HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-22-2024 - Special Study Session Agenda PacketSPECIAL STUDY SESSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge CO January 22, 2024
This meeting will be conducted as a virtual meeting, and in person, at 7500 West 29th
Avenue, Municipal Building immediately following the regularly scheduled City Council Meeting.
City Council members and City staff members will be physically present at the Municipal building for this meeting. The public may participate in these ways:
1. Attend the meeting in person at City Hall. Use the appropriate roster to sign up to speak
upon arrival. 2. Provide comment in advance at www.wheatridgespeaks.org (comment by noon on January 22, 2024)
3. Virtually attend and participate in the meeting through a device or phone:
• Click here to pre-register and provide public comment by Zoom (You must preregister before 6:00 p.m. on January 22, 2024)
4. View the meeting live or later at www.wheatridgespeaks.org, Channel 8, or YouTube Live at https://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/view
Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by
the City of Wheat Ridge. Contact the Public Information Officer at 303-235-2877 or
wrpio@ci.wheatridge.co.us with as much notice as possible if you are interested in participating in a meeting and need inclusion assistance.
Public Comment on Agenda Items
1. 38th West Street Improvement Project, Youngfield Street to Kipling Street
2. Review of Council Rules of Order and Procedure
3. Staff Report(s)
4. Elected Officials’ Report(s)
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager
Maria D’Andrea, Director of Public Works Chad Phillips, CIP Program Manager
FROM: Mark Westberg, Infrastructure Project Manager
DATE: January 22, 2024
SUBJECT: 38th West Street Improvement Project, Youngfield Street to Kipling Street
_____________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE: In March 2023, the city began a planning study of the 38th Avenue corridor between Youngfield Street and Kipling Street with the goals of improving the roadway to accommodate pedestrians
and bicyclists while still accommodating vehicular traffic as well as providing improved
stormwater drainage. The study will combine public input with technical analysis to develop a recommended alternative for the corridor. The final deliverables will be conceptual plans and a preliminary cost estimate.
Staff will provide the City Council with an update on the study. This memo summarizes the public
outreach associated with Public Meeting #2 in October 2023. Staff is also seeking direction on a preferred direction in order to begin conceptual plan preparation. PRIOR ACTION:
Staff presented the results of the first round of public outreach, which was completed in June 2023,
to the City Council on August 28, 2023. The presentation at that meeting included an overview of the existing conditions along the corridor, study goals, results of the initial traffic analysis, and public input received. A copy of this council memo is attached to this report as Attachment 1.
BACKGROUND:
The intent of this planning study is to develop conceptual plans for the addition of bicycle and pedestrian facilities along 38th Avenue from Youngfield Street to Kipling Street. To accomplish this, the city hired Ayres, an engineering and planning firm, to provide analysis and design and vet various alternatives with the public. The resulting effort will provide conceptual plans and a
preliminary cost estimate for the project. Conceptual plans are defined as approximately 30%
complete. Therefore, future effort will be required to complete the plans if the project proceeds. Based on the traffic analysis, two travel lanes (one in each direction) are adequate for both current and future traffic volumes. This analysis considered changes in uses such as the redevelopment of the Lutheran Campus site. The existing, additional travel and turn lanes that are already present at
the intersections of 38th Avenue with Youngfield and Kipling Streets will still be required in the
2
future. Select locations with higher volumes of turning vehicles will be evaluated for the addition of either dedicated left turn lanes or roundabouts.
Alternatives Analysis The top three priorities for the corridor, identified by the public during the first round of public outreach, were:
• Enhance pedestrian safety
• Provide comfortable bicycle facilities
• Resolve drainage problems
Based on this feedback as well as the results of the traffic analysis, the Ayres team prepared three
conceptual alternatives: 1. Shared use path on the north side and sidewalk on the south side 2. Shared use path on the south side and sidewalk on the north side 3. Sidewalks on both sides and on-street bike lanes
A shared use path is defined as a facility wide enough to accommodate both pedestrians and
bicyclists. A sidewalk is intended exclusively for pedestrian use. These alternatives were presented to the public during the second round of public engagement in October 2023 to gather public preferences on the different concepts. Several in-person
opportunities were used to obtain public input:
• October 5, 2023: Focus meetings for property owners along the corridor
• October 12, 2023: Pop-Up event at Louise Turner Park
• October 25, 2023: Open House
In addition, an online option for engagement was available on the What’s Up Wheat Ridge site, throughout the month of October 2023. There were 333 visitors to the site and 184 responses received via the online survey.
The key takeaways and common themes from the second round of public outreach include:
• Separate travel modes by speed, i.e. separate bikes and scooters from pedestrians
• Provide connections to regional destinations such as the Recreation Center
• Preserve the existing character and feel of the street
• Preserve trees
• Improve roadside drainage
• Provide traffic calming to slow speeds and enhance safety
• Underground overhead utility lines
Generally, Alternatives #1 and #3 were the most preferred by all participants. Based on the
screening matrix prepared for the public meetings, Alternative 3 scored the highest.
Staff Analysis and Review: Staff has reviewed the feedback to date and met internally to discuss the alternatives. Staff is proposing that the city provide direction to Ayres to develop conceptual plans based on Alternative
#3 (sidewalks with on-street bike lanes), but that the alternative be further refined to account for
preservation, to the degree possible, of the rural character and context of the corridor. In other
3
words, the design should not be a one-size fits all approach but, instead, the design should strive to:
• Preserve and re-use as much of the existing infrastructure as possible,
• Design around existing trees,
• Limit rights-of-way use and avoid the need to acquire additional right-of-way,
• Limit additional lighting to key areas – not the entire corridor,
• Limit street furniture, irrigated vegetation, and other amenities to reduce both construction costs and future maintenance costs; and
• Implement other measures to make crossing the roadway and traveling along it safe and
pleasant.
Alternative #3, as modified, allows the best option to achieve these outcomes by installing dedicated bike lanes on the street, and closing any gaps between existing sidewalk segments. This will provide for separated facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. This approach would meet the
intent of Alternative #3, while reducing costs, impacts, and time by maximizing the use of existing
sidewalk and landscaped areas. NEXT STEPS: Based upon direction from the City Council, the next steps will complete the traffic analysis by
finalizing the locations that might need either left turn lanes or roundabouts and prepare the
conceptual plans and a preliminary cost estimate. This information will be presented in the third round of public outreach which will be held in mid-summer 2024. An online option to view the information will be available on What’s Up Wheat Ridge as well as several in-person opportunities.
The results of the final round of public outreach along with the conceptual plans and preliminary cost estimate will be presented to the City Council in early-fall 2024. Staff anticipates having Council adopt the study as the official plan for 38th West. This would require that any future adjacent developments implement the proposed improvements along their portion of 38th West.
Plan adoption will also assist in obtaining potential grants for the project.
FISCAL IMPACT: A conceptual cost estimate of $2.4M for design and $24M for construction was developed as a part of the preliminary 2J analysis efforts. This estimate was based on a series of assumptions
about the elements of the project (at a very basic level) and will need significant further refinement, based on the conceptual design. Funding is not currently budgeted for any effort beyond this planning study. REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff is asking for the City Council to provide consensus on the recommended approach.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. August 18, 2023 Council Memo 2. Second Round of Public Engagement Report
1
Public Engagement #2 Summary
October 2023
Several engagement opportunities were provided throughout the month of October to review
and offer feedback on the 38th Avenue West End Improvement project. The project team
developed three alternative roadway designs based on community feedback received in June
2023 (public engagement #1).
The three alternatives under consideration are:
• Alternative 1: Shared-Use Path North Side and Sidewalk South Side
• Alternative 2: Shared-Use Path South Side and Sidewalk North Side
• Alternative 3: Bike Lanes and Sidewalks Both Sides
In fall 2023, community members were invited to review the alternatives, share thoughts, and
ask questions (public engagement #2). Community input will inform decisions and establish the
future of traveling along this corridor.
The following outreach opportunities were available:
Block-by-block Meetings: On Oct. 5, a series
of meetings (referred to as block-by-block)
were offered for people who live and own
property directly on 38th Avenue between
Youngfield Street and Kipling Street. The
project team met with property owners,
residents, and business owners who would
experience the most direct impacts of a
redesign of 38th Avenue. Around 30
participants came to one of the three block-by-
block meetings. Several opportunities to leave
feedback were provided including writing
notes, drawing on maps, and filling out a
comment form.
Pop-Up Event: A pop-up event was held on Oct. 12 at Louise Turner Park. Project team
members shared information (and candy) with those that braved the cool and windy weather.
Two adults and two children attended the event.
Public Meeting # 2: The project’s second public meeting was held on Oct. 25. The public
meeting was for anyone who wanted to offer feedback on the corridor design alternatives,
including local business owners, residents, and people who travel on the corridor. More than 35
community members participated in-person for public meeting #2.
The project team met with people who live and own
property directly on 38th Avenue at the block-by-block
meetings.
2
The in-person experience included a brief staff
presentation followed by an open-house event.
Information boards and roll plans were
available for community members to learn
about the project and talk in small groups or
1:1 with any of the six project team members
in attendance. Several feedback opportunities
were provided including writing notes, drawing
on maps, filling out a comment form, and
expressing alternative preference with stickers.
The dimensions of a 6-foot sidewalk and 10-
foot shared-use path were marked on the
ground as reference.
A copy of the in-person content is attached in
Appendix A: In-Person Content and Results.
Online Activities: Online activities were available from Sept. 29 to Oct. 31 on the City’s What’s
Up Wheat Ridge (WUWR) website at https://whatsupwheatridge.com/38th. Online activities
provided an opportunity for those community members who were unable to attend in-person
events to review the same information and provide feedback.
The Alternatives Survey asked participants to weigh in on the three potential roadway design
alternatives under consideration. The unscientific survey tool presents detailed information on
each of the alternatives before asking participants to rank the alternatives according to
preference. Information boards and roll plans from the in-person open house were available for
review on WUWR during the online activity period. The project page logged 333 visitors and 184
survey respondents during the 33-day reporting period.
A copy of the online content is attached in Appendix B: Online Content and Results.
A brief staff presentation was followed by an open
house event on Oct. 25, 2023.
3
Key Takeaways from Public Engagement #2
• Over 200 people participated in one of the outreach opportunities.
• Online engagement outpaced in-person events by at least 2:1. Some in-person
participants may have also taken the online survey.
• 184 online participants took the unscientific1 survey. For comparison, 74 took the
survey during round 1 engagement.
• 26 in-person attendees participated in the alternative preference exercise.
• Alternative 1 and 3 are tied for 1st/2nd when the preference question was asked
(online). Similar results were recorded at public meeting #2. Alternative preference
numbers reported reflect only those that chose to participate. Unknown opinions and
preferences cannot be captured with the tools presented.
• Of the 12 comment forms received at the block-by-block meetings, 10 (83%) expressed
project support with greatest preference for Alternative 1 followed by Alternative
3.
• Emergency response agency prefers wider pavement section of Alternative 3, which
offers more room to maneuver and closer hydrant connections.
• Common themes heard during this round of outreach included:
o Snow removal – Are property owners responsible for snow removal on the
shared-use path and sidewalk? Shade on the south side of the street will be
worse for snow removal and icing on the share-use path or sidewalk.
o Separate travel modes by speed – There is a concern over high-speed bikes,
e-bikes and scooters using the same space as pedestrians and low-speed users
and dog walkers in a shared-use path alternative.
o Connections to regional destinations – North side path or sidewalk offers a
more direct connection to the Clear Creek Trail and the regional assets like the
Recreation Center.
o Loss of parking – Several adjacent property owners are concerned over the
possible loss of parking and driveway narrowing.
o Vehicles using bike lanes – Several commented on vehicles possibility
encroaching into bike lanes to avoid waiting behind left turn traffic or while
making right turns.
o Preserve trees – Avoid tree removal as much as possible with any alternative.
o Underground overhead lines – Existing utility poles are an obstruction to
walking and are unsightly. There is broad community support for undergrounding
utilities.
1 Unscientific surveys are based on people’s opinions, while scientific surveys are based on proven methods of
sampling, data collection, and analysis.
4
o Roadside drainage – There is broad support for drainage improvements. Ditch
flows and localized ponding will be addressed with a new storm sewer system.
o Bus stops – Provide adequate space and surfaces for buses to pull over. Can
some of the bus stops be consolidated given improved pedestrian connectivity?
o Traffic calming – Explore other ways to slow traffic speeds and enhance safety
along the corridor. Will the wider pavement section of Alternative 3 result in
higher speeds than Alternatives 1 and 2?
o Backing vehicles – Concern expressed over vehicles backing out onto 38th
Avenue. What are the potential solutions or improvements for this?
o Neighborhood/Street Character – Some meeting participants expressed a
desire to preserve the character and feel of the existing street as much as
possible as the project progresses.
o Street Lighting – Providing additional street lighting to improve safety was a
common request. However, lighting should be balanced and scaled appropriately
to not impact adjacent residential properties.
5
Appendix A: In-person Content and Results
In-Person Alternative Preference Activity Results
Which Alternative do you Prefer? Total participants
Number
of 1's (top
rank)
Number of 2's
Number
of 3's (least
favorite)
1's and
2's
combo
Weighted score
Alternative 1: Shared-Use
Path North Side + Sidewalk
South Side
24 11 7 6 18 1.8
Alternative 2: Shared-Use
Path South Side + Sidewalk
North Side
25 3 14 8 17 2.2
Alternative 3: Bike Lanes
and Sidewalks on Both
Sides
26 12 4 10 16 1.9
In-Person Photos
6
7
In-person Exhibits
• Study Area and Key Takeaways
• What Did We Hear? Summary of Public Outreach #1
• Alternative #1 Description, Trade-offs and Unique Attributes
• Alternative #2 Description, Trade-offs and Unique Attributes
• Alternative #3 Description, Trade-offs and Unique Attributes
• Screening Matrix – Alternative Comparison
• Which Alternative Do You Prefer? – Alternative Preference Exercise
• Multimodal Street Design: Bicycle Facilities
• Multimodal Street Design: Pedestrian & Transit Facilities
• Multimodal Street Design: Other Amenities
• Next Steps: Schedule & Contact Information
• Table-top roll plots of each of the three alternatives
KEY TAKEAWAYS
•We heard you! Comments from past studies and the first round of engagement efforts for this project will
be incorporated into the design for 1.75 miles of W 38th Avenue between Youngfield and Kipling streets.
•Enhancing pedestrian safety and providing comfortable bicycle facilities along W 38th Avenue were the
most frequent comments received.
•Eight alternatives were considered by the project team, and the most promising three are presented for
community feedback. The dismissed alternatives either were not practical or did not adequately address
project goals.
•All three alternatives will meet future vehicle travel demand needs, including current development
proposals. Traffic information from the Clear Creek Crossing development with relocated hospital,
nearby commercial developments including Chick-fil-A, and the Lutheran Master Plan with the future
redevelopment have been incorporated into the analysis.
•The width of the right-of-way (ROW) along the corridor generally ranges from 50 to 60 feet. The
alternatives fit within the city’s existing ROW for most of the corridor. However, acquisition may be
necessary in limited narrow areas.
•The community is asked to share their preference for the presented alternatives. Feedback gathered from
the current round of outreach will be used to inform the selection of a preferred alternative.
•Many design refinements will be made once a preferred alternative is selected. Improved crossings and
trail connections are both under consideration.
STUDY AREA
AND KEY TAKEAWAYS
7 Improve the flow of vehicular traffic along W 38th Avenue.
Enhance pedestrian safety along W 38th Avenue.
Provide comfortable bicycle
facilities along W 38th Avenue.
Resolve drainage problems along W 38th Avenue.
Provide landscaping along W 38th Avenue.
Make turning on to and off of W 38th Avenue easier.
Add additional amenities at bus stops
such as benches, shelters, and trash cans.
Include community amenities along W 38th Avenue
such as benches, street/pedestrian lights, and public art.6
1
8
2
3
5
9
4 Underground the overhead
utilities and remove the utility poles.
RANK YOUR PROJECT
GOALS: SUMMARY
During our first round of public feedback in June, participants shared their
visions for the corridor. Part of the online survey and in-person open house included ranking the project goals. Below you'll find the summary of how the
goals ranked with #1 being the highest. You can explore the detailed feedback
from our first round of engagement at whatsupwheatridge.com/38th.
The most frequent feedback from the public was related to better pedestrian safety and infrastructure, comprising 47%
of the comments. When bicycle and transit comments are added, 58% of the feedback was related to improving multimodal connectivity and safety. Resolving drainage and removing the utility poles were also popular project goals.
We will use this input to prioritize safety and multimodal mobility in the potential design alternatives for the corridor.
PUBLIC OUTREACH #1
June 7, 2023 | 4:30 - 6:30 p.m.
Wheat Ridge Recreation Center
+ online activities available at whatsupwheatridge.com/38th
Existing Conditions Exhibit Boards13
3 Interactive Public Feedback Stations
60+Local Residents in Attendance
640+What’s Up Wheat Ridge Visitors
75 Online Survey Respondents
WHAT DID
WE HEAR?
On-Street Bike Lane - Striped and Signed
Off-Street
Shared-Use Path
Protected Bike Lane -Striped with Vertical Buffer
Various Modes Can
Use Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle
Intersection Crossing
Buffered Bike Lane -Striped with Horizontal Buffer
Check out some of the potential bicycle facilities we could incorporate in the design of W 38th Avenue.
MULTIMODAL STREET
DESIGN: BICYCLE FACILITIES
5 Foot Sidewalk - Buffered from Street by Landscaping Improved Pedestrian Crossing - Pedestrian Activated Flashing Beacon
ADA Ramps with
Truncated Domes
Complete Amenity Transit Stop -
Bench, Trash Can, Shelter
Improved Pedestrian Crossing - Median Refuge and Pedestrian Activated Flashing Beacon
Traffic Calming Strategies -
Sidewalk Bump Out with Crosswalk
Check out some of the potential pedestrian and transit facilities we could incorporate in the design of W 38th Avenue.
MULTIMODAL STREET
DESIGN: PED & TRANSIT FACILITIES
Trees and Landscaping - Low Maintenance CommunityArtworkStreetLighting
Trees and Landscaping - Native Plants Pavement Artat IntersectionsPedestrian-ScaleLighting
Check out some of the potential additional amenities we could incorporate in the design of W 38th Avenue.
MULTIMODAL STREET
DESIGN: OTHER AMENITIES
DESCRIPTION
•Continuous 6’-7.5’ sidewalks on the south side
•New 10’-12’ shared-use path on the north side for people walking, biking, and rolling
TRADEOFFS AND UNIQUE ATTRIBUTES OF ALTERNATIVE 1
•People biking are better separated from vehicle traffic (compared to an on-street bike lane)
•Shared-use path mixes users and speeds such as people walking their dog sharing space with those
commuting by bike
•People biking will only have a facility on one side of the street
•May impact parking more than the other alternatives
•Requires removal of existing sidewalk for shared-use path construction
SHARED ATTRIBUTES WITH OTHER ALTERNATIVES
•Maintains one travel lane in each direction with some left turn lanes
•Provides dedicated space to walk and bike for the whole length of the project
•Improves crossings with markings, lights, and shorter distances between them
•Slows traffic by narrowing travel lanes and formalizing the edge of the roadway
and removing some turn lanes
•New curb and gutter, inlets and storm sewer connections will improve drainage
•Minimal or no right-of-way impact
•Maintain or improve three existing crosswalks at Routt, Parfet and Moore/trail
•Three new crosswalks:
◦ Quail (marked crosswalk and pedestrian crossing warning signs)
◦ Lee (marked crosswalk and pedestrian-activated flashing light)
◦ Union (marked crosswalk and pedestrian-activated flashing light)
N
Shared-Use Path North Side + Sidewalk South Side
ALTERNATIVE #1
DESCRIPTION
•Continuous 6’-6.5’ sidewalks on the north side
•New 10’-12’ shared-use path on the south side for people walking, biking, and rolling
TRADEOFFS AND UNIQUE ATTRIBUTES OF ALTERNATIVE 2
•People biking are better separated from vehicle traffic (compared to an on-street bike lane)
•Shared-use path mixes users and speeds such as people walking their dog sharing space with those
commuting by bike
•People biking will only have a facility on one side of the street
•May disturb existing landscaping (including trees) more than other alternatives
•Requires removal of existing sidewalk for shared-use path construction
SHARED ATTRIBUTES WITH OTHER ALTERNATIVES
•Maintains one travel lane in each direction with some left turn lanes
•Provides dedicated space to walk and bike for the whole length of the project
•Improves crossings with markings, lights, and shorter distances between them
•Slows traffic by narrowing travel lanes and formalizing the edge of the roadway
and removing some turn lanes
•New curb and gutter, inlets and storm sewer connections will improve drainage
•Minimal or no right-of-way impact
•Maintains or improves three existing crosswalks at Routt, Parfet and Moore/trail
•Includes adding three new crosswalks:
◦ Quail (marked crosswalk and pedestrian crossing warning signs)
◦ Lee (marked crosswalk and pedestrian-activated flashing light)
◦ Union (marked crosswalk and pedestrian-activated flashing light)
N
Shared-Use Path South Side + Sidewalk North Side
ALTERNATIVE #2
DESCRIPTION
•Continuous 6’-7’ sidewalks on the north side
•Continuous 6’-7.5’ sidewalks on the south side
•Continuous 6’ bike lanes on the street between the curb and vehicles; separated from vehicles by a
painted buffer wherever possible
TRADEOFFS AND UNIQUE ATTRIBUTES OF ALTERNATIVE 3
•People biking will have a facility on both sides of the street
•Cyclists and pedestrians will each have their own space (compared to a shared-use path)
•Cyclists aren't separated as much from vehicle traffic (compared to an off-street shared-use path)
•The on-street bike lane may only feel comfortable to more experienced or confident cyclists
•Less space for landscaping between curb and sidewalks due to wider roadway and incorporation of
bike lanes
SHARED ATTRIBUTES WITH OTHER ALTERNATIVES
•Maintains one travel lane in each direction with some left turn lanes
•Provides dedicated space to walk and bike for the whole length of the project
•Improves crossings with markings, lights, and shorter distances between them
•Slows traffic by narrowing travel lanes and formalizing the edge of the roadway
and removing some turn lanes
•New curb and gutter, inlets and storm sewer connections will improve drainage
•Minimal or no right-of-way impact
•Maintain or improve three existing crosswalks at Routt, Parfet and Moore/trail
•Three new crosswalks:
◦ Quail (marked crosswalk and pedestrian crossing warning signs)
◦ Lee (marked crosswalk and pedestrian-activated flashing light)
◦ Union (marked crosswalk and pedestrian-activated flashing light)
N
Bike Lanes and Sidewalks on Both Sides
ALTERNATIVE #3
Alternative
# Name
1 Shared-Use Path North
Side + Sidewalk South Side
2 Shared-Use Path South Side + Sidewalk North Side
3 One-Way Bike Lanes + Sidewalks on Both Sides
5
4
3
2
1
Evaluation Categories
Overall
Construction
Cost
Curb Relocation
32
32
43
Minimal cost No curb relocation
Low cost Spot curb relocation < 15%
Medium cost Limited curb relocation < 30%
High cost Medium curb relocation < 60%
Very high cost Significant curb relocation > 60%
Landscaping/Amenity Zone/Aesthetics Traffic Safety
53
53
44
Significant increase in buffer/ streetscape (3x or greater)
Significant reduction in conflict points
Medium increase
in buffer/ streetscape (1.5x or greater)
Reduction in conflict points
Limited increase in buffer/ streetscape (in
select locations)
No change in conflict points
No increase in buffer /streetscape
Slight increase in conflict points
Decrease in buffer / streetscape Increase in conflict points
Traffic Calming
and Speed
Management
Bicycle
Accommodation
35
35
44
Significant calming/ speed reduction (median, traffic circles, speed humps, bump outs, on-street parking, decreased access)
Bicycle facility with vertical separation (i.e. physically protected bike lane or Shared-Use Path)Medium calming/ speed reduction (narrowed lanes, reduced lanes, increased landscaping, add curbs, add painted buffer to bike lane)
Bicycle facility with
horizontal separation (i.e. painted buffer)
Minor calming/ speed reduction (narrowed lanes, reduced lanes, increased landscaping, add curbs)
Conventional
bicycle facility (no buffer)
Neutral calming/ speed reduction
(no lane narrowing)
Shared vehicle lane/ bicycle facility
Speed increase (wider lanes, added lanes)
Shared vehicle lane bicycle facility
Pedestrian
Accommodation
Right-of-Way
(ROW)/Utility
Impacts
43
42
53
High quality pedestrian facility buffered by amenity zone or bike lane
No ROW/ Utility Impacts
High quality pedestrian facility for safety and
comfort (i.e. wide sidewalk)
Spot ROW/ Utility Impacts
Medium quality sidewalk buffered by amenity zone
or bike lane
Limited ROW/ Utility impacts
Medium quality shared pedestrian facility (i.e. path shared with bicyclists)
Medium ROW/ Utility impacts
Continuous pedestrian facility (but no buffer)
Significant ROW/ Utility Impacts
Traffic
Operations
and Capacity
Existing
Landscaping
Impacts
33
33
34
Significantly Improves Level of Service
Restoration and enhancement
Improves Level of Service Some restoration and enhancement
No/Little Change to Level of Service No restoration or removal
Degrades Level of Service Some removal
Degrades Level of Service to Failing Significant removal
Total Score
(Max 50)
34
33
38
SCREENING MATRIX Alternative 1: Shared-Use Path North Side + Sidewalk South Side
Alternative 2: Shared-Use Path South Side + Sidewalk North Side
Alternative 3: Bike Lanes and Sidewalks on Both Sides
N
N
N
Place each of your three numbered stickers in one of the
alternatives boxes to indicate your preference. A ranking of '1' is the highest preference that can be given. Please
place only one sticker in each box. This information will
be used to inform alternative selection. This is not the only factor that will be used to determine next steps.
WHICH ALTERNATIVE
DO YOU PREFER?
APRIL 2023:
Project Kickoff
JUNE 2023:
•Stakeholder Field Walk
•Public Outreach #1 to review existing conditions, explore
potential design solutions, and
understand public vision and goals
FALL 2023:
•Property Owner Meetings #1
•Public Outreach #2 to review 3 design
alternatives and analysis of each
SPRING 2024:
•Property Owner Meetings #2
•Public Outreach #3 to review the preferred alternative and
demonstrate how public input
shaped the final design
•Final Plan
PROJECT SCHEDULE
PROJECT CONTACTS
Mark Westberg
Project Manager
mwestberg@ci.wheatridge.co.us
Nathan Silberhorn
Consultant Project Manager
SilberhornN@ayresassociates.com
Kate Binning
Public Engagement Consultant
kate@MergeResourceGroup.com
WE ARE
HERE!
NEXT STEPS
Appendix B: Online Content and Results
Online Preference Activity Results
184 participants took the Alternative Survey. Alternative 1 and 3 are tied for 1st/2nd when the
preference question was asked. The full survey summary report starts on the next page.
Alternative 1 yields the highest support percentage with the least opposition when comparing
the mandatory Alternative specific questions.
Total
responses
Support,
strongly
support
% Support,
strongly
support Neutral
%
Neutral
Oppose,
strongly
oppose
% oppose,
strongly
oppose
Alt 1 184 110 59.8% 25 13.6% 44 23.9%
Alt 2 184 80 43.5% 36 19.6% 65 35.3%
Alt 3 184 103 56.0% 22 12.0% 58 31.5%
Alternatives Survey
SURVEY RESPONSE REPORT
29 September 2023 - 31 October 2023
PROJECT NAME:
38th Avenue West End Improvements
SURVEY QUESTIONS
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 1 of 49
Q1 This project seeks to improve the transportation system for all travel modes. How you
travel 38th Avenue today might not ma...
Q2 What's your opinion of Alternative 1: Shared Use Path North Side + Sidewalk South Side?
I would travel by motorized vehicle.I would travel by bike.I would travel by foot.I would travel by bus.
I would travel by wheelchair or other mobility aid.I would travel by another mode of transportation.
Question options
50
100
150
200
152
115 113
32
4 4
41 (22.3%)
41 (22.3%)
69 (37.5%)
69 (37.5%)25 (13.6%)
25 (13.6%)
30 (16.3%)
30 (16.3%)
14 (7.6%)
14 (7.6%)5 (2.7%)
5 (2.7%)
I strongly support this option.I support this option.I am neutral I oppose this option.
I strongly oppose this option.I don't know.
Question options
Optional question (184 response(s), 0 skipped)
Question type: Checkbox Question
Mandatory Question (184 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 2 of 49
I avoid riding my bicycle o 38th near Miller on the south side of the
street because there is minimal room between traffic and the edge of
the street.
I don't feel that it has to take up that much space on both sides of the
street. Slowing down 38th will be a problem to the majority users
which are motorized vehicles. It's our only way in and out of our
property so if we start causing backups because of a lack of turn
lanes I have no alternative route. Also I bought my property with
multiple nose in parking spaces that I cannot loose because the few
people walking don't want to cross to the other side. I moved here in
2001 from the Observatory park neighborhood. Way more people
walked that neighborhood than I observe here and it didn't have
sidewalks on both sides of all the streets.
We need three lanes for traffic along 38th, full lanes and no
narrowing.!
Most folks walk on north side to get to school at Everett and to gas
station. It would be great to have a multi-use path on the north side
because then bikes could easily join the path to clear creek. Also I
think this being on the north side would be great for snow melt. There
are some pretty large trees on the south side of street and this would
make sure the ice and snow melted quickly for use.
the bike trail to the creek is on north side so riders would not have to
do the current multiple crossings to get to it, school kids from jr high
school on kipling would be safer and the snowmelt/ice/streetcleaning
would be so much more improved
The north side amenity provides a better opportunity to connect to
whatever happens at Kullerstrand, Clear Creek Trail (via Miller of
potentially future improvements on Kipling) and the Rec Center
Dangerous to have people walking dogs where bikes go
Q3 What feedback do you have regarding Alternative 1? If you don’t support these
improvements, we want to hear about that too. Please provide your thoughts below.
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 3 of 49
Would appreciate sidewalk on south side from miller to Kipling to
access those businesses with more ease on foot.
I am even less picky. We just need *A* sidewalk for the whole length.
I don't even care if it is on the other side of the street or not.
It would be nice to have some separation between the sidewalk and
the street
I don't love mixing bikes and pedestrians. For bikers, it will deter them
from using the route, which is counter to the goal. For those who
aren't deterred from using the shared path it will create unsafe
conditions where bikers are speeding past pedestrians.
We need to remove bikes from pedestrian areas...I get that people
want to bike to work...but they ate traveling at too high speeds and
FAIL to yeild to pedestrians
Not crazy about bicycles sharing paths with pedestrians, dogs and
rollers.
Yes we need protected bike lane.
North side is in the shade in summer which is good.
A bike lane should be added. There are a lot of people who (would)
bike on 38th, and it's not ideal or safe for pedestrians and cyclists to
share the same space.
Having a separated bike path is a nice option for kids and kids in bike
trailers. Being in a bike lane next to the lane of traffic with kids in a
trailer is not always comfortable thing to do.
Based on the artist rendering, the street looks WAY TOO NARROW,
and bikes and scooters belong on the road, not a mixed-use sidewalk.
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 4 of 49
The separation the dedicated mixed-use space on the north-side
provides is essentially to keeping non-automobile traffic away from
those using slower means of transportation. Everitt Middle Schoolers,
in particular, use all modes of transportation (bike, scooter,
skateboard, walk, run, etc.) to get to school. They are in frequent,
dangerous proximity to traffic under current conditions. The potential
danger to a pedestrian by sharing space with cyclists on the mixed
use path is trivial compared to the danger to cyclists (and liability to
drivers) when particularly young and non-experienced cyclists share
a non-separated proximity with automobiles.
Any shared use path should have sharrows/lines that separate bikes
from walkers since walkers often have dogs and/or wander all over
the path without regard for approaching bikes. Especially if the south
side is walker only, this wouldn't really affect the "walkability" of the
area.
South Side shared path is better because it makes for better access
to Prospect Valley Elementary, which is on the south side of 38th.
What will be done with the old Kullerstrand School? Will
neighborhood need to access that area like it does now? If so, the
north side for bike and walking would be okay. If not, it seems that
most people walking and riding are headed to stores on south side of
38th and Youngfeld. If that is true, it would make more sense to put
riding and walking on south side of street, reducing the need to cross
the busy street. Also, although I could not read the fine print of either
drawing it seems that the pedestrian and bike lanes are too close to
traffic.
seems less than ideal to no allow for walking on both sides of 38th
I like moving bikes onto sidewalks, but fear cyclists will ride in the
street anyway. Some cyclists like to travel 30 mph, which is
dangerous for pedestrians and rollers.
The walking and biking spaces are wonderful in this option although
separating bikes and pedestrians would be even better - with a
painted line on the sidewalks or other designation such as cement vs.
cobblestone. However the tight area for cars is too tight. There is no
shoulder at all in this option and I feel even with the garden areas it is
dangerous to pedestrians and bikers. Also, no place for cars to be
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 5 of 49
when there is an accident and they need to pull over - or with car
breakdowns. I can see this option being seriously a bottleneck that
could block traffic with any unexpected situation.
Mixing high-speed bicycles with low-speed walkers is not a good
idea. Experience the Greenbelt.
It looks nice, but I don't like walkers & bikers on the same path.
Bikers tend to be rather careless when walkers are around.
I strongly believe we need to have a separate bike lane from cars
and foot traffic. It is not convenient to bike with pedestrian traffic as
many aren't aware of bikes, and alternatively some bike riders aren't
as aware of peds. Also, only having biking on one side makes it not
as efficient or easy to use to get on and off the path to your
destination.
There needs to be a buffer between pedestrians, bikers and the traffic
lanes. Less chance of hitting pedestrians.
Really like the shared use path
Looks gorgeous, inviting and fun!
Bikes and walkers do not mix well,
This would be a significant safety improvement over current state.
I have concerns with a 10’ shared use path for pedestrians and
bicycles going both directions. This doesn’t seem like sufficient space
to accommodate all of them adequately. Between Alt 1 and 2, this is
preferred as I would prefer to see on street parking removed over
landscaping.
I ride a bike and think a bike lane is a better option then a shared
sidewalk.
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 6 of 49
It would be a huge improvement to what exists today. The bike lane
would need to be labeled as bikes only.
Road looks way narrow
Difficult to get people to use each side of the street devoted to
different modes of travel, ie bicycles on both sides
I would prefer bike lanes and sidewalks
I love the look of Alternative 1. 38th is so unsafe to walk or bike on
right now.
There are only two major east west streets in WR, 38th and 44th.
Those streets should favor automobile traffic as major E/W
thoroughfares connecting the community to the new project west of I-
70 between 32nd and Clear Creek. All other transportation
considerations, I believe should be secondary, but where they exist
pedestrian and bicycle should be separate.
As has been proven in places such as the Netherlands, The safest
and most effective way for pedestrians and cyclist to travel is by
creating infrastructure for them that is separate from cars and each
other. The best examples we have in this area are things like the
cherry creek trail and the separate bike lanes with dividers that have
been built on 23 Ave. west of the freeway.
I worry about pedestrian safety with this option
People will use both paths regardless of their mode of transportation
so make both sides multi-modal, multi-user. While landscaped buffers
seem nice and look nice on paper, in reality they quickly deteriorate
into weeds and dead plants. People walk and ride over them and they
become an eyesore. The city does not have the staff and funds to
maintain these buffers. It is best just to cover the entire area with
imperious surface. Those imperious surfaces could be attractive with
colored or stamped concrete if you want some visual interest. Raised
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 7 of 49
planters would be a better option for landscaped buffers, but raised
planters are probably expensive to install and there is still the issue of
city maintenance and irrigation of plants. And please no grass or
irrigation anywhere along these paths. Irrigation is expensive and
again the city doesn't have staff and funding to maintain turf areas
and irrigation along the roads and medians, etc. I do like a separate
raised biking path separate from cars. I will not ride a bike in a bike
lane that is not separated from cars - just too dangerous.
Something I would be interested in seeing in this plan is proper
measurement and planning to ensure that the walkway is wide
enough to allow disabled persons enough room to comfortably roll
down the mixed use walkway without bikes or people being too close
for safe movement.
The shared use path would be dangerous either traffic cutting in and
out as cars turn down streets
I support shared use path on either side but think it may be more
convenient on the South side.
Need to see other 2 before answering
I like this option, separating the bike path so just pedestrian traffic on
the south and the bike traffic on the north is great.
It looks like this is included on the concept, but a separation between
the multi-use trail path and the street (with landscaping typically) can
make a big difference in users feeling safe using the path. If users
don't feel safe using it, or it is a negative experience, less people will
end up using it. An example of a path being against the street is
along Kipling south of the Clear Creek bridge. It feels like you're
riding right up against traffic as there is no separation.
I predict more use on south side due to the access to businesses and
schools. Because of this reason I would like to see a barrier between
traffic and sidewalk.
Leave configuration as it exists!
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 8 of 49
I worry about the higher volume of people crossing 38th from the
south to get to the shared use path
Mixing bikes and pedestrians is dangerous for both modes especially
with the rise of e-bikes.
Concerned about 2 things: Two way bicycle traffic on one side of the
street (along with pedestrians), and primary use of the corridor is to
move traffic in an east/west direction - narrowing of lanes will
ultimately increase accidents.
I think there should be a separate designated bicycle/run/faster lane
and a designated slower walking lane.
prefer bike path on both sides.
Will cyclists try to use same lane for both directions of travel? If not
how will they be be directed to travel on 38th?i 32nd has cycling
lanes for both directions…do we need bike lanes on 38th?
I would like to see 38th Ave be developed into an real avenue with
sidewalks on both sides and with lovely shade trees planted all the
way.
While I fully support sidewalks, I do not support mixed paths with
bikers and walkers on the same paths. At clear creek there have
been many close calls with bikers going way to fast and being rude to
walkers, nearly hitting my family multiple times. Would not invite this
on a busy street.
Once again we penalize the driver by making the roadway narrower
and slower. 38th is one of the main alternatives used when there is an
accident or backup on I-70. I've seen traffic back up from Kipling to
Nelson or further west. I am concerned that two way bike traffic and
pedestrians on the same walkway would further aggravate the conflict
between the parties like on the Clear Creek trail. Being older it not
practical for my wife and I to walk or bike 1.7 miles to Apple Ridge
Shopping Center.
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 9 of 49
I am opposed to bikers being in the same path as walkers/joggers.
Eg) I no longer walk the Clear Creek trail because of the numerous
HIGH SPEED bikers and their discourtesy toward the walkers.
I like the narrower lanes to slow down traffic. With closure of
kullerstrand, the mixed use path may be more valuable on south side
closer to Prospect Valley elementary and more densely populated
areas.
Pedestrians and bicycles should have access and protection on both
north and south sides of streets. The reality is that people travel on
both north and south both ways. Cyclists in particular travel with traffic
and should have protected facilities on both sides.
I love that there is a safe place for bikers off the Main Street. I prefer
that over a bike lane mixed in with car traffic. It never feels safe to
me. Great plan.
Rolling/bike area should be clearly marked
The shared space seems to be like the clear creek trail on the north
side. My son uses a wheelchair and we sometimes ride bikes as a
family and the shared path always seems stressful and hectic.
Love the wide shared path!
Those sidewalks are huge!
I support the option above as long as there are no bike signs on the
side where they are not allowed. If there are no signs you can't just
assune that the bikers will know.
I like this option. It would be a massive improvement to the present,
dangerous situation. But I cannot say if it is my preferred option
because it is unclear how bikes and pedestrians would be separated.
Would there be a painted, bike path on the shared use sidewalk. If
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 10 of 49
not, it seems like this would be dangerous for pedestrians at risk of
being hit by cyclists. If cyclists have a general path that is separate
then it would be easier for pedestrians to share the path but stay to
one side without confusion.
Drainage concerns. Also, snow removal (who I responsible)
My experience is that bikes & pedestrians sharing pavement
with bikes ends up being uncomfortable for pedestrians - especially
for those who are frail or hard of hearing. Although even those who
are not frail/hard of hearing can be startled of feel pushed over by
bikes that are in a hurry. I walk on the greenbelt several times a week
and am speaking from experience there. Most bikers are polite *
considerate but on the north side where there are bikes it is inherently
less relaxing/comfortable to walk than on the south side where there
are not bikes. it's just different speeds and experience of travel
Therefore I strongly support one side on the street being pedestrian
only - although I do support bike transport in general - just not mixed
with pedestrian.
Most access for users without having to cross streets. Traffic will only
continue to grow....both foot, bike and vehicular.
Wondering how existing drainage flows will be impacted.
I love the idea that the path is slightly away from the street. Cars don't
see bikes and hardly stay on the road to begin with. I think option 1
and 2 are both great but prefer the trail on the north aspect
As a cyclist - and occasional pedestrian - I prefer to separate cyclists
and pedestrians as much as possible. Little kids on sidewalks are
unpredictable (I have 2) and I'd prefer they be in a separate lane from
cyclists.
I like the design. One concern is the bus stopping to load/unload
people with strollers, wheel chairs etc will stop traffic while that
happens.
I think the buffer on one side and mixed use on one side is a good
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 11 of 49
solution to mix modes of transportation.
Providing protection for family bike rides along the riding side would
be extremely helpful
I oppose installing multiple lights along the new sidewalks. This is a
very rural area with many homes along 38th. Those houses should
not have to have light pollution invading their houses, I like the idea of
sidewalks but NOT continuous lamp posts. or pole lights. Lets keep it
dark at night so people can sleep .
What is intended to happen to the overhead utilities? The poles are a
traffic hazard and the utilities should be located all under ground as is
required for all new development.
This is really excessive. We need two car lanes each way, not 12'
mixed use paths. I never, ever see anyone walking here. I understand
the goal is to look into the future where 38th may be lined with more
businesses, but this is still too much even thinking of that la la land
fantasy where 38th actually looked like that. People today don't even
adhere to the 35mph limit (most go 20-25 -- makes no sense). We
need two lanes so automobile traffic can actually move through this
street. It's such a bottleneck today getting between Wadsworth and
Sheridan. :(
Would prefer a dedicated bike lane
It’s a great approach that encourages bike use EBike use and general
community building
Could th shared path be on the south side?
It's better than what's there now, but doesn't provide good separation
between bikes and pedestrians.
As a cyclist, having my own designated lane is important, especially
given the hill from Sims to Parfet. It's always scarry for me to share
the bike path with people potentially walking dogs because not all
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 12 of 49
people have control of their dog.
NEED left turn lanes to keep traffic from backing up particularly after
Clear Creek Crossing is complete and there is increased traffic. Why
would we have left turn lanes from Wads to Kipling but not Kipling to
Youngfield?
I support any of the three options. More shade is provided on the
south side and better for pedestrian traffic in the summer. Safety
concerns about shared use - would like to see an ebike ban on
shared paths throughout Wheat Ridge.
I really like the separated nature of the shared use path, I think that
will really support more vulnerable road users like kids, seniors,
people with disabilities, etc. I don’t love the design of the sidewalk on
the south side – would it not be possible to have some buffer strip
between the street and the sidewalk, even if only 1-2’? I think that
would make it much more comfortable, and the buffer strip on the
other side looks large enough that maybe you could “borrow” a bit
from there. This is true for all the alternatives - I really don’t think we
should be relying on rapid flashing beacons. In my experience using
the existing ones on 38th Ave, it seems like only about 50% of drivers
comply, which creates a potentially very dangerous situation of
people getting a false sense of security. I really believe you need to
either use HAWK signals or regular signals if you really want to get
people to stop – drivers understand what a red light is, a white
flashing light is not something they seem to get. This is also true for
all the alternatives – it is so so important to not “give up at the
intersection” – this is where people walking and biking are most likely
to get hit, and so ensuring there are continuing facilities to and
through the intersection – as well as good wayfinding to the Clear
Creek trail both at Kipling in both directions, as well as at the
Youngfield end – is critical to making these facilities successful.
Please let's do a little more work to make sure these facilities actually
connect...
I would support the option if the city would maintain the sidewalks
instead of placing that burden on homeowners. Part of why I moved
to wheat Ridge to not have to maintain sidewalks.
Looks promising
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 13 of 49
I like the third alternative, but I like this one better than #2 because
the shared use path is on the North side so that will be better in the
winter so that the snow hits it and melts the snow more.
It seems like problems could occur with bikers, walkers (with dogs, for
example), to be sharing the same trail. However, I like keeping the
bikes off the road and on a trail for safety. I also like the fact that less
landscaping will be disturbed, as having greenery along the trail would
be nice!
We support the separated nature of the shared use path, we think
that will really support more vulnerable road users like kids, seniors,
people with disabilities, etc. The north side amenity also provides a
better opportunity to connect to whatever happens at Kullerstrand,
Clear Creek Trail (via Miller of potentially future improvements on
Kipling) and the Rec Center. We don’t love the design of the sidewalk
on the south side because it is right against the road, and would
suggest adding a small buffer strip between the street and the
sidewalk, even if only 1-2’ We think that would make it much more
comfortable, and the buffer strip on the other side looks large enough
to potentially borrow from. This is true for all the alternatives: we
really don’t think we should be relying on rapid flashing beacons
particularly on a high speed road like 38th. Not all drivers understand
these signals and not all comply, which creates a potentially very
dangerous situation of people getting a false sense of security. We
really believe you need to either use HAWK signals or regular signals
if you really want to get people to stop and provide a safe crossing.
This is also true for all the alternatives: we need to ensure safe
treatments to and through the intersections even if outside of the
arbitrary project boundary. This is where people walking and biking
are most likely to get hit, and so ensuring there are continuing
facilities to and through the intersection – as well as good wayfinding
to the Clear Creek trail both at Kipling in both directions, as well as at
the Youngfield end – is critical to making these facilities successful.
We need to think where people are going to be connecting to from
this corridor and make sure that connection is safe.
Optional question (96 response(s), 88 skipped)
Question type: Essay Question
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 14 of 49
Q4 What's your opinion of Alternative 2: Shared-Use Path South Side + Sidewalk North Side?
28 (15.2%)
28 (15.2%)
52 (28.3%)
52 (28.3%)
36 (19.6%)
36 (19.6%)
50 (27.2%)
50 (27.2%)
15 (8.2%)
15 (8.2%)3 (1.6%)
3 (1.6%)
I strongly support this option.I support this option.I am neutral I oppose this option.
I strongly oppose this option.I don't know.
Question options
Mandatory Question (184 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 15 of 49
Still takes up top much room. Why 10 plus FEET on the south side
and I'd never be for a design that removes mature trees. PS If you'd
get rid of dangerous people camping along the river trail, bicyclist
could return to safely using the river trail like we used to.
We need three continuous lanes for cars along 38th.
I think having the multi-use on the south side would be hard for winter
snow melt. It also would make for a lot of bike transitions at miller to
get across to the path.
destruction of trees along the south side and it really cuts into the
properties along that side
The side side amenity provides a better opportunity to connect to
District 4's connected neighborhoods (and through to 32nd - north of
38th's neighborhoods are disconnected due to the creek and there's
no opportunity for additional lateral access) and Louise Turner Park.
Still dangerous to have dog walkers where commuters ride
All fine - don't care - just need a sidewalk.
It would be nice to have some separation between the sidewalk and
the street
I dislike this option for the same reasons as #1... For bikers, it will
deter them from using the route, which is counter to the goal. For
those who aren't deterred from using the shared path it will create
unsafe conditions where bikers are speeding past pedestrians. The
only advantage here over option 1 is that biking tends to warm people
up. Placing the biking area on the south side provides more shad (via
the trees) to bikers, who will naturally be warmer.
Q5 What feedback do you have regarding Alternative 2? If you don’t support these
improvements, we want to hear about that too. Please provide your thoughts below.
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 16 of 49
Again....bikes and pedestrians do not mix..bikes are getting more and
more dangerous to pedestrian traffic...not especially with E bikes
Will be hot in summer. Do not like removal of trees.
Path would be better suited on the North side. On the south side, I will
ride my bike in the lane of car traffic instead of the path due to the
speed differential with pedestrians on the path.
A dedicated bike lane should be added.
Same comment as option 1. I like the bike path being separated from
the lane of traffic. Being on the North or South side isn't a big
difference, but having it on the south side would be preferred over the
north side.
Same as Alternative 1 except the mixed-use sidewalk moved to the
South side. What is worse about this, however, is the mention of
having to remove trees. No.
My only concern is if this option requires removal of more trees than
option 1. Otherwise, it is strongly preferred. The separation the
dedicated mixed-use space on the south-side provides is essentially
to keeping non-automobile traffic away from those using slower
means of transportation. Everitt Middle Schoolers, in particular, use all
modes of transportation (bike, scooter, skateboard, walk, run, etc.) to
get to school. They are in frequent, dangerous proximity to traffic
under current conditions. The potential danger to a pedestrian by
sharing space with cyclists on the mixed use path is trivial compared
to the danger to cyclists (and liability to drivers) when particularly
young and non-experienced cyclists share a non-separated proximity
with automobiles.
I don't like that it requires tree removal.
South Side is a better option, as it is slightly more direct connection to
prospect valley elementary. Seems like there should be Turn Lane at
Ward Road and a ped crossing there and it's a major thru street, while
the other are not.
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 17 of 49
Better than #1 because of previous noted issues with biking on north
side. North side appears too close to traffic. Please xeriscape the
environment and definitely NO GRASS!
what is the difference -- seems there is an overall optimal side to
have the sidewalk and to have the mixed used and whatever that
optimal is should be the choice rather than to present two options of
the same thing, just switching whichh side is which
I don't like tearing out trees!
Still seeing the same issues - really do not like the tight layout of this
design with cars/bikes/people so near each other.
Mixing rolling people with walking people is no good.
It looks nice, but I don't like walkers & bikers on the same path.
Bikers tend to be rather careless when walkers are around.
Leave the trees please. This should never been an option. Last
resort.
Again, same thoughts as the previous option. This isn't any different,
just on the opposite side of the road. Still hard to get on and off the
path as a bike to your destination if it's on the opposite side of the
road, still inconvenient to have peds walking in the way of cycling.
Same as 1
The entrance to my property would be hindered by the bike path
Having the shared use path on the south side would better support
folks travelling to/from the shopping center on Youngfield
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 18 of 49
Looks great!
dual directional bikes with walkers do not mix. Trees on south side
could create icing conditions in winter along sidewalks and pavement.
I do not support disturbing the trees. Mature trees are important to
our community for many reasons.
I have concerns with a 10’ shared use path for pedestrians and
bicycles going both directions. This doesn’t seem like sufficient space
to accommodate all of them adequately. Between Alt 1 and 2, this is
preferred as I would prefer to see on street parking removed over
landscaping and trees.
same reasons I'm opposed to option 1. shared paths in a
neighborhood aren't a good idea because the will be issues between
bike riders and peds.people walking dogs
Bikes should face oncoming traffic, like in option 1.
Do not remove trees. This is supposed to be an improvement
Don’t want to lose mature trees on the S side of 38
Dont like sidewalks right on the street with no landscape separation.
This is a problem throughout WR causing me to rarely walk along any
main street like 38th as I believe it is dangerous. If you have the right
of way, use it for separation.
For the same reason I am opposed to the first option. Cars, cyclist
and pedestrians should all have their own infrastructure to be the
safest and most effective means of transportation for everyone.
Cyclists tend to be aggressive and without clearly marked bike lanes I
fear they will not be able to exist peacefully with pedestrians and
those with mobility issues
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 19 of 49
This really isn't an option. It looks like the same as Alternative 1
except now the buffer is on the side of the multi-user path versus the
pedestrian only sidewalk. Same comments as I made for Altenative 1
- forget the landscaped buffers. People ride and walk over the
landscaping and buffer is soon just dead plants and weeds. City
doesn't have staff and funding to properly maintain buffers. Just put in
impervious surface instead. Impervious surface buffer area can be
colored or stamped concrete to add visual interest, aesthetics. Could
add a three wire fence/railing along the buffer areas to provide more
of a buffer from the street and prevent jaywalking and encourage
people to use designated crossings. Please no irrigated turf anywhere
along the roadway and paths. Irrigation is expensive to install and turf
is not practical in this time of increasing drought and not a good use
of water. Plus city does not have staff and funding to maintain turf
areas. I do like a bike path separate from car traffic. I will not ride a
bike that is not separated from cars. That's why people ride on
sidewalks even if there is a bike lane. Just too dangerous.
I’m not a fan of needing to remove trees for this. Also, in the same
vein as my previous comment, I would like to see the shared use
sidewalks to be all on one side of the road, so that disabled persons,
children, cyclists, and other pedestrians won’t have to cross to
another side of the street just to continue their commute.
Same
I support shared use path on either side of the street. Initial thoughts
are that I like it better on the South.
I prefer sidewalk on the south side of the street where more brick
& mortar retail businesses are located.
Where does plowed snow get piled! North side would see more winter
sun
I think the wider, bike lane would work better on the north side with
the sidewalk on the south side.
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 20 of 49
My opinion is that the multi-use path has more value being on the
north side, as in Alt. 1, vs. being on the south side. Mostly due to
accessing the Recreation Center, Everitt Middle School, potentially
whatever happens with the Kullerstrand facility, and potentially with
improved access to the Greenbelt.
I predict more use on the south sidewalks due to school and business
access. I would feel safer with a barrier between traffic and sidewalks.
Leave as is!
I like this option a lot! I think it’s best due to the bike path being on the
south side.
Mixing bicyclists and pedestrians is dangerous for both modes
especially with the rise of e-bikes
Same concerns as proposal 1: Head on bicycle traffic (along with
pedestrians) and narrowing of lanes.
I will not support any removal of trees.
prefer bike path both sides.
I think better bike lane would be on North side; fewer trees on the
North, so fewer shadows??
If you remove trees you MUST replace them ASAP. Do not sacrifice
trees and just walk away. It must look and be experienced as a
beautiful shaded avenue....
Same as the other option, do not support mixed walker and bike
paths. Bikers need to be on the road and obey those laws. If bikers
don't feel comfortable on the road they should walk their bikes on the
sidewalk. Do not invite more danger for walkers.
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 21 of 49
I'm more in support for the larger sidewalk on the Northside because
the sun will hit it more often and the larger sidewalk will get more
traffic.
No matter what is done self important bike riders, including ebikes,
will still be on the road. So save the $$$.
This makes more sense to me than alternative 1. There is more
population density and prospect valley elementary on the south side
of 38th. I interpret this to mean fewer people crossing 38th to get to
the shared use path.
Feedback is similar to option 1. Both north and south sides of street
need sidewalks and protected bike lanes. Cyclists travel with traffic
and should have protected lanes on both north and south.
Pedestrians will use whichever is convenient in any direction.
my concern on shared use with bicycles is that the bicycles travel
faster than those people walking. Even if cyclist shouts warning the
people walking often do not hear. Might talk with Jefferson County
open space to see how this works on Crown hill park
Don’t love idea of removing trees. But I believe there are more parks
on south side that would make sense to have the bigger shared road
on as well.
Slightly less speaking than the other but still neutral
love the wide shared use path. Not clear what the difference is with
Alternative 1 other than which side is wider.
I like this idea better because it allows for bikes off the street, but the
sidewalk is still very big
I suuport any option as long as the no bikes signs are installed.
Concerns about emergency vehicles along route—Will emergency
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 22 of 49
trucks and police cars be able to get through w/o need to slow down?
See notes on alternative 1.
Initial assumption is that shared path on North side would allow better
long term alignment with green belt initiatives. Would consider traffic
flow volumes in the decision.
I support this, more space between cars the better!
Similar response to alternative 1. I would prefer cyclists and
pedestrians not be on the same path.
Is there a difference other than switching sides?
If what is provided is the same as alternative #1 and more mature
trees and landscape are affected in alternative #2 then I would opt for
alternative #1.
The south side riding makes more sense to me as it would prevent a
bike riding crossing to enter into the applewood shopping center
which is preferred to having a crossing. I strongly support a protected
bike/ride path so families can ride to the shopping center. While it
may impact landscaping marginally more, it seems to eliminate a
constant crossing for bikes into the shopping center
Don't want our big trees cut down, don't want a bunch of lights all
along the new route which will create a lot of light pollution for people
with homes on 38th, and bother the health of wildlife and birds.
Looks like this option would move street traffic closer to houses,
which is not idea.
Bikers should be with vehicles, not pedestrians with dogs on leashes.
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 23 of 49
Better than the first but still not great.
Keeping the snow cleared on that side may be more difficult in the
winter
It's better than what's there now, but doesn't provide good separation
between bikes and pedestrians.
As a cyclist, having my own designated lane is important, especially
given the hill from Sims to Parfet. It's always scarry for me to share
the bike path with people potentially walking dogs because not all
people have control of their dog.
SAME AS ALTERNATIVE 1 but flip flopped ?? LEFT TURN LANES?
I don't travel this section of 38th Avenue very often. My one concern
is for the residents and if needed parking is taken away.
Same comments as Option 1 with the added comment of protect our
trees! So much development has taken out old growth large beautiful
shade trees.
Same comments as Alternative 1.
Seems the same for me as option 1. I
This makes more sense with all the businesses on the south side
This will be harder than alternative 1 for keeping the multi use path
clear of snow.
Same concerns mixing walking, biking, together on only one side.
Could be congested. I would rather not have to remove tress, so the
first option seems better.
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 24 of 49
Same comments as Alternative 1 The south side amenity provides a
better opportunity to connect to District 4's connected neighborhoods
(and through to 32nd - north of 38th's neighborhoods are
disconnected due to the creek and there's no opportunity for
additional lateral access) and Louise Turner Park.
Optional question (92 response(s), 92 skipped)
Question type: Essay Question
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 25 of 49
Q6 What's your opinion of Alternative 3: Bike Lanes and Sidewalks on Both Sides?
57 (31.0%)
57 (31.0%)
46 (25.0%)
46 (25.0%)
22 (12.0%)
22 (12.0%)
33 (17.9%)
33 (17.9%)
25 (13.6%)
25 (13.6%)1 (0.5%)
1 (0.5%)
I strongly support this option.I support this option.I am neutral I oppose this option.
I strongly oppose this option.I don't know.
Question options
Mandatory Question (184 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 26 of 49
Same objections to the first one. Not needed on BOTH sides. Taking
up too much room. I believe the on street bike path may need to
always be on one side only and it may need to vary which side its on,
for example it would not be on the south side in front of my place.
We need three traffic lanes along 38t. 2 lanes plus bike lanes
endanger bikers!!!
This would be a great runner up if option 1 didn’t go thru. I think bike
lanes and sidewalks would add great buffers.
bike lanes in traffic is what we have now and it is dangerous, do not
want wider roads. i think the speed limits would be ignored as they
are now.
If the bike lane isn't really recommended for inexperienced bikers,
why bother? Kiddos should be able to ride their bikes to school
without fear of getting hit by a vehicle.
Splits the pros between the previous two options, is the most cost-
effective, and can better accommodate snow removal IF (and only if)
practice follows policy. Current snow removal practice in WR is
terrible for bike/ped and lanes and sidewalks quickly ice over.
Mostly just because I like the landscaping aspect of the other
alternatives and clear separation from the road.
Safest of the three options!
This option helps families get to discovery park/businesses near
sprouts, yet also access clear creek trail & Rec center more
easily. Strongly support this & SO excited you are doing
something about it!! Truly any option better than what exists!!
Q7 What feedback do you have regarding Alternative 3? If you don’t support these
improvements, we want to hear about that too. Please provide your thoughts below.
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 27 of 49
I like the look of having space between the sidewalk and pedestrian,
but would be fine with this also. This is better for EBikes - to be with
cars.
This option appropriately separates bikers and pedestrians. As a
biker, I am in favor of this option.
Get bikes away from pedestrians
Bicycles should be on the road separated from pedestrian traffic,
hence why I like this option. By far the safest for pedestrians, dogs,
and children
I feel having bikes and cars on the same street are dangerous to both
drivers and bikers. 38th Street is much more narrow than 32nd street.
Once the hospital is finished there will be more traffic on 38th ave. A
wider single lane with curbs and no bicycle on the street will be much
better. Plus Bicyclist do not pay attention to stop signs or lights very
much.
Much prefer to have bike lanes on the street than separated paths.
It's not practical for bikes to get on/off of these paths, cross
intersections on these paths, or interact with pedestrians on these
paths. Bike lanes are much preferred.
This is the best option.
A separate bike path is a much better option like in option 1 and 2.
Cars park in the bike lanes and cars pass people in the bikes lanes
making it less safe for people on bikes. a side walk on one side and a
bike path on the opposite side in option 1 and 2 are better than option
3.
When I saw this artist rendering, it was like a breath of fresh air.
Looks good! And nobody will fault less experienced or less confident
bicyclists for riding on the sidewalk if they need to (I assume you
mean young children) .
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 28 of 49
Paint does not provide an adequate separation of bike lane and
automobiles. The 6-7' sidewalks will require almost as much
damage/change to property as a mixed-use lane, so there is not a
significant advantage over options 1 and 2. Children frequently travel
this corridor by many means of non-automobile transportation (bike,
scooter, skateboard, etc.). Everitt Middle Schoolers use it daily to go
to/from school and other children use to frequent both Louise Turner
and Discovery Parks as well as accessing the Clear Creek greenbelt
and rec center. This option 3 with bike lanes is already in place on
32nd in this area and the bike lanes are not a safe space for children.
The parks, greenbelt, rec center, and school proximity justify a
dedicated, separate save space for non-automobile travel. This option
3 does not adequately alleviate the danger to non-automobile traffic
nor the stress or liability to automobile drivers.
I like that bikes and walkers are separated and bikes have dedicated
lanes both directions. I'd rather take my chances with cars than
walkers/dogs, to be honest. The downside is less space for
landscaping.
I think all the alternatives are much better than the current setup. The
city should choose the alternative that minimizes costs. I think bikes
and peds should be seperate, and I like think the bike lane buffer
looks fine. Bikes are also allowed on sidewalks...so a bicyclist who
isn't comfortable with that can take that options.
While pedestrians are more separated from traffic, bicyclists are not.
However, this option is more consistent with bicycle lanes in other
cities around the metro area so should be familiar to drivers. I prefer
cyclists and pedestrians be separated because otherwise it is too
easy for ped/bike accidents. Close calls happen all the time at Crown
Hill.
This seems to make the most sense to maximize safety and provide
appropriate "normal" traffic in either direction by bike as well as no
confusion as to where one walks and where one rides. seems like a
no brainer that this is the best approach
Shared use paths aren't appropriate for bicycle commuters, who will
end up riding in the street or endangering slower-moving pedestrians.
Cyclists are accustomed to street routes and turning cars are more
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 29 of 49
likely to notice them than on sidewalks. Safer for pedestrians. Bike
lanes on both sides is more convenient for cyclists.
Better However- this is an example of what already exists on 32nd
ave between Wadsworth and Kipling. I have witnessed people driving
through the bike lane (even in the straight-aways) probably around
25% of the time when I am on that road whether I am driving or
walking. It is extremely dangerous. Please consider putting posts in
between bike lane and road to keep cars from using the bike lane as
an extra-large area to drive their car. Love that bikes and pedestrians
are separate in this design.
The bicyclists just have to "lump it". They are privileged enough and a
disturbance enough.
To me, this is the best solution. While not as pretty as option 1 &
2, having separate lanes for every type of transportation is the best.
As a side note, you should let people see all 3 options before asking
what they think. I had to put in place holder answers to see all the
options, then back up and put in real answers after I had seen what
all the options were.
This is the best option provided. As I stated in the last two options, a
separate, dedicated bike lane is the safest & most efficient way
for cyclists to utilize this stretch of roadway to commute through
Wheat Ridge. I would like to see you explore the option of a protected
barrier between the bike lane and roadway to better protect cyclists
from vehicular traffic. Fort Collins and downtown Denver have these
in place and they are an excellent option to make the bike lane safer.
If we want to continue to be a forward thinking city, we need to make
the correct infrastructure decisions now for future residents to utilize.
Bikers aren’t always polite or call out to pedestrians when riding, so
separating them and keeping off the walkways makes more sen to me
safer for walkers (less street crossing) separate paths for walkers and
bikers. It's already dangerous on the greenbelt
I believe it is much, much safer to have the bike lane physically
separated from the traffic lane.
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 30 of 49
Less great -- invites more cars, etc. Less safe, having been hit by a
car while on a bike. Less inviting/cute!
Prefer to keep the bicycle traffic more separated from vehicle traffic
Given the options, this is preferred. Bollards could also be used in
conjunction with the white striping where possible for the bicycle lane
to increase comfort. But, I see bicyclists having a facility for both
directions as important to real success.
I think this is the best option and I would also suggest that in parts of
the buffer between the bike lane and traffic, landscaping/other
options could be added in parts but not all of the buffer to provide a
real buffer line.
Option 3 is my favorite
I like that cyclists and pedestrians will each have their own space.
But, what about other rolling modes of transport (scooters,
skateboards, for example? Where would they ride?)
At least the road is wider. Please do not do the same thing to our
neighborhood that you did to 38th wads to Sheridan. Worst decision
ever.
Bicyclists need protection from traffic, that is increasing and the size
of trucks and cars is larger making them more dangerous to bicyclists
This seems like the best option. Give cyclists a dedicated space
separate from peds. We won’t get in each other’s way. I think children
and inexperienced cyclists should still be able to cycle on the
sidewalks until they are comfortable on the bike lanes. One concern
would be the widening of the roads (including bike lanes) encouraging
drivers to speed. Maybe at crossings and other parts of the road, the
roadway can be narrowed similar to 26th between wadsworth and
Sheridan. This allows for separation via physical barrier between bike
lane and road. Also please consider keeping a crossing at Vivian
Thank you
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 31 of 49
For a major E/W corridor like 38th, I dont believe there is or will be
enough bike traffic to justify all the consideration of space. The vast
majority of cycling I see is recreational, not commuter as WR has no
consolidated commercial districts. With most cycling already
designated along other E/W streets dedicate the majority of road
space to autos.
I don’t think this option will slow traffic as I live on Vivian Ct and that is
the number concern I have with 38th is people speed down it with no
regard to the speed limit of 35 mph. I would go further and request
the the speed limit but reduce to 25 mph.
More conflict between pedestrians and cyclists to be avoided is a
good thing. Cyclists are accustomed to riding
I would be happy with this option, but I prefer the first two.
Pedestrians are safe from cars and cyclists, cyclists are safe from
cars and can travel at a pace that is effective for traveling by bike and
cars are separated from the cyclists by some kind of buffer so they
won't have to worry about moving around the cyclist.
Out is the 3 options, this seems to be the safest option
This alternative is slightly better but I still oppose it. It has multi-use on
both sides which I think is how it will be used regardless of how it is
designated. People are not going to cross to the other side of a street
to ride a bike or walk a dog regardless - just not human nature.
People always take the shortest path/cut corners regardless of
landscaping, pavement etc. Only fences truly work. Landscaping is
nice on paper, but in reality, along a heavily used corridor, I think
landscaping is a waste of time, money and energy especially right
along the roadway. People and cars run over it, and it just becomes
an eyesore of weeds and dead plants. Just cover the area with
impervious surface. That way you can have a 10' wide path versus a
6-7' path and a 3' landscaped. A buffer which provides no benefit for
transportation. Landscaping provides aesthetic benefits, but I'm not
walking or biking along 38th for aesthetic benefits - too busy, noisy,
too many cars. I am walking or biking along corridors like 38th, 44th,
Wadsworth, Kipling to get somewhere, for transportation, not for a
nice quiet relaxing walk after dinner. I do not support a bike line that is
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 32 of 49
at the same level as car traffic - just too dangerous even if it is
separated by striping. Why don't you turn this option into two 10-12'
multi-use paths on both sides of the street and forget any landscape
buffers? To me that would be the most economical and practical use
of the space available and would accommodate the most users
safely.
I think this is the best option. I would prefer to not have to worry about
as many bikes ripping around me while I’m walking down the street.
Also, the sidewalks would cater well to disabled persons and their
needs. I also really like that trees would not be impacted by this.
This also seems like a nice plan, but maybe less feasible and I am
concerned that paths on both sides of the street will cause motorist to
respect them less.
I prefer option one to allow for more landscaping and curb appeal. Our
city is still in need of enhanced curb appeal & increased green
plants/trees.
May be more dangerous without physical separation from vehicle
traffic…where does snow get plowed to?
more pavement, and higher speeds for vehicles. There are E-W bike
lanes on 26th, 32nd and the entire CC trail.
I like that bicylcle traffic is separated from the pedestrian traffic.
I think the options with the separated shared-use path are more
bike/ped friendly than the on-street bike lanes. Mostly for the reason
given "The on-street bike lane may only feel comfortable to more
experienced or confident cyclists"
Supports bikes, walking and traffic. In favor but not my first choice.
Leave as is!
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 33 of 49
there is no protection for the folks riding bikes. Could you add bollards
to protect the cyclists from the cars?
Th riot ion I prefer least because I like the protection the shared path
provides cyclists. All better than exiting option though!
This should work if the street design is also designed for 30 mph
vehicular travel including retaining the signal at Parfet and ped
activated crossings
Why not narrow the vehicle area, move sidewalks in, and put bike
paths on the outside? So cross section would be (from north to south)
bike path westbound, sidewalk, curb, road westbound, road
eastbound, curb, sidewalk, bike path eastbound.
The is the best option.
There’s so much going on in this option…too much given existing
constraints. I’m concerned traffic lanes will be too narrow. For any of
the options, motorists will need to behave!
Same as above....sidewalks, etc and a lot of landscaping/trees that
is/are lovingly maintained!
I do think there need to be an option where the road is expanded.
38th is getting busier and busier, cars are getting ruder and ruder.
Wheat Ridge need to really look at the road and make it safe for cars,
walkers, and bikers. None of the layouts account for growth and the
new development happening at Clear Creek Crossing. This road is
about to get really busy with traffic but that seems to be missed in
these plans.
This is the best option.
Putting the bike lane in the street separates the peds from the bikers
which is good. Between the bike lane and the separation area the
bikers get as much geography in the roadway as the vehicles, and as
you know there are many more vehicles, which you are trying to
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 34 of 49
reduce by making it harder to use the roadway. Over the last few
months I have been driving from 26th and Kipling to Federal almost
daily. There is a lot of geography dedicated to bikers that is hardly
used and when it is the biker is usually aggressive, riding the line,
skipping the stop signs. It doesn't seem to me that catering to bikers
in going to solve the commuting or transportation problems Denver
and Wheat Ridge have.
Seasoned bikers use 32nd Avenue - this option would duplicate the
heavily used 32nd Avenue bikeway, but the bike lanes would be less
valuable here because 38th is not nearly as safe a bikeway once east
of Kipling. Save the existing 32nd corridor bike lanes for the pro
cyclists and instead of alternative 3, go with alternative 2 to add a
nice facility (shared use path) that doesn’t already exist in the area.
i support sidewalks on both sides, but paint is not infrastructure and
does not protect cyclists from traffic. The reality is that pedetrians and
cyclists are at risk of dying without proper infrastructure separating
cars from other people using the street.
It’s better than nothing but options 1 or 2 is preferred for the added
safety factor for bikers.
This rendition supports more walkers is safer on both north and south
sides which more safely supports diabled and wheelchairs and
childrens strollers as well as groceryhauling and wagons etc. As well
as Bicycles while remaining friendsly to Fire Fighters trucks and
machines
I like that bikes have their own space and that I don’t have to listen for
“on your left” while walking. Wheelchair users feel safer with this
option and can safely drive on both sides.
This option feels safer as it separates the bikers from pedestrians.
I like the street better in this option, but as a parent with kids on
bikes, I don't like them riding so close to cars.
I would prefer more safety for bicyclists with separation from cars, and
more landscaping opportunities.
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 35 of 49
This is the best option out of them all. Bikes not on sidewalks at all.
This is my preferred option if there is not division (could be simply a
painted bike path) between bikes and pedestrians on a shared
sidewalk. This improvement should make it safe for pedestrians and
cyclists alike. But I like the shared path if there is a painted “bike path”
vs. walking path to keep pedestrians safer from collisions with cyclists
while better addressing speed issues. I believe a lot of drivers would
abuse a bike lane level with the road to go around drivers turning into
residential driveways so they can continue speeding down the road
instead of having to slow or stop briefly. They already do this.
Obviously drivers would continue doing so if the bike path is level with
the road. My hope is that the improvement will result in speed
mitigation as well as safe sidewalks because speed is a real problem
because drivers use this stretch of road as a major thoroughfare and
it is a residential street. So a shared bike/pedestrian path best
achieves that. But consider kids walking. There should be a way to
keep commuter cyclists from veering into a pedestrian right of way.
Pedestrians should have the right of way on a sidewalk.
I think this might be a better option not sure the bicyclists want to be
on sidewalk with pets and ppl but they should obey the law while
riding - light at Parfet not riding through on red.
No more bike lanes please! Also, this seems to be overly expensive
and encroaches on private property.
See comments on Alternative 1 - I prefer that at least one side is
pedestrians only because even when bike riders are considerate it is
much pleasanter to walk without bikes flying by and its very
uncomfortable when bikers are not considerate. ALSO - I do hope
that street lighting will be in moderation and shielded from upward
glare .The green belt is very important for migratory birds and light
pollution is a real issue for migrants. I also hope there will be decent
landscaping and perhaps some benches to help make the paths
attractive to walk or bike.
Does not seem initially as appealing for longer term aspirations with
green belt connectivity.
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 36 of 49
I and many neighbors in applewood have young children &
would use this to catch the green belt, but wouldn’t want the kids
riding in a street bike lane. Also would like to see 38th be visually
more appealing with landscaping, which looks like wouldn’t happen
with this option. Thanks!
Still a great improvement but I like the bike lane off the street more
than this option unless they were to add reflectors or other small
reminders to cars not to drift over
This is my favorite option of the 3, but I do not love the cycling lanes.
Painted buffers are simply driven on by vehicles. There should be
physical barriers between vehicle lanes and cycle lanes.
Gets bikes off the sidewalks.
I like that bikes have a lane on both sides but I like the option with
landscape and a better buffer to traffic more.
this is essentially the same as 32nd ave and is too scary for families
to ride bikes or even recreational riders. Speeds will remain high for
vehicles and accomplishes little in diversifying and improving
alternatives
This seems too tight and makes me concerned for drivers and non
motorists alike
Takes up too much of the road, will destroy heritage landscaping and
make Wheat Ridge seem like a big city. Will cut into peoples yards
too. NO, Too wide, and too much lighting. Do not want light pollution
invading peoples homes and bothering the wild life we enjoy in rural
Wheat Ridge. Will seriously impact parking as well.
One reason for supporting changes to the existing situation is to
make the roads safer for everyone. Having the cyclists closer to the
traffic and narrowing the roadway is really not at all helpful. That is
way I strongly support having a sidewalk on the north side and mixed
use on the south side.
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 37 of 49
Whatever you do, please maintain/add trees and other landscaping.
Best of the 3, utilities still need to be placed underground!
Better than option 1 but still not great.
I like the bike lane on both sides best. makes it more appealing to ride
your bike to either access the Clear Creek trail from Kipling or
Youngsfield (although that sidewalk needs to be rebuilt too). More
similar to the bike lane on 32nd.
Carlos will just park in the bike lane especially around the school
I prefer the bike lane be off the street
It provides good flow in both directions, gives each side of the street
equal access. Is in line with sidewalks elsewhere in the city (e.g.
32nd avenue)
I'm not an advanced cyclist, but this one feels more comfortable. As
far as the landscape, I'm okay with loosing those improvements as
long as no trees are harmed/cut down in the process.
STILL NO TURN LANES. - Need a space between the street and
sidewalk so this is SAFE for OUR KIDS! Must have one 10’-12’
shared-use path.
32nd Ave has a dedicated bike lane. Not certain 38th needs one too.
32nd seems wider and having a bike lane on 38th seems to create a
safety issue with things being narrow. A shared use path should be
enough.
This is really great to see, particularly the buffer for the bike lanes!
We would really love the city to consider some kind of vertical
separation – it is about time Wheat Ridge had its first modern bike
facility, and vertical separation is truly a best practice to enable
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 38 of 49
cyclists of all ages and abilities to use it. This may mean figuring out a
solution for maintenance, but hopefully this won’t be the last
protected bike facility for the city to clear. This is true for all the
alternatives - I really don’t think we should be relying on rapid flashing
beacons. In my experience using the existing ones on 38th Ave, it
seems like only about 50% of drivers comply, which creates a
potentially very dangerous situation of people getting a false sense of
security. I really believe you need to either use HAWK signals or
regular signals if you really want to get people to stop – drivers
understand what a red light is, a white flashing light is not something
they seem to get. This is also true for all the alternatives – it is so so
important to not “give up at the intersection” – this is where people
walking and biking are most likely to get hit, and so ensuring there are
continuing facilities to and through the intersection – as well as good
wayfinding to the Clear Creek trail both at Kipling in both directions,
as well as at the Youngfield end – is critical to making these facilities
successful. This is especially true for this alternative where it looks
like the bike lanes end a block before Youngfield – please change the
alternative to come up with a way to protect cyclists to and through
the intersection! You know they will use it, so please figure out a way.
I do believe it would be an a great improvement as long as the
burden of maintenance was not placed on property owners
All the options are better than present. The other options 1 and 2)
seem to open the possibility of kids biking to school. We are excited
by 1 and 2.
I think this is the best because it separates pedestrians from cyclists
and I like that there are lanes on both side.
I want a bike patch but would prefer it separated from the busy road
Cars are likely to park and block the bicycle lane in this option. Also,
the bike lanes will be plowed in winter, will the sidewalks?
This option could really open things up for walkers and bikers as 38th
is quite the throughway between Kipling and Youngfield. However,
cars and buses will always be on the road and these design seems to
congested and crowed and unsafe.
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 39 of 49
We strongly support this alternative, particularly the buffer for the bike
lanes. This alternative splits the pros between the previous two
options, is the most cost-effective, and can better accommodate snow
removal IF (and only if) practice follows policy. Current snow removal
practice in WR is terrible for bike/ped and lanes and sidewalks quickly
ice over. We would really love the city to consider some kind of
vertical separation – it is about time Wheat Ridge had its first modern
bike facility, and vertical separation is truly a best practice to enable
cyclists of all ages and abilities to use it. This may mean figuring out a
solution for maintenance, but hopefully this won’t be the last
protected bike facility for the city to clear.
I don't think the North, sidewalk only, needs to be so wide. It's would
save money & construction time to use the existing sidewalks on
the north. Do your best to keep turn lanes which serves the majority
of the 38th users best.
I am strongly opposed to all of these. 38th west should match 38th
from Wadsworth to Kipling!!!
Optional question (108 response(s), 76 skipped)
Question type: Essay Question
Q8 Rank each of the alternatives to indicate your preference. A ranking of '1' is the highest
preference that can be given.
Q9 Do you have any additional comments on the alternatives or the 38th Avenue West End
Improvements Project? Please provide your thoughts below.
OPTIONS AVG. RANK
Alternative 1: Shared-Use Path North Side + Sidewalk South Side 1.89
Alternative 3: Bike Lanes and Sidewalks on Both Sides 1.89
Alternative 2: Shared-Use Path South Side + Sidewalk North Side 2.18
Optional question (177 response(s), 7 skipped)
Question type: Ranking Question
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 40 of 49
Excellent job! I really hope this project comes through. It would be so
fantastic for our community.
bike lanes and sidewalks along both sides would make it too
cluttered. too much distraction on both sides of road
Yes on 2J.
Thank you for doing something about this!! Strongly affects how we
access the community!
If option 1 or 2 is selected, I would like to see signs informing
motorists that bikes are still allowed in the street (per the law).
Experienced bikers will choose to use the street but many motorists
don't understand that by law bikes are supposed to be in the street.
Less experienced bikers will use the sidewalk in opt 1 or 2 (as
intended). If opt 3 is selected, I would like to see posts (the small
orange, plastic ones) separating the bike lane from motor traffic.
when you try to make a left turn going east and there is no turn lane,
people try to get their cars on the little area to the right, sometimes it
seems that they are going to hit you while you wait to turn (Quail Ct.)
All areas that you have made multi modal are causing
problems....bikes along the Kipling corridor that are using the
greenbelt path are failing to use the underpass at the rec center and
crossing Kipling through traffic...you need to put barriers on the
sidewalk on Kipling south of the bridge
It will be so nice to be able to walk along a paved sidewalk on 38th.
That alone will make it feel safer.
As soon as you're finished, 32nd Ave West End needs the same
assessment. Though there are existing bike lanes and sidewalks,
they are in pretty poor condition and rendered impractical in many
locations. Especially when it comes to pedestrians crossing 32nd. We
need button-actuated crossing lights.
King soopers, Sprouts, and Prospect Valley are all located on the
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 41 of 49
south side of the street so logically people would walk and bike on
that side so it would make more sense for the larger sidewalk to be
located on that side. That's relevant if a bike land is not included.
All of these will improve travel by bike. To feel safe letting kids ride
their own bikes along this road option 1 or 2 are the only way to allow
this. Separating cars from the bikes makes it safer for everyone. A
bike path on the south side of the road would be my top choice. This
will better connect the parking lot of hobby lobby to neighborhoods
and on the other side of the project better connect Starbucks /
Sprouts parking lots to the bike path. Good work putting this together,
I look forward to being able to bike on a path on the south side of the
street instead of just drive a car because its not safe to bike now.
Yes, please. On several occasions at night, I've been startled by
pedestrians I see at the last second between Kipling and Nelson
because the street is so dark through there. Would you please
consider adding street lighting? Thanks for asking!
This online input experience has been a wonderful and easy way to
participate. I feel like I have a say in the development and options of
the corridor I frequent most. Thank you for investing in this approach
and a community-focused solutions based on community input!
There should be a ped crossing and turn lane at Ward Rd - it's a thru
street that sees alot of bike and car traffic
I hope that as many trees as possible will be preserved.
Better to have bikers and walkers separate
Alternatives 1 and 2 are so similar but since most of the businesses
are on the south side of the road 2 is preferable to one. All of these
alternatives offer no shoulder for cars. But with the bike lanes
separate from pedestrian sidewalks at least there is a place to move
cars from the road with accidents or breakdowns. How do you also
designate that option 3 does not turn into car parking in the bike lane
along residential areas?
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 42 of 49
So will we be going from two traffic lanes for cars going either
direction to one lane like in the pictures? I feel like just one lane would
cause lots of traffic
You should offer additional insight as to why you are prioritizing this
traffic project over other areas that are vastly more important to the
safety of commuters and pedestrians. What future needs require
these improvements? The new hospital, MORE apartments, retail,
etc.?
We already have a shared use path available as the clear creek path
to recreate and enjoy. An additional shared use path just a few blocks
south of the path is unnecessary and not effective. We need to make
38th avenue a corridor for commuting not just recreational. Dedicated
bikes lanes with a protected barrier is the only way of achieving that.
1 and 2 are basically the same
will the electrical wires go underground? What happened to bus pull
out we requested during the first meeting? There were a number of
people asking for them.
For when it snows -- will the North side get better sun and melt (be
easier to walk and bike sooner) faster? Or will they be plowed? Just a
consideration.
I would like to suggest that eliminating a bike lane for the purpose of
putting in a left turn lane is more harmful to comfort than the
difference between shared use and bike lanes. It is also an
unnecessary conflict zone that should be avoided in the name of
safety. So, specifically not allowing the engineers to do that (as they
did at Harlan and 32nd, for instance) would be beneficial.
Thank you for finally making the 38th Avenue corridor a priority!
It seems like too much. Too big. Too much money. Seems like same
waste that was created from wads to sheridan
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 43 of 49
I am delighted at the prospect of safe spaces for all modes of
transport on 38th. Thank county leadership for getting this done!
Bike lanes seem the best. Especially if some physical barriers
(landscaping/median) can be added in the 4 ft buffer between road
and bike lane. Please keep the crossing at Vivian too Thank you!
I think there are problems with both #1 and 2 in that I dont like shared
pedestrian/cycling sidewalks. That can be left to Clear Creek Trail.
I think the other two options are equally ineffective.
I do not like any of the alternatives. Disappointed that this is all our
money for a consultant came up with. As I mentioned in my
comments on Alternative 3, I think the best alternative is to put in 10-
12' multi-user paths on both sides. Forget landscape buffers and just
make the area all impervious surfaces (those can be made more
attractive with colored or stamped concrete, benches, maybe some
public art work or decorative lighting later). This is the most
economical, practical and safest alternative that supports all users
and keeps bikes separate from cars, which is very important for me
as a biker or a pedestrian. I do not want to walk or bike on the same
roadway and at the same level as cars - just too too dangerous. I love
creative and native landscaping (not irrigated turf and stick trees), but
this corridor improvement project is for transportation, not a park, or a
leisurely, relaxing stroll so I think landscaping considerations can be
eliminated for now and just focus on the best transportation options.
If only one side, keep on North because less likely to be icy. Also
better connections/fewer crossings to Green Belt Trail, new hospital,
Everitt Middle School, Rec Center, etc. On street bike lanes would
allow for more separation between worst snow storms and for City
snow plows during worst storms and more flexibility/safety for
construction crews with future road maintenance.
Thank you for doing this! All of the plans, to me, are an improvement
over current.
Utilities all underground?
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 44 of 49
I have wanted sidewalks for the 23 years I have lived here can't wait
please make this happen!!!
What about a bike lane and sidewalk going W, mixed use going
E.....could see bikers wanting to go to CCC from the west then taking
the CC trail the other way. Would be great to have a CC trail
connector along this stretch.
Safe sidewalks will be a welcome addition. Reduced speed would
also be beneficial; vehicles consistently speed from Tabor to Quail,
heading eastbound, down the hill. It's dangerous to be walking in that
area, there's no sidewalks and 38th is quite narrow with blind spots.
I want kids to be able to travel safely to school. Sidewalks are so
important for that to happen. Bike lanes in either side would be a
bonus.
Separate bikers and pedestrians as much as possible. Add attractive
lighting and landscaping to separate sidewalk.
Leave as is!
I do think that option 3 would be the best *IF* there was serious
protection for cyclists with steel bollards.
Thank you!!
Please ensure the street design is for 30 mph vehicular travel so the
on street bike lanes are comfortable amd safe.
Alt 2 is not good for winter as snow takes longer to melt in shade on
south side.
Thanks for all the effort and communication. I so appreciate that the
community has input.
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 45 of 49
What's Up Wheat Ridge with the apparently abandoned project just
south of 32nd and Youngfield? Has been lying fallow and ugly for
months on end......It needs to be completed or just cleaned up or
something, please. Please be sure this is not the fate of any other
projects. Thank you.
Do these plans include snow removal on the paths? Could see that
North side getting pretty icy if not maintained.
Please provide connectivity between the improved 38th Ave Corridor
and the Clear Creek Greenbelt! Right now its difficult to move
between the two. A path going down from the old Kullerstrand school
(for example) to the greenbelt would add non-car connectivity
between many of the city's parks.
Need better lighting for bus stops and bus shelters.
Will there be a line down the larger pathway separating walkers n
bikers?
My concern on shared path for bikes and people is that it is more
dangerous for the pedestrian. I think 32nd works well for both expect
the walks are not shoveled in the winter. If the bicycles were sharing a
walkway with pedestrians in the winter, I can't imagine what would
happen if the walks weren't plowed.
Thank you for addressing the sidewalk issue. This is a huge positive
impact to my family
Thanks for your work on these projects!
Please see my comments because my ranking is affected by
information that is not provided on this survey.
I’m curious about who reviews these responses, and how the results
are tabulated. Please email me to advise on these concerns.
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 46 of 49
Please consider lighting that is moderate and without upward glare,
The greenbelt is nearby and is very important for migratory birds.
Light pollution could be a real issue and can be mitigated. Also I hope
there will be some decent landscaping and perhaps a few benches to
make walking and biking more enjoyable.
We should be thinking about the future use of Kullerstrand location.
This makes me so happy. I have two little kids and also am constantly
on 38th walking to a trail or park. I currently do not feel safe with cars.
I believe all 3 options are good but logistically the north side mixed
use path makes the most sense!
Thank you for improving this area! I moved to Wheat Ridge to raise
my 2 kids and the safer we make it for everyone the better. I would
love to take my kids on bicycles on 38th but will not do it for quite a
while if there are not physical barriers between the cycle lanes and
vehicle lanes. Motorists are generally oblivious or careless enough to
drive over visual barriers. Thank you!
Will the power poles be removed or just moved back so they aren't
right next to the street?
I'm really looking forward to having a continuous sidewalk! Nice job.
I would strongly consider providing the protected lane alternative as
32nd provides exactly what alternative 3 is and families can't ride
bikes/scooters to Applewood market. A protected lane, especially on
the south side, creates an extremely family friendly walking and riding
space to the improving applewood center.
Whatever plan is picked it is very important to respect that many
residents have homes along 38th and the city should focus heavily on
making it beautiful with trees and planting in addition to the existing
trees that are there. Should make use of MINIMAL lighting to
preserve our rural feel and keep it DARK at night. A good example of
what NOT to do is the awful outward facing lights that were approved
for the shopping center on Youngfield at 38th. They are so bright,
shine into everyones eyes in the parking lots, and shine WAY over to
the houses in the neighborhoods north of 38th. Such a lack of
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 47 of 49
foresight.
Hope you are including better lighting. Night time driving and walking
is so hazardous - lighting is dim or nonexistent. Bus stops need to be
sheltered, lit at night (perhaps solar?) and allow sight lines for the
users - right now people step into the street to see if the bus is
coming - they can't see what is going on with the traffic.
Whatever you do, please maintain/add trees and other landscaping.
Relocate overhead utilities underground!
38th between Sheridan and Wadsworth is an absolute mess for cars.
We need better roads for automobile and bus traffic, first and
foremost. Two lanes each way in that section are needed. I don't see
any option to reflect that. We're optimizing for foot traffic that doesn't
even exist because there ARE no businesses to frequent, and people
walk through their neighborhoods to the north and south of this
section. I understand the goal is to look into the future where 38th
may be lined with more businesses, but this is still too much even
thinking of that la la land fantasy where 38th actually looked like that.
People today don't even adhere to the 35mph limit (most go 20-25 --
makes no sense). We need two lanes so automobile traffic can
actually move through this street. It's such a bottleneck today getting
between Wadsworth and Sheridan. :(
With any of the options, it is important that the property owners along
the corridor keep up with their landscaping so it doesn't overgrow into
the sidewalk area, making it difficult to walk on
Please make the improvements with keeping as much of the historical
feel/flavor as possible.
TURN LANES? Copy Wadsworth to Kipling model.
I am pleased with all these options. Excellent work. Please find the
money to implement one ASAP!
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 48 of 49
Increased traffic at 38th turning north from eastbound lane at Kipling
is in need of an update to traffic light timing. There are times where
turning traffic is backed up past Parfet. More traffic lights along 38th
to slow traffic and help encourage the use of 32nd Ave.
I like the idea of sidewalks and or bike lanes. I just do not like the
idea of placing the burden of winter maintenance on property owners.
Thank you to all involved. We appreciate your efforts for our
neighborhood. Mike and Shannon
I can't wait for this to happen!
I was surprised that none of the designs included round-abouts. They
really seem to help slow traffic down but keep it moving. I'm guessing
they would impact the ease of folks using the shared use lanes as
they can be quite a busy place when in use!
Optional question (78 response(s), 106 skipped)
Question type: Essay Question
Alternatives Survey : Survey Report for 29 September 2023 to 31 October 2023
Page 49 of 49
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick Goff, City Manager DATE: January 17, 2024 (for January 22, 2024 Study Session)
SUBJECT: Review of Council Rules of Order and Procedure
ISSUE:
The Charter of the City of Wheat Ridge provides that the Council may determine its own rules of procedure for meetings. Section VII.B of these Rules states “These Rules may be amended, or new Rules adopted by a majority vote of City Council Members present at a Regular or Special Meeting, provided that the proposed amendments or new Rules shall have been submitted in writing to City Council at a preceding meeting or a Study Session. Any City Council Member, or the Mayor, may
initiate an amendment of these Rules in the manner provided for initiation of Agenda Items by Rule V.D. These Rules shall be reviewed and revised by the City Council as needed and as provided for herein.” Attached are the current Rules, effective February 13, 2023. Council may consider amendments to these Rules at this time.
In response to the antisemitic comments received at the November 13, 2023 City Council meeting, the City Attorney drafted the attached memo “Hate speech in the public forum: options for local governments.” Mr. Dahl provided several options for City Council to consider regulating the time, place and manner of public comment. ATTACHMENT: 1. Rules of Order and Procedure, effective February 13, 2023 2. Hate speech in the public forum: options for local governments memo from City Attorney, dated, November 28, 2023
RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE
FOR THE
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
COLORADO
Revised: February 13, 2023
ATTACHMENT 1
-2-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. AUTHORITY 3
II. PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO SPEAK 3
III. CHAIR, MAYOR PRO TEM, CITY CLERK, CITY ATTORNEY,
PARLIAMENTARIAN AND THEIR DUTIES AT MEETINGS 5
CHAIR………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5
MAYOR PRO TEM ............................................................................... 5
CITY CLERK ...................................................................................... 6
CITY ATTORNEY ................................................................................ 6 PARLIAMENTARIAN AND RULES OF ORDER ........................................... 6
IV. COUNCIL MEETINGS AND MEETING PROCEDURES 6
TYPES OF MEETINGS ......................................................................... 6 STUDY SESSIONS ............................................................................. 7
ADJOURNED MEETINGS ..................................................................... 7
EXECUTIVE SESSIONS ....................................................................... 7
MEETING NOTICES AND REQUIREMENTS .............................................. 8
ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIAL GATHERINGS .................................................................................... 8
ABSENCES ....................................................................................... 9
RIGHT OF THE FLOOR ........................................................................ 9 ELECTED OFFICIALS’ MATTERS ........................................................... 9
V. ORDER OF BUSINESS AND THE AGENDA 9
SCOPE OF RULE ................................................................................ 9
ORDER OF BUSINESS…………………………………………………………………………………….9
AGENDA PREPARATION AND INITIATION OF AGENDA ITEMS……………………10
INITIATING AND ADDING AGENDA ITEMS ........................................... 11
PUBLIC HEARINGS ........................................................................... 12
ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING ...................................................... 12 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT .................................................................... 12
VI. RECONSIDERATION 13
VII. SUSPENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THESE RULES 13
SUSPENSION ................................................................................... 13
AMENDMENT ................................................................................... 14
-3-
RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
I. AUTHORITY
Sections 4.7 and 5.1 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Wheat Ridge authorize
the City Council to determine its own rules of order and procedure for meetings.
The following Rules shall be in effect upon their adoption by the Council until such
time as they are amended or new Rules adopted in the manner provided by these Rules.
II. PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO SPEAK
A. PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO SPEAK
1. Public’s right to speak at meetings of the City Council is of primary
importance. This Rule describes those rights and the manner in which
they are exercised.
2. Public’s right to speak at Regular, Adjourned and Special Council
Meetings
a) For non-agenda items: a member of the public may speak once per
meeting for a maximum of three (3) minutes on any item not on the agenda. Up to two (2) members of the public present and
signed up to speak may donate their time to the speaker for a
maximum of nine (9) minutes.
b) For non-agenda items: a member of the public requiring translation
services may speak once per meeting for a maximum of six (6)
minutes.
c) For agenda items: a member of the public may speak once for each
agenda item, for any length of time unless time is limited by the chair at the beginning of the item.
3. Public’s right to speak at Study Sessions:
a) A member of the public may speak once per agenda item for a
maximum of three (3) minutes. Up to two (2) members of the
public present and signed up to speak may donate their time to the
speaker for a maximum of nine (9) minutes.
-4-
b) A member of the public requiring translation services may speak once per agenda item for a maximum of six (6) minutes.
c) Public comments will be heard at the beginning of the Study
Session, unless the Study Session is combined with a Regular,
Special or Adjourned Council meeting, in which case the comments
may be taken at the beginning of that meeting.
4. General Restrictions on Public’s Right to Speak
a) There is no limit on the number of persons who may speak.
b) Content of Public Comments are not censored, other than threatening language, which is not permitted.
c) Speakers should limit their comments to the relevant topic or
agenda item.
d) Speakers are requested to sign the appropriate roster in the Council
Chambers and will be called in order.
e) Written comments provided to the Council in any of the online tools
provided by the City, or in hard copy, are permitted on any agenda
or non-agenda item and should be given to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council members and inclusion in the record. It
is the expectation that Council members will read these comments
before the respective meeting. The reading of written comments into the record is not permitted unless a member of the public
representing the author is present to read them into the record at
the written request of the author. A Council Member or the City
Clerk may read written comments into the record with the approval
of the majority of the Council present. Any such individual reading
is limited to three (3) minutes on non-agenda items.
f) Speakers may provide other documents, photos, etc. to the Council
by giving them to the City Clerk.
g) The City Clerk, or his or her designee, is the designated timekeeper
for all time-limited comments.
h) Councilmembers and the Mayor have the choice of whether or not
to respond to members of the public after the completion of Public’s
Right To Speak.
-5-
III. CHAIR, MAYOR PRO TEM, CITY CLERK, CITY ATTORNEY, PARLIAMENTARIAN AND THEIR DUTIES AT MEETINGS
A. CHAIR
1. The Mayor shall preside over the meetings of the City Council as the
Chair.
2. In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem shall preside as the
Chair.
3. The Chair shall preserve order and decorum, prevent personal attacks
or the impugning of member’s motives, confine members in debate to questions under discussion, be responsible for conducting meetings in
an orderly manner, assure that the minority opinion may be expressed
and that the majority be allowed to rule.
B. MAYOR PRO TEM
1. At the first or second Regular meeting in November of each year, the
Council shall elect a Mayor Pro Tem who shall serve until their
successor is elected. The procedure shall be as follows:
a) The Chair will announce that the floor is open for nominations for the position of Mayor Pro Tem.
b) Nominations will be taken from City Council members by voice.
No second is needed.
c) Each nominee will have the opportunity to address the Council.
d) A motion and second is then in order to elect one of the nominees
to the position of Mayor Pro Tem. If the motion is not carried,
additional motions are in order until a Mayor Pro Tem is elected by
a majority of Council present.
2. If presiding as the meeting Chair, the Mayor Pro Tem shall have the
voting privileges of a regular Council Member.
3. The Mayor Pro Tem’s duties shall include reviewing and setting the Agenda prior to Council Meetings and adding emergency items for
discussion if necessary. The Mayor Pro Tem shall have the authority to
remove any item from the Agenda of any Regular Meeting or Study
Session, before publication, with the exception of:
a) An item placed on the Agenda by two (2) Council Members or by
the Mayor and one (1) Council Member prior to the meeting
pursuant to Rule V.D.1; or
-6-
b) An item added by the Council by majority vote of Council present during any meeting pursuant to Rule V.C.6.
4. The Mayor Pro Tem shall arrange for and coordinate the orientation of
all newly elected officials, including a review of these Rules, within two
(2) months after the election.
C. CITY CLERK
The City Clerk, or designated representative, shall attend all meetings of Council
and shall keep the official minutes.
D. CITY ATTORNEY
The City Attorney or acting City Attorney shall attend all meetings of the Council
unless excused by the City Council and shall, upon request, give an opinion, either
written or oral, on the question of law.
E. PARLIAMENTARIAN AND RULES OF ORDER
1. The Mayor Pro Tem shall also function as the Council Parliamentarian,
and may call upon the City Attorney for a recommendation on
procedure, if desired.
2. The Parliamentarian shall advise the Chair and members of Council on parliamentary rules.
3. The current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, newly revised, shall
advise the Parliamentarian regarding questions of order and procedure in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not
inconsistent with these Rules, the Wheat Ridge Home Rule Charter,
the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws or other laws governing the City.
4. In cases where the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, newly
revised, are inconsistent with these Rules of Order and Procedure,
these Rules of Order and Procedure control.
5. The Mayor (or the Mayor Pro Tem, if presiding), shall be the final
authority on all points of order or procedure, subject to override upon a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of the entire Council.
IV. COUNCIL MEETINGS AND MEETING PROCEDURES
A. TYPES OF MEETINGS
1. The Council meets for Regular, Adjourned, and Special Meetings and
Regular and Special Study Sessions.
-7-
2. Regular Meetings are held the second (2nd) and fourth (4th) Monday of each month at 6:30 PM unless otherwise provided by amendment of
these Rules.
3. Study Sessions are held the first (1st) and third (3rd) Monday of each
month at 6:30 PM, unless otherwise provided by the Mayor Pro Tem.
4. The Mayor Pro Tem may schedule additional Study Sessions to take
place at any other day and time.
5. Council members are expected to attend Council meetings in person.
In the event of illness, weather, or other necessity, council members may attend virtually by telephone or through the Zoom or other
remote attendance platforms provided by the City, as a last resort
B. STUDY SESSIONS
1. Study Sessions shall be for the purpose of discussing concepts and
ideas. No formal business shall be conducted. Consensus votes during
all Study Sessions are non-binding, with exception of consensus votes
to schedule or decline to schedule a matter for consideration at a
Regular or Special Meeting, which may, however, be reconsidered after six (6) months as permitted by Rule V.D.3. Until an issue is
disposed of at a Regular, Adjourned, or Special Meeting, it may be
amended or reconsidered in that or any future Study Session.
2. Public Comment will be allowed at the beginning of a Study Session as
provided by Rule II.A.3.
C. ADJOURNED MEETINGS
Any Meeting of the Council may be adjourned, by a majority vote of council
members present or the chair, to a later date and time, provided that no
adjournment shall be for a period longer than the next Regular Meeting.
D. EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
1. The Council may meet in Executive Session on a vote of a majority of City Council members present in a Regular or Special Meeting (Charter
Section 5.7).
2. No notes may be taken during an Executive Session except by the City
Clerk and/or City Attorney.
3. If, at any time during the Executive Session, a Council Member feels
that a matter is being discussed other than that stated as the purpose
of the Executive Session, that member should so state and may
request that the Executive Session be terminated. If a consensus of City Council Members present agree, the session shall be terminated
-8-
or the discussion shall be returned to the stated purpose of the Executive Session.
4. All requirements of the Colorado Open Meetings Law shall be followed.
E. MEETING NOTICES AND REQUIREMENTS
1. Meetings involving no more than two (2) Council Members, whether in
person, by telephone or other electronic medium and whether or not the
Mayor also attends, shall not be subject to any of the requirements of
this Rule.
2. Meetings of any three (3) or four (4) Council Members must be open to the public, but no advance notice is required.
3. All meetings of five (5) or more Council Members must be preceded by
public notice of the meeting posted at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting, with the exception of Special Meetings and emergency Special
Meetings, pursuant to Charter Section 5.2, on the City website and the
locations designated by resolution of the Council, listing the topic of the
meeting, its location, time, and date. Copies of the notice shall be given
to all City Council Members and the City Clerk at least 72 hours before the meeting.
a) The City Clerk is responsible for the posting of the meeting pursuant
to the Charter and Code.
b) There is no responsibility to post notices of meetings of other bodies
and groups, whether or not members of the Council are expected to
attend.
4. Public meetings arranged by the City for members of the public, such as
open houses and public input meetings, are not meetings of the City
Council.
F. ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIAL
GATHERINGS
1. The purpose for this rule is to permit the City to be represented by its
elected officials at meetings of other groups or organizations,
including, without limitation, intergovernmental organizations,
neighborhood organizations, business and service organizations, and
other organizations or groups with which the City has a relationship.
2. Any member of Council and the Mayor may attend meetings of other
groups without prior notice, provided however, that any such meeting,
if attended by three (3) or more members of the Council, is open to the public, pursuant to Section 24-6-401, et seq., C.R.S.
-9-
3. Social gatherings, at which the discussion of public business is not the central purpose, shall not be subject to any of the requirements of
Rule IV.E.
G. ABSENCES
In the event that a Council Member expects to be absent from a Regular, Special
or Adjourned Meeting or Study Session, the Member shall notify the City Clerk, and
the City Clerk will duly notify the City Council at the beginning of the meeting.
H. RIGHT OF THE FLOOR
1. The chair must first recognize each Council Member requesting to speak unless limited by a motion to limit debate or for calling the
question. (applicable also to Study Sessions)
2. Speakers shall confine themselves to the question under discussion.
All discussion must be germane to the Agenda Item. (applicable also
to Study Sessions)
3. Members of Council shall avoid personal attacks and refrain from
impugning the motives of any member’s argument or vote. (applicable
also to Study Sessions)
4. Once a vote, or in the case of a Study Session a Consensus, has been
taken, there shall be no further discussion on that motion or Agenda
Item unless a motion to reconsider is adopted.
I. ELECTED OFFICIALS’ MATTERS
This is the time elected officials may make comments on any subject. Time limit
per elected official will be five (5) minutes.
V. ORDER OF BUSINESS AND THE AGENDA
A. SCOPE OF RULE: This Rule V shall apply only to Regular, Special and
Adjourned Meetings, and not to Study Sessions, unless specifically noted.
B. ORDER OF BUSINESS
The general rule as to the Order of Business in Regular Meetings:
• CALL TO ORDER
• PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
• ROLL CALL
• APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• APPROVAL OF AGENDA
-10-
• PROCLAMATIONS AND CEREMONIES
• PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO SPEAK
• CONSENT AGENDA
• PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING
• ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING
• DECISIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
• CITY MANAGER’S MATTERS
• CITY ATTORNEY’S MATTERS
• ELECTED OFFICIALS’ MATTERS
• ADJOURNMENT
C. AGENDA PREPARATION AND INITIATION OF AGENDA ITEMS
1. The Order of Business of each meeting shall be as contained in the
Agenda prepared by the Mayor Pro Tem following the Order of
Business provided in this Rule.
2. By majority vote of the City Council during any City Council meeting
the order of business for that meeting may be changed. The City
Manager and City Attorney may also propose to add or delete items to the Agenda of such meetings under “Approval of Agenda,” subject to
approval by a majority of the Council members present.
3. The Agenda shall be distributed to the members of City Council and the public by 5:00 PM on the Thursday prior to the Monday of the
Regular Meeting.
4. The City Clerk’s Office shall be notified of the Agenda by noon on the
Wednesday preceding the Monday on which the City Council meets.
All backup material and documents required for the Agenda shall be
filed with the Clerk’s office by 5:00 PM on that day in order to be
included in the City Council packet.
5. A majority of City Council Members present at a meeting is required to direct the City Attorney or staff to draft an ordinance to be included
on the Agenda.
6. A majority vote of City Council Members present may add, change the
order of, or delete an item from, the Agenda under “Approval of
Agenda.” In Regular Meetings, this must be done before Public
Hearings and Ordinances on Second Readings.
7. The first option of introducing Agenda Items shall go to a
representative of the City Council District to which the Agenda Item pertains or to the City Council Member who initiated the item. Council
Agenda Items not specific to a City Council District may be introduced
by any member requesting such privilege from the Chair in advance of the meeting. The Mayor shall assign Agenda Item introductions and
-11-
notify each City Council Member and the City Clerk prior to each City Council meeting.
8. Fiscal Notes. On any Agenda item containing a fiscal impact on the
City’s budget, the City Manager shall prepare a brief explanatory note
that shall include a reliable estimate of any anticipated change in the
expenditures or revenues to the City and whether such expenditures
or revenues shall be recurring in nature during future budgets years.
This shall include any principal and interest payments required to
finance expenditures.
9. City Council may not approve an appropriation under City Manager’s
Matters, City Attorney’s Matters, or Elected Officials’ Matters.
D. INITIATING AND ADDING AGENDA ITEMS
1. City Council Members or the Mayor may each originate an Agenda Item
with the approval of one other City Council Member. Each City Council
Member and the Mayor shall be allowed to originate only two (2) items
per month to be added to the Agenda of a Regular Meeting or a Study
Session, subject to the scheduling authority of the Mayor Pro Tem under Rule III.B.3. It is the intent of this Rule that no more than two
(2) agenda items may be initiated by the Mayor or any City Council
Member during any single month.
2. It is the responsibility of the originating City Council Member to provide
backup material for the City Council packet as to the subject or arrange
for that backup material to be prepared. No item may be included in
the Agenda without proper backup.
3. Other than by reconsideration pursuant to Rule VI, once an item has
been decided by a formal City Council vote at any Regular, Special or
Adjourned Meeting or by a binding consensus vote at any Study
Session under Rule IV.B.1, it is not eligible to be added to a future Agenda for six (6) months.
4. Motions made by City Council Members which are not in the City
Council packet should be submitted to the City Clerk and the Mayor in
writing during the City Council Meeting so they may be accurately
voted upon and included in the minutes.
5. During a Regular Meeting, under the City Manager’s Matters, the City
Attorney’s Matters or the Elected Official’s Matters portion of the
Agenda, or at a Study Session, the Mayor, a City Council Member, the City Manager, or the City Attorney may request that a motion be made
to add an item to a future Agenda for consideration, subject to
approval by the City Council by a majority vote of Council present (for addition to a Regular Meeting Agenda) or a consensus vote (for
additions to a Study Session Agenda).
-12-
6. The City Manager may add administrative and operational items to the agenda during “Approval of Agenda.”
E. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. All speakers are requested to sign up on the appropriate roster,
indicating whether they intend to speak to a particular Agenda Item.
There is no time limit on individual public testimony, provided,
however, that the chair may impose a limit on individual speakers’
time in consideration of the number of speakers signed up on the
hearing item and the available time for the hearing The City Council shall not entertain a motion for the final disposition of the matter until
the City staff and applicant have made their presentations, if any, the
public has been able to speak on the matter, the City staff and the
applicant have been given the opportunity to clarify any issues raised,
and the public hearing has been closed, provided that motions
regarding the conduct, scheduling or continuation of the public hearing
shall be proper at any time.
2. Hearings which are labeled as “Quasi-Judicial” matters on the Request for Council Action in the meeting packet:
a) Councilmembers shall refrain from communicating with each
other, the applicant, or the public prior to the hearing.
b) Written material and e-mails received prior to the hearing shall be
forwarded to staff for inclusion in the hearing record.
c) The chair shall swear in all witnesses, affirming their intention to
tell the truth
F. ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING
1. It is the goal and desire of City Council to allow all interested parties
to provide input during the Public Hearing/Second Reading on all
proposed ordinances. A full, complete, and open discussion of all proposed ordinances is encouraged during the Public Hearing/Second
Reading.
2. Therefore, public comment and staff presentations will occur only
during the Public Hearing/Second Reading. First Reading will be for
the purposes of setting proposed ordinances for publication, and
establishing a date for the Public Hearing/Second Reading.
G. TIME OF ADJOURNMENT
1. At 11:00 PM, the City Council shall complete action on the Agenda Item then under discussion and shall adjourn the meeting.
-13-
2. Prior to such adjournment, the City Council may take any of the following actions:
a) Acting by three-fourths (¾) majority vote of the City Council
Members present, complete all or portions of the remaining
Agenda.
b) Acting by a majority vote of the City Council Members present,
schedule any unfinished items for a future Regular or Special
Council Meeting.
c) Acting by majority vote of the City Council Members present, continue the meeting to a later date and time certain.
VI. RECONSIDERATION
1. A motion to reconsider may be made only by a City Council Member
originally voting with the prevailing side.
2. Such motion to reconsider shall be made only at that or the next
scheduled Regular Meeting. A continued or rescheduled meeting shall
be considered a next scheduled Regular Meeting for the purpose of such motion to reconsider. If not reconsidered at that time, the issue
may not be placed on any agenda for six (6) months.
3. A motion to reconsider shall require an affirmative vote of a majority of the entire City Council.
4. A City Council Member who was absent from the meeting at which the
item was discussed may vote on the substantive matter following a
successful motion to reconsider provided that City Council Member
affirms, on the record, that he or she has listened to the recording of
that Agenda Item.
VII. SUSPENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THESE RULES
A. SUSPENSION
Any provision of these Rules not governed by the Home Rule Charter or Code of
Laws may be temporarily suspended by a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of the City Council Members present.
-14-
B. AMENDMENT
These Rules may be amended, or new Rules adopted by a majority vote of City
Council Members present at a Regular or Special Meeting, provided that the
proposed amendments or new Rules shall have been submitted in writing to City
Council at a preceding meeting or a Study Session. Any City Council Member, or
the Mayor, may initiate an amendment of these Rules in the manner provided for
initiation of Agenda Items by Rule V.D. These Rules shall be reviewed and revised
by the City Council as needed and as provided for herein.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Gerald Dahl, City Attorney
DATE: November 28, 2023
RE: Hate speech in the public forum: options for local governments ______________________________________________________________________
Introduction
The City provides “public's right to speak" which takes place at the beginning of regular
City Council meetings. Speakers can zoom or call in to deliver comments, in addition to
those present in the Council chambers. I have created the following list of potential actions the City might take to govern this part of the agenda, within the limitations necessarily imposed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and case law construing it. This list has been materially enhanced by responses to a listserv post I
placed with the municipal attorneys listserv sponsored by CML.
Background
First Amendment case law tells us that there is a very high bar preventing local governments from regulating the content of speech given in a “public forum,” even when hateful, derogatory or inflammatory. Such content-based restrictions are subject to “strict
scrutiny," and typically fail unless, as noted, they would cause immediate disruption in the
meeting or the commission of illegal acts in connection with that meeting. Examples of permissible content restrictions include the classic shouting “fire" in a crowded theater but also include statements that have the potential to incite immediate violence or disruption in the meeting room as a consequence of their being said.
The vast majority of permissible government regulation of speech, which is subject only
to “intermediate scrutiny," are regulations which control the “time, place and manner" of the speech, and not its content. Accordingly, restrictions such as limiting the time for individual speakers, when during the meeting they may speak, requiring preregistration in order to speak, etc. are all reasonable time, place and manner restrictions and are
upheld.
The following are time, place and manner restrictions which can be placed on the opportunity for public comment. Because this is a “limited public forum,” the government can limit this speech so long as those restrictions do not discriminate based on the viewpoint being expressed (the content) and are fairly enforced with respect to all
speakers regardless of their topic:
ATTACHMENT 2
Hate speech in the public forum
Page | 2
1. Sign in requirements: Require individuals to sign in to speak during public
comment. If no sign in, no opportunity to speak. The practice has been to allow
anyone in the room, after going through the list of persons signing up to speak. This can be changed and limited exclusively to persons signing up.
2. Identification requirements: The City can require persons wishing to speak to identify themselves by their name and city of residence. Often times, speakers do
not wish to give their actual home address, and the City must balance the
legitimate privacy and security concerns of speakers with the potential advantage of having a means to identify speakers. Certainly, the City can require this. But, as observed, it is simple for persons to give fake names and addresses.
3. Time limitations: Presently, the City's rules of procedure permit three minutes per
speaker. This can be reduced. Other communities have limitations as short as one
minute per speaker.
4. Limit total time for public comment: When that total time is reached, public comment can be declared closed for that night.
5. Move public comment to the end of the meeting: A number of other cities have
experimented with this approach, under the theory that persons wishing to “zoom
bomb" the meeting are less willing to wait until the indefinite time at the end of the meeting when their comments might be heard. A variation on this approach is to require pre-identification or sign up of speakers, which will permit them to speak at the beginning of the meeting, and non-preregistered speakers and anonymous
speakers being permitted to speak only at the end of the meeting.
6. Restrict public comment to agenda items only: There is no constitutional or statutory right to public comment outside of noticed public hearings. Nevertheless, most local governments in Colorado have adopted some form of non-agenda item public comment. However, with the rise of other ways to communicate to their
elected officials (Wheat Ridge Speaks, social media, the City's website, etc.), there
are many other avenues for constituents to reach out to their elected officials on non-agenda items, and it may well be that the true value of non-agenda item public comment at the meeting itself is significantly diminished.
7. Restrict public comment exclusively for public hearings: As noted, there is no
express right to public comment and the City has the right to allow it only for noticed
public hearings.
8. Written comments in lieu of spoken public comment on non-agenda items: The City could require that any persons wishing to make public comment do so in writing, either physically left with the City Clerk or added on the City's website or
Wheat Ridge Speaks, with the assurance that these comments will be provided to
the City Council. In practice, this is already the case. This technique could be used
Hate speech in the public forum
Page | 3
to provide an outlet for non-agenda item comment where that class of comment is
chosen to be prohibited during the public meeting.
9. Rules concerning threatening, violent, or intentionally disruptive conduct: There is some room to intervene and stop public comment as it is being delivered if it becomes threatening or violent, to the extent that it jeopardizes the conduct of the meeting itself. I stress this is a very difficult line to draw in the moment, but
threatening physical gestures, approaching the dias, or refusing to leave the
podium and shouting after the approved time limit are examples of the narrow category of behaviors associated with the speech itself, which can be prohibited in those cases, the chair can certainly ask for a recess while the other person is escorted from the room, and, if necessary, arrested.
10. Limitation as to the spoken word only: The City has had the experience of one
person seemingly wishing to play a song rather than make a statement. It would be a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction to limit public comment to actual spoken or written comments and not to playing videotaped songs or other demonstrative activities.
11. Limit or eliminate the right to donate time: This rule has been adopted by a number
municipalities, in part to prevent someone ending up with 30-minutes worth of time. Under the Wheat Ridge rules, public comment speakers may donate time to someone up to a total of nine minutes.
12. Opportunity for email prior to the meeting: While Councilmembers are always
available by email, a public comment guideline telling persons that if they wish
Councilmembers to receive an email before public meeting, they may do so up until a given time, would be helpful if the Council has otherwise severely limited public comment during the meeting.
13. Rebroadcasting video of the meeting: The City can make a reasonable distinction
between having to allow this speech at public comment, but not to rebroadcast the
public comment section. This is because the rebroadcast is in effect the City’s “government speech” which the City has the right to censor. In doing so, I believe it best to not rebroadcast any of the republic comment, though.
• Just as the City can choose not to have any public comment at its meetings,
the City can choose how much of the original meeting to rebroadcast, as the purpose is to inform about the actions taken by the Council, and the public comment section is not necessary for that - the City has the right to edit for length and can cut out any sections of the meeting it wishes not to
rebroadcast.
• Even if the motive is to not rebroadcast hate speech, that is something the City can do – the rebroadcast is government speech, and the City has the First Amendment right to “say” or not say, what it wishes.
Hate speech in the public forum
Page | 4
• Bear in mind that the original audio and video recordings of the meeting
remain complete, though, and are available for public copying and inspection under the Open Records Law.
14. Counter speech: Public officials and other members of the public certainly have the same right to speak out and contradict hate speech. This can and does occur during Councilmember comments at the end of the meeting. The tradition has been
to not immediately respond to public comment at the beginning of the meeting, but this rule could be changed to allow Councilmembers to affirmatively push back and identify public comments as having been false, hate speech, antisemitic, or any other unsavory category. The Council must balance this opportunity against the
potential for the meeting to become a form of shouting match, which undercuts the
main purpose of the meeting itself.