trailheads for pedestrians and bicyclists.

“The residents want this,” Senior Planner Cynthia Lovely said regarding why city offi­cials are proposing it. “There are a lot of people who want to walk and bike more in town. They want it to be safe. Some people are not doing it because they do not feel safe doing it right now. And, many want to get around without having to use a car.”

The night before the meeting, council approved the $2 million Thunder Mountain/Sanborn Roadway, Shared Use Path and Dr ainage Improvements Project.

City staff created a map of refined, potential pedestrian and bicycle improvements based on feedback from the GO Sedona work group, comprised of Sedona residents from a variety of neighborhoods. They also used Wikimapping, an online, interactive map that allowed everyone to suggest routes and denote problem spots. With this, focus groups got more detailed input on walking and biking issues.

Resident surveys have shown that increasing walkability and bikeability of Sedona tops the list of what residents would like the city to invest in, staff said.

This also reflects the goals of the voter-approved Sedona Community Plan, which included encour­aging active and healthy lifestyles, improving community connections, walkability and better traffic flow.

The city’s Transportation Master Plan also called for walking and biking improvements to help address traffic congestion in Sedona. The GO Sedona Plan will provide the details of what, where and how to make it happen.

The goals of the GO programs to improve connectivity and mobility include:

• Reducing traffic by increasing the number of people walking and biking instead of driving.

• Connecting commu­nity destinations with safe and convenient routes for walking and biking.

• Ensuring residents can walk or ride from their neighborhood to city parks and National Forest system trails.

• Providing an equitable distribution of trailhead parking throughout the city to mitigate trailhead parking impacts at any one location.

• Improving connec­tivity and providing short­cuts for walking and biking, especially in areas lacking street connectivity.

While officials haven’t yet determined what type of pathways could be used for many of the proposals, others are listed as bike­ways, trails or sidewalks.

Of all 90 possible connectors in the GO plan, one pulled prior to the meeting garnered the most discussion. A city report states that the draft GO Plan reviewed by P&Z included a proposed Lynx Drive bike route. It would combine a social trail on the National Forest and a bike route on city streets — Lynx Drive and Antelope Drive in the Chapel area — connecting the Mystic Trail with the Bell Rock Trail system.

P&Z received many written comments and a petition from the neigh­borhood opposing this route, and it was a focus of discussion for P&Z.

As a result of the P&Z discussion and comments from neighbors, staff proposed the specific route on the map be replaced with a strategy to address the issues with input from stakeholders.

A few council members took exception to the item being pulled from the original list considering nothing is set in stone and this plan could take a decade to implement.

“I’m trying to under­stand if this one segment was cherry-picked, despite the efforts of the citizen work group,” Councilman Bill Chisholm said in regard to the item pulled from the list. “It feels like it was cherry-picked, to me.”

Lovely said it was a conscious effort for the Sedona Planning and Zoning Commission and council to focus on the entire plan, instead of using an entire meeting dedicated to one segment, which she said occurred during the August commis­sion meeting.

Councilman Scott Jablow, who lives in the area of the proposed pathway in the Chapel area, said he has talked to dozens of residents in that neighborhood who have expressed concern.

“I would not support that based on the amount of pushback I’ve been getting from the neighbor­hood,” Jablow said. “I’ve literally had close to 100 people knocking on my door and making phone calls in opposition.”

However, Jablow then said that if the city staff is committed to neighbor­hood outreach, specifi­cally dealing with safety, he’d be fine with putting the item back on the list. Other council members agreed and they did put it back on.

During public forum, all but one of the speakers were in favor of the program.

“We’ve all been to cities that are very bikeable and walkable and cities that weren’t,” said Doug Copp, the city’s volunteer bicycle coordinator. “The differ­ence is, some have good plans and some don’t.

“So, realize that this is just a plan. It doesn’t mean every single thing in it is going to get built. It doesn’t mean it’s going to be built exactly the way it’s laid out in the plan. Things will evolve as the plan is implemented. But if you don’t have a plan, there are going to be missed opportunities.”