Gold Corridor Catalytic Project & Technical Assistance Overview

~~A~ .... .,. City of ~~ Wheat:B.i_dge ~OMMUNllY DEVELOPMENT

Memorandum

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Kenneth Jolmstone, Community Development Director THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager _.Q}

DATE: March 6, 2015 (for March 16 study session)

SUBJECT: DRCOG Sustainable Communities Initiative

ISSUE: DRCOG's Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI) grant from US Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is concluding. The project has been led by the DRCOG Board and an executive oversight committee, including private sector and non-profit representation. Mayor Jay is also a member of the executive committee.

City staff from Public Works, Planning and Economic Development have been actively participating in various aspects of the process for over 2.5 years through a group known as the Gold Line Corridor Working Group (CWG). As part of the project wrap-up, Paul Aldretti, DRCOG's project manager for the grant is presenting an overview of project results to all local government governing boards that participated in the project.

PRIOR ACTION: City Council passed Resolution No. 26, Series 2011 on August 22, 2011 strongly supporting DRCOGs joint application for the funding request to help implement DRCOG's Metro Vision Plan. On September 22, 2011 , Mayor DiTullio signed a letter to HUD Secretary Donovan further supporting the grant application and committing to provide $18,000 of in-kind contributions to the project, mostly in staff time.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: As noted above, the City committed to an $18,000 local match to support the project, mostly comprised of staff time, some use of City meeting facilities and the City's $10,000 local match for the recent ULI Technical Advisory Panel. The City's local match has been approximately $33 ,000 over the past 2.5 years. The value of the documents prepared through the project which benefit the City far exceed that local match. Those include: • Market Study • Housing Study • Ward Road preliminary design documents 1 • 50 h Place/Ward Road traffic analysis and signal warrant study Staff Memo - Sustainable Communities Initiative March 16, 2015 Page 2

BACKGROUND: The overall goal of the grant application was to further the City's sustainability goals as reflected in the regional master plan, which is Metro Vision. In particular, the project sought to maximize the benefit from and leverage the investment the region is making in mass transit through the FasTracks program. The Denver Metro region has a long history of working collaboratively as represented by Th e Mile High Compact, a voluntary agreement signed by 46 communities representing 90 percent of the region's population. The Compact is an agreement to manage growth in a manner consistent with the vision and goals established in Metro Vision.

The project took a broad regional focus on issues related to housing, multi modal transportation, economic development and job creation. The project also sought to reach out to a broad representation of regional populations through a comprehensive public outreach process guided in part by a stakeholder committee, which included Wheat Ridge representation.

In addition to the regional focus and regional level of analysis and recommendations, the project also had a specific focus on four FasTracks corridors: West Line, Gold Line, East Corridor (DIA train) and Northwest Rail. Each of these corridors, through their CWGs and stakeholder committees identified corridor-specific project goals and objectives. For the Gold Line, several of the specific goals and objectives included the preparation of the following: • Affordable Housing Preservation and Creation Strategy • Market Readiness Study • Economic Development Strategy

Each of the corridors also received funding for a catalytic project. These projects were intended to be a design project that could be moved forward to implementation and that would assist and "catalyze" transit oriented development near a station. For the Gold Line, the City of Wheat Ridge was awarded the catalytic project, which was a design study for potential multi-modal transportation improvements to Ridge Road between Miller Street and Ward Road.

RECOMMENDATIONS: DRCOG will present a broad overview of the findings for City Council' s consideration at the meeting. The Corridor Blueprint (attached) is the summary document and there are several additional documents and work products that are cross-referenced in the Blueprint. DRCOG and City staff will be available for questions. Given the depth and breadth of material included in the Blueprint, staff would request direction from City Council whether any of the supporting documents or topics should be brought back to City Council for further discussion and action.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Sustainable Communities Initiative Gold Corridor Blueprint Sustainable Communities Initiative Gold Corridor Blueprint

Background In November 2011, as part of a coordinated effort with 86 partner organizations, the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) was successful in securing a $4.5 million Regional Planning Grant for the benefit of the region from the Sustainable Communities Partnership, a federal collaboration of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). With this grant a consortium of municipalities, counties, state agencies, economic groups, housing authorities, and corporate interests joined with nonprofit, philanthropic and academic organizations to address one of the region's most pressing and exciting challenges: leveraging the planned multi-billion dollar expansion of the FasTracks transit system to meet other regional needs and opportunities.

The overarching goal of the Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI) is to align investments, programs and policies to maximize the benefits that result from the region's investment in transit. SCI anticipates a region with greater access to job opportunities across the entire income spectrum, lower combined transportation and housing costs, reduced ~onsumption of fossil fuels, reduced strain on our air and water resources, and ultimately the development of concentrated, mixed-use, pedestrian- and bicycle friendly "urban centers" along transit lines that allow residents to easily access their daily needs without having to get into a car. The introduction of transit provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to achieve this vision.

The work plan is divided into five main activities. The first three represent distinct but interrelated planning levels- regional, corridor and site-specific (Catalytic Projects) . The remaining two Stakeholder Engagement and Outcomes Assessment and Knowledge Sharing (OAKS)- cut across and support planning efforts at all three levels.

Corridor Planning This Blueprint serves as the final report of the Corridor Planning efforts. It is designed to support on going collaborative cross-jurisdictional and inter-agency planning and development along the three transit lines currently under construction as part of the Eagle P3 public-private partnership (Northwest Rail Line, East Rail Line, and the Gold Line), as well as US 36 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) . The corridors are defined as the area within one mile of these lines. Long-term desired outcomes include thoughtful planning for development along the new transit corridors that maximizes the benefits of the region's investment in FasTracks. Specifically, these efforts are intended to help increase access to employment and educational opportunities (particularly for low-income households), decrease combined housing and transportation costs, support active living and healthy aging, reinvigorate existing neighborhoods, Attachment 1 , I .. sc·t· DRG- G U ~- · I!,.,,,I,J,·,I··r',,· enhance economic competitiveness, reduce pollution, and improve the efficient use of natural resources including energy and water.

The Gold Corridor follows RTD's Gold Line (G Line) . It consists of seven stations after Denver Union Station

Line

72nd Aye

ARVADA ~lhAve

581h Ave

I ---r c 12"' 32ndAve 1 U) 261h Ave

-l 201hAvt EDGEWATER A Colt~ Ave;___~ N

Each corridor established a Corridor Working Group (CWG) comprised of staff from jurisdictions along the corridor including those representing planning, public works, economic development, and public health departments. The CWG also included housing authorities, transportation management associations, the Regional Transportation District (RTD), and other key stakeholder to conduct corridor planning activities. These activities included :

1. Developing a corridor vision and identifying a set of goals to ach ieve that vision 2. Identifying a corridor-wide issue that would benefit from technical assistance funding available through the SCI grant to study potential opportunities, issues and strategies

Page 2 3. Selecting a site-specific Catalytic Project in the corridor for pre-development planning funded by the grant to stimulate transformational changes and serve as a model for similar projects 4. Recommending specific actions based on all the activities conducted by the CWG to serve as guidance for future collaborative development efforts in the corridor

Stakeholder Engagement To ensure all constituents with a stake in the outcome were engaged in the corridor planning process, each CWG received input from a broader Corridor Stakeholder Committee (CSC). Each CSC was comprised of 10-20 community leaders representing residential and business interests from communities in the corridor. Representation and areas of interest included:

• All ages, incomes and abilities • Low-income communities or those at-risk of displacement • Person(s) with limited English proficiency (LEP) • Communities of color • Small business ownership • Housing (mixed-income/affordable/workforce) • Transportation access or alternatives (multimodal- trails, cycling, walk-ability) • Public health and/or safety • Education and training • Job creation/retention or economic dev~lopment • Arts/cultural resources

While the CWG was comprised of the decision makers and implementers, the esc served in an advisory capacity to this group. They provided feedback from the resident perspective at key decision points in the planning process including the vision, goals and recommendations. This relationship provided a direct link to the implementers.

The esc was critical to achieving broader stakeholder engagement goals for the corridor planning process. Committee members helped design activities for a large public workshop, identified additional opportunities for public education and participation, and recruited participants. The committee also had a heavy focus in education and allowed members to gain a broader understanding of the larger opportunities and benefits of being connected to the regional rapid transit network. The intent was to provide the background and tools necessary to foster development of leadership in corridor implementation.

Gold Corridor Blueprint- Contents This blueprint consists of the following:

• Corridor Vision and Goals • Corridor Profile Overview- baseline data and mapping • Catalytic Project and Technical Assistance Outcomes Summaries Page 3 , I " sc1· DRG'tt~G n I • I •• ' (.tl ~ 1 1 _..- __ ~ EJr--: _ l t I I I 1 /- I , I / 1 I • Stakeholder Profile • Recommendations

In addition, several full reports are included as appendices. These include:

• Corridor Profile • Catalytic Project Report • Technical Assistance Report- full report

Acknowledgments It is important to acknowledge the following individuals and organizations whose contributions directly resulted in the success of this work and the quality of its outcomes.

Gold Corridor Planning Participants

• Jeanne Shreve- Adams County, • Jeff Romine- City and County of Denver, Office Transportation Projects Section * of Economic Development • Joelle Greenland -Adams County, • Emily Silverman- City and County of Denver, Community Development * Public Works * • Julia Ferguson- Adams County, • Jenn Hillhouse- City and County of Denver, Sustainability Program Public Works * • Don May- Adams County Housing • Alan Feinstein- Jefferson County Housing Authority* Authority* • Mike Elms- City of Arvada, Community • Patrick Mclaughlin- Regional Transportation Development District* • Kevin Nichols- City of Arvada, Community • Mike Turner- Regional Transportation District Development * • Jessica Prosser- City of Arvada, • Steve Art- City of Wheat Ridge, Economic Sustainability * Development and Urban Renewal * • Bill Honer- City of Arvada, Public Works • Ken Johnstone- City of Wheat Ridge, Community Development* • John Firouzi- City of Arvada, Public Works • Steve Nguyen -City of Wheat Ridge, Engineering • Daniel Ryley- City of Arvada, Economic • Scott Brink- City of Wheat Ridge, Public Works Development Association • Ed Talbot- City of Arvada, Housing and • Molly Hanson- Jefferson County Public Health * Neighborhood Revitalization • Clark Walker- Arvada Urban Renewal • Max Gibson -Jefferson County Public Health Authority* • Steve Gordon- City & County of Denver, Planning & Development

* Primary Gold Corridor Working Group (CWG) Members Page 4 Gold Corridor Stakeholder Committee (CSC) Members

• Rick Adams • Bill Husson • Diana Andrade • Christine Jensen • Vincent Baldassano • Dave Oletski • Hank Braaksma • Tom Ripp • Patricia Connell • Virginia Rome • Lee Erickson • Jane Schnabel • Britta Fisher • Lupe Trujillo • Harriet Hall • Thomas Trujillo • Yulia Hernandez • Sharon Whitehair • Eugene Howard • Bob Wilson

Stakeholder Engagement Team FRESC : Good Jobs/Strong Communities- Desiree Westlund, Samaria Crews Transit Alliance- Kathleen Osher, Christopher Coble Place Matters- Ken Snyder, Peter Kenney, Jocelyn Hittle, Brad Barnett, Critter Thompson, Kayla Gilbert, Marine Siohan

DRCOG staff Paul Aldretti- Sustainable Communities Coordinator Ashley Kaade- Outreach Specialist Michele Anderson- Regional Planner Anna Garcia- Regional Planner

In addition, SCI recognizes the work of CDR Associates in providing support and facilitation to the Corridor, particularly Laura Sneeringer. SCI also recognizes Catherine Cox Blair and Bill Sadler from Reconnecting America for developing the Corridor Profiles and their indispensible technical assistance. Finally, SCI recognizes the Denver Foundation for providing funding in support of the esc and other stakeholder engagement efforts.

Page 5 , I ~ · sc·t DRG-Ci n ~ I • ' •• • \..J . . ' 1 __ _ ~...-- !fr 1 • .~~ l r / r, tl Gold Corridor Visions and Goals

Gold Corridor Vision

The Gold Roil Line Corridor connects unique ond historic transit-centered communities with a range of housing choices ond easy access to job centers, recreation_ educational ond development opportunities. Served by diverse transportation modes for a wide range of socio-economic populations, the Gold Line Corridor supports active, healthy and sustainable lifestyles.

Gold Corridor Goals

• Improve connectivity to the stations and between transit service lines to provide safe, easy multi modal access for people of all ages and abilities.

• Create and preserve a range of quality housing choices throughout the corridor for new and existing neighborhoods and residents of all incomes, age groups and abilities.

• Identify, attract, susta in and expand a diverse and unique economic base of jobs along the corridor.

• Leverage public investment to attract private development along the corridor and create unique places.

• Attract and enhance access to amenities and services such as education, family and health services, and healthy food options.

• Provide and enhance access to parks, open space, recreation and community building opportunities along the corridor.

• Promote denser development near the stations to conserve resources and reduce the combined costs of transportation and housing.

Page 6 Gold Corridor Profile Overview

The Corridor Profile report provides a comprehensive summary of relevant information and strategies for implementing successful transit-oriented development (TOD) along the Gold Corridor. At the beginning of the corridor planning process in 2013, Reconnecting America examined all station area plans and other relevant studies along the corridor, as well as demographic, economic and real estate conditions at each station and throughout the Gold Corridor, to create a summary report of existing conditions and opportunities and challenges to implementing TOD. The report was updated in June 2014. The Corridor Profile also provided initial recommendations to the Gold CWG for moving from vision in the station area plans to reality in the corridor, including additional technical assistance needs that could be funded through the SCI.

The Corridor Profile provided recommendations to the Gold CWG as it moved forward with implementation activities for transit-oriented development along the Gold Corridor. The primary audience was working group members and their respective agencies. The goal was for the CWG to use the information, analysis and recommendations contained in the report to strategically prioritize investments, funding sources, and development to benefit the corridor as a whole. The report also serves as evidence of the tremendous amount of work already done by the various agencies along the corridor to make TOD a reality.

The Corridor Profile also is intended to be a resource to:

• Internal staff and elected officials in jurisdictions along the corridor. • The development and investment community, both private and nonprofit, looking to invest in station areas along the Gold Rail Line • RTD and its Board of Directors • DRCOG • Local and regional economic development agencies • Potential government and foundation grantors • Other cities, housing authorities, transit agencies, economic development, and regional governing bodies around the U.S. • Residents of Arvada, Wheat Ridge, Denver, and Adams County

The report charts an initial course for the Gold CWG and the other "partners" who will ultimately be responsible for implementing station area plans and additional goals identified by the CWG itself. The report provides a "snapshot in time" or baseline. As conditions change, this strategy must be updated.

The full Corridor Profile can be found in the appendix to this document.

Page 7 Organization of the Corridor Profile This blueprint consists of the following:

• Gold Corridor Overview: A brief overview of the Gold Corridor and the draft Vision and Goals created by the Gold CWG

• Importance of Corridor Planning: A summary of the benefits of corridor planning and how this report can help inform decisions made on the Gold Corridor

• Reconnaissance Summary: An overview of demographics and economic characteristics of the Gold Corridor and a review of station area and other relevant plans along the corridor, with accompanying maps (revised June 2014)

• Opportunities and Challenges Assessment : A review of the opportunities and challenges to implementing TOD along the Gold Corridor, with information on each station area and corridor wide opportunities and challenges.

• Corridor-wide Recommendations for Implementation: A matrix of recommendations for implementing TOD along the Gold Corridor, including an initial priority list created by the Gold CWG to sele ct activities to fund with SCI Technical Assistance funds.

Page 8 Gold Corridor Catalytic Project & Technical Assistance Overview

Catalytic Project The Catalytic Project study involved detailed pre-development planning intended to encourage new development and/or redevelopment at a specific site that offers the potential for transformational change. The long-term desired outcome of Catalytic Projects is the creation of tangible, proven models for effectively and efficiently achieving economic, housing, transportation, and environmental objectives at the site-level. Based on the existing conditions, market potential, needs assessment, station area typology and associated implementation strategies, the CWG identified several sites as potential catalytic projects. The CWG then set up a process for selecting one specific catalytic project to receive grant funding, with input from the stakeholder committee. The CWG considered the following criteria when selecting catalytic projects:

• Furtherance of Metro Vision goals • Addresses multiple Federal Livability Principles • Replicability • Potential for additional regional benefits • Viability- technical and financial • Inclusive grassroots resident leadership (existing or potential) • Likelihood of spurring additional private-sector development • Other criteria to be determined by the CWG

Upon selecting a site, the CWG developed a detailed scope of work (SOW) for specific activities at that site and determined the need for consultant support. DRCOG integrated the statement of work into a request for proposals, which was reviewed by the CWG prior to being issued publicly. A representative sub-group of the CWG reviewed all proposals and selected a final set of consultants among those who responded to the Request for Proposals. The sub-group interviewed the finalists and selected a consultant to conduct the work described in the SOW. DRCOG issued and managed the contract. A Project Steering Committee comprised of representatives of the CWG provided oversight of the work. The entire CWG was briefed periodically during the project and reviewed the draft study.

Gold Corridor Catalytic Project- Wheat Ridge-Ward Road Station/Ridge Road This project identified potential ways to improve the Wheat Ridge-Ward Road Station area and Ridge Road between the City of Arvada and the City of Wheat Ridge. Both cities have identified the need for housing and jobs within one half mile of the station areas with a mixed-use development pattern along Ridge Road. Additionally, Ridge Road provides an opportunity for multi-modal connectivity between the two stations. This project addressed the existing conditions of roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, geotechnical issues and community services along Ridge Road . It also examined accessibility to Page 9 , I " set DRG-Ci n \..J ~ ·-~ :r;.-. [[,,,,,,,I'• I " o/ the Wheat Ridge -Ward Road station with emphasis on obstacles and opportunities associated with Ward Road.

Key Outcomes: • Ridge Road has great potential as a key access for the Ward Station and a connector between the Ward and Arvada Ridge Stations. Improvements have been identified that would provide a complete street in the short-term, with on street bike lanes, continuous sidewalks on the north side of the street and some of the ultimately desirable turn lanes for approximately $4-million with only very limited additional right-of-way needed. • Several additional improvements have been identified that Wheat Ridge and Arvada plan to pursue to enhance multi-modal access to the two transit stations and to help spur transit-oriented development, including: o Bike accommodations along Ridge Road, Tabor Street, 52 "d Avenue, the North 1-70 Frontage Road o Improved sidewalks on Ward Road, Lee Street (connecting to Red Rocks Community College ), and the streets listed above o A traffic signal at Ward Road/50th Avenue o A traffic signal on Kipling Street north of the Gold Line underpass o Coordination with RTD on bus route modifications coinciding with the Gold Line opening • It was important to include a multi-modal transportation planning view of a larger study area to understand the context of the Gold Line station areas before focusing specifically on the Ridge Road study corridor (from Tabor Street to Miller Street). • The planning effort considered how to bu ild a transportation project in the neighborhood that fits within the overall transportation network, for any day-of the week and for the entire season.

Technical Assistance In addition to the Catalytic Project, the CWG received funds to conduct a study of a corridor-wide need, opportunity, challenge, or development strategy. This study could incorporate several topics including housing opportunity, economic development and resil ience, public health and active living, and transit accessibility. The selection and contract management processes for a consultant to conduct work related to the identified technical assistance topic was identical to that described above for the Catalytic Project.

Gold Corridor Technical Assistance- Market Readiness Study This project included an economic analysis of businesses, housing and community services along the Gold Line from Union Station to Wheat Ridge-Ward Road Station. The project identified the strengths and market potentials along the corridor. This work was conducted in an effort to meet the vision of the CWG to create and preserve a range of quality housing choices thought the corridor; provide an economic base of jobs; leverage transit to attract private development; and attract and enhance access to amenities, services and community facilities. A key component of this study addressed grocery and food supply and demand analysis, addressing the need for services from traditional grocery stores, local

Page 10 food producers, community gardens and agriculture or food share programs. The study also identified community service needs including child care, senior services and recreation facilities as well as unmet demand. An economic development strategy was developed for the corridor that identified a business attraction and retention strategy, and catalytic infrastructure investment opportunities for real estate development, employment and access to community services.

Key Outcomes: • There is existing demand for transit-oriented housing. Multifamily housing projects have already been developed along the corridor in some stations areas. • There are existing available land and development opportunities along the Gold Corridor. Many station areas have vacant property or redevelopment opportunity sites. • Parallel to the 1-70 Corridor, the Gold Corridor is attractive to construction, trades, professional/technical services, building services, distribution, and manufacturing businesses. 1-70, 1- 76, and 1-25 provide directional automobile and trucking access enabling businesses to easily access customers and suppliers anywhere in Metro Denver. • The existing land use pattern for much of the corridor is predominately industrial with larger building footprints and sites, uses that are not compatible with TOD.

• Key opportunity sites are generally outside the~ mile radius of the station areas and require multi modal connectivity improvements at the Corridor level and at each station to facilitate access. Additional infrastructure improvements (including sidewalk, drainage, etc.) also are needed. • Essential services will not likely be provided at all station areas (within~ mile radius of the station) because of existing land uses, availability/cost of land, state of infrastructure, timing considerations (including market conditions), etc. • Improved education/communication approaches may be needed to help developers think at a corridor-scale. • TOD in the corridor and at station areas may not occur in the short-term due to several existing issues including low density, demographics, market conditions/demand, level of transit ridership, availability of workforce housing, opportunities on other corridors, etc. • There are key opportunities for substantive partnerships for maximizing development in the corridor including those with education, health and other institutions. • There is a need for greater coordination among jurisdictions on corridor-wide issues such as food availability and bicycle infrastructure. • The situation in the corridor is changing quickly requiring assessment and rapid action . Cost of land is increasing while supply is decreasing, leading to an increase in housing costs for families throughout the corridor. Policies will need to be enacted to make sure that those who rely the most on transit access can afford to live near current and future transportation investments. There also is a need to better understand what other changes the opening of the rail line may bring to communities in the corridor. • Developing a plan for next steps during the report development process would help identify staff level expectations. This includes thinking strategically about DRCOG's role.

Page 11 , I ~ SC1 DRG4t1Ci

\.Jn r r. .. • --11l--~ _,_,__ ! .. ,, •'' ' ,, Gold Corridor Technical Assistance- Affordable Housing Creation & Preservation Study

The Gold Corridor Affordable Housing Strategy was a multifaceted effort to address affordable housing and accessibility along the Gold Line. Six primary goals were established for this project.

1. Document affordable housing conditions and needs in the future Gold Corridor; 2. Analyze housing need in the short-term and mid-range (i.e., 15 years); 3. Identify potential development sites for affordable housing; 4. Document the current planning and regulatory mechanisms that may enable or impede the preservation and development of affordable housing; 5. Develop specific strategies from regional, state, and national models that will promote affordable housing in specific areas within the corridor; and 6. Develop an evaluation strategy to track the progress of affordable housing preservation and development.

Key Outcomes: • The market for multi-family housing is already active in the area, but it is entirely market-rate, including 738 recently constructed units and another potential 2500 units in the early pipeline. • This is out of alignment with the need for affordable housing: 1 in 3 households in the corridor are spending more than 35% of their income on housing; and half of the projected 7000 new households are likely to need affordable housing. • Except for the Denver 41 51 and Fox street station, the existing TOD plans in the corridor do not specifically support or specify affordable housing as part of the desired development. • The Cities and Counties also issue Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers, and in the past many households have been able to use vouchers to locate in the area. But with the tightening housing market, it has become increasingly difficult for voucher recipients to use their vouchers in the corridor. In Fall 2014, 70 households with vouchers from Jefferson County were unable to use them, and others who had lived in the area could not renew their leases. In a strong housing market, landlords are less willing to accept vouchers when other tenants will pay above market rents. • Three mobile home parks within a half mile of the Federal station provide affordable housing without subsidy to more than 440 households. These properties may be at risk given development pressures near transit and the lack of protections for mobile home owners. • By 2030, the age profile in the region will shift from the 20-30 year olds as the largest group, to three new dominant groups: teenagers, early middle age (40-55 y.o.), and early seniors (60-65 y.o.). This will influence the demand for housing, work and services in the corridor. Teenagers will need transportation alternatives to the auto in order to access school, jobs, extracurricular activities, etc. Transit options and safe pedestrian and bicycle ways could greatly increase their mobility. Seniors will need a variety of housing options, likely smaller units that are accessible to services such as medical care, pharmacies and small grocers. For seniors to move from their detached homes, these other options will need to be available. This will also allow for the filtering process- 20-30 year olds

Page 12 living in the corridor today can move into that housing with their children. Seniors on the upper end of the age cohort, over 85 years old, may be a large share given longer life expectancies and the current senior population in their 60s; this group will require transportation options other than the auto. • The Arvada Campus of Red Rocks Community College could be an amenity for area young adults, adults seeking a career change, and seniors and families using the college's future health clinic. However, there is a need for bus, bike, and pedestrian access to the campus and housing affordable to the students. • Most residents leave the corridor for work, and thus, most workers in the corridor are imported. Work in the corridor pays slightly higher wages than the work that corridor residents find elsewhere. • Alternative modes of transportation, such as bus public transit, walking, and biking, in the corridor are limited. There is a lack of bike and pedestrian infrastructure throughout the corridor. Bus service is limited, in terms of night and weekend service; frequency of most buses ranges from 30 minutes to 1 hour, and there are several areas without service. Destinations are not designed to be accessed by modes other than the autos; most services and amenities in the corridor are located and designed to be reached by auto. • Large sites for affordable housing exist, but affordable housing developers acting alone (without the support of government, public/private partnerships and grants) will struggle to cover the costs of the high land values and infrastructure requirements. • Jurisdictions and counties will need more tools, regulations, and financing sources to support the current (!nd future demand for affordable housing that needs to be rnet through both preservation and new development.

The full reports from the Catalytic Project and Technical Assistance can be found in the appendix to this document.

Page 13 Gold Corridor Stakeholder Profile

Stakeholder engagement is a critical component of the SCI and corridor planning process. Overarching stakeholder engagement goals include:

• Engage all of the relevant constituencies- people who have a stake in the process and who may be impacted by the outcome • Equip all of these constituencies with the tools and knowledge they need to effectively participate in the planning process • Integrate stakeholder engagement with all of the proposed planning and implementation activities, to ensure that stakeholders have meaningful opportunities to influence the outcomes of these activities • Create long-term capacity for continued engagement at the regional, corridor and catalytic project-level scales • Effectively and meaningfully engage communities typically underrepresented in planning processes, including low-i ncome individuals and families, people with limited English proficiency, and communities of color

Stakeholder Engagement Team A multi-disciplinary stakeholder engagement team was utilized to support DRCOG staff in achieving the goals for the corridor planning process. These organizations have significant experience in leadership development, capacity building, outreach to traditionally underrepresented communities, working with advocacy organizations, and meeting facilitation (including the effective use of innovative tools and technologies), and were indispensable to the process. Team participants included the following organizations.

FRESC: Good Jobs Strong Communities FRESC is a nonprofit organization with expertise in grassroots community organizing. FRESC community organizers played a pivotal role in recruiting, building capacity, and effectively and meaningfully engaging traditionally underrepresented populations. Staff organizers continually communicated with and fostered relationships with newly developed community organizers and leaders throughout the three-year process. They also assisted with the following tasks:

• Providing food, childcare, translated materials and interpretation services at stakeholder meetings and other engagement events • Conducting door-knocking in station areas along the corridor • Recruiting and mobilized diverse constituents to actively participate in planning and decision making process

Page 14 ~ ". SC'i' DRG.ti t..lft ~L ~-- ' If( II·"' f,(. /1, ' .. I • Training grassroots leaders to advocate in advisory community meetings for relevant community and regional outcomes such as affordable housing, job standards, healthy living, and access to transit • Conducting one-on-one education and quarterly training to help people understand the links between local and regional issues impacting these populations, including housing, public health, transit, jobs, training and economic development.

The Denver Foundation Colorado's oldest and largest community foundation, the Denver Foundation inspires people and mobilizes resources to strengthen the community. Complementing the efforts of FRESC, the Denver Foundation committed funding for small grants to emerging resident leaders and technical assistance to resident leaders in low-income areas involved in station-area or corridor-level decision-making. This funding supported the provision of food, childcare, translated materials and interpretation services at stakeholder meetings and other engagement events.

Transit Alliance Transit Alliance is a public-advocacy organization that works to enhance communities and people's lives by supporting transit, active transportation and increased mobility to cultivate a healthy, resilient and more sustainable lifestyle. Transit Alliance modified and conducted its successful regional Citizens' Academy for each of the corridors. The Corridor Academy provided community leaders with a fundamental working knowledge of how to engage in the process of regional transit and better communicate its benefits. The academy also sought to ignite a passion for public transit, community building around transit and fuel community interest in the overall benefits. Academy participants were encouraged to take their new knowledge and put it in action by designing a personal action plan to implement upon completing the Academy.

Place Matters PlaceMatters is a Denver-based non-profit think tank for civic engagement and process in planning whose work creates opportunities for informed, inclusive decision making in the planning of vibrant cities and communities. PlaceMatters conducted stakeholder interviews with municipal staff and community leaders who had been involved in previous planning efforts in the corridor like station area planning. They provided recommendations which were instrumental in designing the process, activities and tools for the stakeholder committees. Place Matters also helped design a large-scale interactive public forum for each corridor and synthesized feedback received. Further, they provided training to stakeholders on engagement tools like WALKscope and the Denver Regional Equity Atlas, building long term capacity among community leaders in the corridor.

Stakeholder Feedback While stakeholder engagement in each SCI corridor (East, Gold and Northwest) provided unique input to the planning process, some concerns were universal. First- and final-mile connectivity, in particular bicycle, pedestrian and bus modes and access to opportunities like transit, employment and housing rose as top challenges throughout the region. Page 15 In the Gold Corridor, the most frequently identified themes and opportunities included:

• First- and final-mile challenges/connectivity • Public education o Wayfinding • Safety • Access to opportunity • Preservation and enhancement of existing o Transit neighborhoods o Employment • TOO/economic opportunity o Housing (displacement, affordable, senior) • Multimodal transportation o Older adults, person(s) with a disability o Bicycle, pedestrian o Bus access

Issues, needs and topics raised in specific stakeholder engagement contexts in the corridor include the following:

Gold Corridor Stakeholder Committee (CSC) The Gold esc met eight times between June 2013 and October 2014 at the Wheat Ridge Recreation Center. Gold esc members identified the following issues for why they were interested in participating in the planning process.

• Connectivity to station areas • Importance of public education on transit • Preservation of home-ownership for the future generation • · Small-business opportunities • Promotion of carless lifestyle • Transit-oriented development (TOO) • Access to opportunity o Preservation and/or new affordable housing options- Low-income senior housing; upgrading housing (Giobeville) o Advocacy for residents and neighborhoods o Consideration of transit-dependent riders (large concentration of low-income individuals and families that do not own a vehicle in the corridor) o Even distribution of benefits and impacts o Access to education and employment o Consideration of older adults and those with disabilities

FRESC Outreach FRESC staff conducted outreach from spring 2012 through spring 2015 primarily in the Sunnyside neighborhood and southwest Adams County. The community members were predominantly Hispanic and one-fourth were monolingual Spanish speakers. Most community members FRESC worked with were renters or owners of mobile homes, women and/or working parents with children.

Page 16 Access to jobs and affordable transit fares were echoed throughout each of the corridors. FRESC also heard these common issues in the Gold Corridor.

• Displacement (Federal station area, mobile home parks) • Safety issues (Federal station area and Federal Boulevard) • Lack of recreation facilities and parks • Housing costs (Federal station area) • Station area access (41st & Fox station area, Federal Boulevard)

Active organizations in the Gold Corridor Tri-County Health Department Shrine of Sa int Anne Arvada Community Food Bank Inter-Church Arms STRIDE Agape Life Church Hope House of Colorado United Communities of Adams County Ralston House Perl Mack Homeowners' Association Growing Home Jefferson County Public Health

Transit Alliance Gold Corridor Academy Fourteen participants completed the Gold Corridor Academy on four consecutive Thursdays, Oct. 3-24, 2013. Attendees expressed interest in multimodal connectivity to diverse populations, ease of use to transition from car to public transportation, making sure everyone benefits from the system, creating quality transit-oriented development, communicating effectively throughout diverse communities, being able to best representthe benefits of the investment, resident displacement and e·ase of access and solving for the last mile and providing true alternatives to driving.

The following is a brief description of the participants' Individual Action Plans:

• Creating and installing wayfinding signs at stations to show alternative mode routes, and to introduce people to the surrounding neighborhoods for the purpose of promoting economic development • Help inform aging neighbors as to benefits of the system. Help them reduce car usage • Economic feasibility study of connectivity and community • Preservation issues at 60th and Federal Station. • Educate decision makers along Gold Line corridor • Help create last mile circulators to bridge gaps between destinations and regional transit system . • Develop a concept for using the Sheridan Station as an anchor for a regional sports center • Help plan pedestrian access to the Arvada Ridge Station • Get involved in local Olde Town Arvada Station exploring accessibility and first- and final-mile solutions • Develop concept to encourage the use of small grocery carts to promote walking and supporting local merchants

Page 17 , I .. set DRG._G

0 . ~ t} · [[ 1 ·i '• f .. , ~ ~-- ('''•' r, • Developing proposal to Mile High Connects for a grant to build coalitions and develop neighborhood champions to advocate for urban land uses and more innovative transportation policies to increase ridership of older adults, disabled and low income • Develop concept for free "Last Mile" connector shuttle from Olde Town Station to the Arvada Center • Become a strong voice in advocating density along main corridor serving the Olde Town TOO area, including walkable sidewalks and wayfinding • Find a way or method to actively engage and spark passion with Globeville-Eiyria-Swansea residents in regards to transportation

Gold Corridor Public Forum The Gold Corridor Public Forum was held Oct. 30, 2013 at the Wheat Ridge Recreation Center and attracted 80 participants. The forum provided a mix of high- and low-tech activities encouraging both education and engagement. The forum offered a chance for residents to learn about the Gold Corridor and other planning and transportation projects in the region, talk with staff from the jurisdictions along the corridor and RTD and provide input on Gold Corridor vision, assets and challenges, and preferred amenities and services. Common themes among feedback received included:

• Need for multimodal connectivity, first- and last-mile connections, shuttles • Safety at station areas, primarily related to pedestrians • Housing affordability, income diversity and higher density residential development • Preserving existing communities, values and architecture • Expansion of higher education and job training opportunities (Arvada Ridge) • New employment opportunities, mix of employment types from service to manufacturing

In summary, these participants painted a picture of a Gold Corridor community that is moving toward a future that preserves existing values, adds new opportunities, supports an active lifestyle, provides a variety of housing types and a diverse population- a community that is vibrant, clean, safe, affordable, and connected to the entire metropolitan region.

OUR Shared Vision DRCOG launched a civic engagement website to garner additional feedback from the community using the MindMixer platform. The site encourages idea generation and social interaction among participants. OUR Shared Vision published three topics related to the Gold Corridor covering corridor vision, goals and amenities. Common themes in feedback included promoting destinations in the Gold Corridor, strengthening communities and providing access to students.

Page 18 , I ~ ·~ sc1· DRG~JG

~~ft . . . .. ' d1L . f[l ,, I l l ,II II(! ~-- Gold Corridor Recommendations

The Gold Corridor Recommendations reflect the suggested priorities ofthe CWG based on the outcome of all activities undertaken as part of the corridor planning process including the Corridor Profile, stakeholder engagement efforts, and the outcomes of the Catalytic Project and technical assistance studies, as well as the expertise and experience of all the CWG members. The recommendations propose next steps for collaboration by the jurisdictions and other key partners in the corridor to continue work begun under the SCI grant and achieve the opportunities opened up by the build-out of the transit system.

Station-Specific Recommendations 1. Individual jurisdictions should identify the need, prioritization and funding for the recommended improvements for each station area, as described in the Gold Corridor Economic Development and Community Services Strategy. These may include recommendations for: A. Station area improvements, development and land use B. Food access C. Community services 2. Create/update TOO plans to include consideration for identifying affordable housing as a desired use and recommending supportive zoning and development gu idelines. 3. For Ward Station/Ridge Road Station, identify funding for final design and construction of infrastructure and multi-modal improvements discussed in the Catalytic Project Final Report. (Note: this would be a collaborative effort between Wheat Ridge and Arvada and a potential funding mechanism could be explored as part of a corridor-wide entity.)

Gold Corridor Recommendations All jurisdictions within the Gold Corridor agree continued communication and coordination is integral to the success of the corridor as a whole. Using the Gold CWG as an initial framework, an inter jurisdictional working group should be formed and work toward the best means by which to achieve shared goals including informal partnership, 501(c)(3), etc. This newly-formed entity should consider the following next steps to achieve its goals. Work could include prioritization based on type of group formed, goals, funding and timing.

Collaborate on strategies to create and expand primary jobs along the Gold Line corridor 1. Identify priority development sites 2. Develop coordinated economic development marketing materials 3. Conduct targeted broker site tours 4. Consider developing financial assistance mechanisms

Page 19 Implement the Affordable Housing Creation and Preservation Strategy focused on creating and preserving affordable housing and promoting diverse, mixed-income housing options at each station along the Gold line Corridor Components could include: 1. Adopt policy statements to preserve existing affordable housing and construct new affordable housing where possible. 2. Using the Affordable Housing Creation and Preservation Strategy as a basis, identify sites that have potential to be developed for affordable housing. Work with appropriate housing authorities and non-profits such as Urban Land Conservancy. 3. Develop detailed strategies for preserving affordable housing and constructing affordable housing on identified sites. 4. Implement detailed strategies for preservation and construction of affordable housing. 5. Identify tools each city or county could adopt to support affordable housing development, e.g. density bonuses, permit and fee waivers, low cost land, inclusionary housing ordinance, revised ADU guidelines, new zoning categories, e.g. changes to lot size, density, etc. 6. As a corridor, identify sites, prioritize sites for the yearly 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credit round and work together on the applications.

Collaborate on strategies to address first and final mile connections Prepare a First and Final Mile Connections Strategy that focuses on the potential for multimodal infrastructure improvements that better connect neighborhoods to transit stations. This study could also expand to ·examine existing transportation options, housing choices, job access, and community amenities to identify gaps and opportunities to best connect residents to origins and destinations within a 20-minute walking commute. 1. Inventory infrastructure and amenity needs for both bus and rail stations to identify connectivity and access needs. Elements inventoried will include stop amenities (i.e. benches, trash cans, shelters, etc.) as well as infrastructure elements such as sidewalk conditions, concrete pads, access walks, and proximity to safe crossing locations. Results from the inventory will be integrated into a dynamic database to help prioritize investment and implementation to the highest need areas as funding is available. 2. Study needed infrastructure to connect key opportunity sites outside of the YI mile radii of station areas. 3. Analyze bicycle and pedestrian networks and needed infrastructure 4. Evaluate strategies for implementing private and corporate sponsored connectors including business/corporate circulators and shuttles, car-share programs, etc. 5. Create an accessibility strategy to identify potential funding sources, areas of priority, and partners. Areas of possible focus include: public school transport (Mile High Connects, RTD, MATES), circulators, bicycle connectivity and services around the Federal Station (Regis, Denver B-Cycle, Aria)

Page 20 , I ~ ~ set DRG~Jei

... d.Il_ 1 r 1 • r .. \..1 . 11 __ ~- f., !r •"' 1 11 1! Convene a Gold Corridor Healthy Living Coalition to address healthy food and health care access. With so many cities and counties along the Gold Line, a health coalition can help maximize scarce resources and promote cooperation on healthy community design across jurisdictions in a politically neutral setting 1. Regularly convene stakeholders, including city staff, elected officials, representatives of local businesses and organizations, and community members. 2. Address policies, systems and environments to support healthy eating, active living, and health equity. 3. Seek funding to support a long-term coalition. 4. Potential activities include: develop action plan, advocate for policy change, and promote education on healthy community design.

Collaborate on locating needed community services at or near station areas These services may include: 1. Child care 2. Social services and assistance 3. Medical and health services 4. Retail and personal services benefiting both daytime workers and corridor residents 5. Job training

Develop and implement a Gold Corridor Marketing Strategy based on the Gold Corridor Market Readiness Study to enhance visibility and attractiveness of the Gold Corridor to visitors,. residents, business owners and developers This strategy could include: 1. Create educational materials and a communication plan targeted to interested developers to guide them in opportunities at a corridor-scale as well as individual stations. 2. Create materials for interested homeowners and businesses, as well as an economic development marketing and awareness campaign. 3. Host a cross-jurisdictional broker crawl to highlight available development opportunities at each station area.

Page 21 ..... ~'~ ... .- City of ..~ Wheat&_dge ~ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Memorandum

TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager ...00 FROM: Heather Geyer, Administrative Services Director/PIO

DATE: March 11 , 2015 (for Study Session ofMarch 161h}

SUBJECT: Draft 2015 Citizen Survey

In May 2014, City Council made the decision not to conduct the 2014 citizen survey and to complete the survey in the spring of 2015. Therefore, staff is bringing the survey back to City Council for review prior to mailing the survey in April. The enclosed survey is the fifth iteration and the City conducts the survey biennially. The last citizen survey was conducted in 2012.

BACKGROUND: The citizen survey serves as the City's "consumer report card." The purpose of the survey is as follows:

• To assess resident satisfaction with community characteristics and amenities, and • To evaluate Wheat Ridge local government and employees, and • To further understand the resident's priorities regarding government services in Wheat Ridge.

The National Research Center (NRC), based in Boulder, administers the survey. At the end of April, a postcard and pre-survey notification letter will be sent to 3,000 randomly-selected households throughout the City. Subsequently, the survey will be mailed to each selected household; and, if no response is received by a certain date, a second copy will be mailed. For the 2015 survey, residents will have the option to complete the survey online instead of completing the hardcopy survey that will be mailed to them.

Historically, the City has had a high rate of participation, with a response rate of33% in 2012. The average for a survey of this type ranges from 20- 30%. Wheat Ridge has always had higher than average response rates. Mailing the survey to 3,000 households, the City can expect to receive close to 1,000 completed surveys, which would yield a margin of error of plus or minus 3%. The margin of error for the 2012 survey was 3%. For the National Citizen Survey (NCS) and other surveys completed by NRC, approximately 1,200 households are mailed a survey and of those households 300-400 surveys are completed, yielding a 5% margin of error. Therefore, the City is being proactive in mailing the survey to 3,000 households, which historically has been effective. A margin of error of 5% is typically seen in other national surveys, and is generally viewed as a good and sufficient margin of error. It would take approximately 2,000 completed surveys to see the margin of error decrease to 2%. Draft 2015 Citizen Survey March 11 , 2015 Page2

It is important to note that many of the survey questions allow for comparisons to national and front-range benchmark data, available through the National Research Center (policy questions excluded); therefore, these same questions appear on each iteration of the survey. This approach provides comparable trend data and benchmarks for Wheat Ridge. The NCS was among the first scientific surveys to gather resident opinions on a range of community issues and has been used by more than 300 communities in 45 states. The NCS is the only citizen survey tool endorsed by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and the National League of Cities (NLC). Following the data analysis and report writing phase of the project, City Council can expect to see a presentation of the citizen survey results during a study session in late August or early September. Staff also plans to include a snapshot of survey results in a future edition of the Connections Newsletter.

POLICY QUESTIONS: Included for your review and discussion during the study session on March 161h are several policy questions that directors have drafted with the assistance of the NRC. The purpose of including these policy questions is to gauge the level of support, importance, and opinion of residents related to the following current policy topics. Please keep in mind that the average length of a citizen survey (or best practice) is five to seven pages. Lengthier surveys can negatively impact response rates. The attached draft is seven pages.

A new section was added titled "38th Avenue/Main Street" to include: • Questions 22 and 23 (these questions are not new and were asked in the 2012 survey) • Questions 24 and 25, regarding the features of the main street and street width designation

Other policy questions were drafted to include: • Code Enforcement, questions 26 and 27 • Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan, questions 28 and 29 • Infrastructure funding/priorities, questions 30 and 31

Overall, the following questions were added to the survey: • Question 3 -gauges reasons for living in Wheat Ridge • Question 17 - victim of a crime two-part question that can be cross-tabulated with existing question 16 and question 18

REQUESTED ACTION: Agajn, staff is looking for consensus on inclusion of the draft policy questions as well as direction on the addition of any other questions at the March 16th study session. If you have any questions about the 2015 Citizen Survey prior to this meeting, please feel free to contact me at 303-235-2826.

/hmg Attachment: 1. Draft 2015 Citizen Survey 2015 Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey

Please complet this que tionnaite if you ate the adult (age 18 or older) .111 the househo)d who ID of birth does not matter. Your re us aod wiD be in Community and Services 1. Circle the number that best represents your opinion:

2. Do you think the quality of life in Wheat Ridge is likely to improve, stay the same, or decline over the next 5 years? D Improve a lot D Improve slightly D Stay the same D Decline slightly D Decline a lot 3. What are your reasons for living in Wheat Ridge? (Please select all that apply.) D I feel safe here D Housing and rental rates are affordable D I like the school my children attend D I've always lived here D My job is here D I have friends and family in the area D I like my neighborhood D Cost of living is affordable D I like the location in general D None of tl1ese 4. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Wheat Ridge as a whole: Excellent Good Fair E22.!; Don't know 2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2

2 4 5 2 4 5 Overall image or reputation of\Vheat Ridge ...... l 2 3 4 5

Attachment 1

Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey Page 1 of7 5. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Wheat Ridge? 1-2 3-12 13-26 More than ~ ~ ~ 26 times Used Wheat Ri recreation centers ...... 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 Used the Wheat Ridge library ...... 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 Ridden an RID bus ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6. Following are services provided by the City of Wheat Ridge. For each service, please first rate the quality of each service and next rate the importance of each service. Quality lm[!_orta11ce D on't Very Somewhat or at all Don't Excellent Good Fair Poor know Essen gal tmj;!Ortanr important itnj;!Ortant know ISnow removal ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 I Street repair and maintenance ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 IStreet cleaninJ?; ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l Traffic enforcement ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 fOd:=~o:::: ~;:~~~~-~~::.~:~~... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Animal control...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 !Land use plannin2 and zonin2 ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Building perrnits ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 !B"uil""diliitinspectioos ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 I Maintenance of existing city parks ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 !Maintenance of open space and trails ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 I Recreation programs ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 !Recreation facilities ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l Community/public art ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 [Services s for vouth ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Services/ programs for seniors ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 !Municipal court ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 I Business e>..-pansion and recruitment programs .. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 IPolicin2 services ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 I Police response time to emergency police calls (not code enforcement) ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 rPolice respon time to non-emergency police calls (not code enforcement) ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 I Crime prevention ...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

7. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by the City of Wheat Ridge? 0 Excellent 0 Good 0 Fair 0 Poor 0 D on't know

Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey Page 2 f 7 8. Please rate the following aspects of transportation within the City ofWheat Ridge: .G22d Fair fuQ! Pon'tknow .2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 3 5

9. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following:

Remain in \X!heat Ridge for the next five years ...... 1 2 3 4 5

10. Please indicate how familiar or unfamiliar you are with the City's long-range planning efforts (including the comprehensive plan and sub-area plans). Very omewhat Somewhat Very familiar familiar unfamiliar unfamiliar 2 3 4 Sub-area planning (including Fruitdale, orthwest transit-oriented development, Wadsworth Corridor and 38th Avenue Corridor Plan ...... 1 2 3 4 arks and Recreation Master Plan ...... t 2 3 4 Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan ...... 1 2 3 4

11. To what extent do you support or oppose the overall direction provided in the City's long range planning documents? Strongly Somewhat !either support Somewhat Strongly Don't support nor oppose oppose ~ know 2 3 4 6 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 City Government and Employees

12. How would you rate the overall performance of the Wheat Ridge city government? D Excellent D Good D Fair D Poor 0 Don't know

13. Please rate the following aspects of Wheat Ridge government performance.

14. In the last 12 months, have you had any in-person, phone or email contact with a City of Wheat Ridge employee(s)? 0 Yes (go to question 15) D o (go to question 16)

Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey Page 3 of 7 15. What was your impression of the City of Wheat Ridge employee(s) overall? (Rate each characteristic below.) Excellent .GQQ.d .Eai!: £QQ.[ Don't know ...... -...... -.. 1 2 3 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

16. Please rate how safe you feel in the following areas in Wheat Ridge: Very Somewhat either sa fe Somewhat Very Don't safe sa fe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know ounds ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Recreation centers ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 Retail/ commercial areas ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. __22 ill Household member was a victim of a crime in Wheat Rid e ...... 1 2 Reported a crime to d1e police in \'(/heat Ridge ...... 1 2 18. How important, if at all, is it for the Wheat Ridge Police Department to prioritize resources in each of the following areas in the next 12 months? Very Somewhat ot at all Don't Essential im12ortant im12ortant im12ortant know violent crirnes ...... 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 Code enfotce~nent ...... -...... 1 2 3 4 5

Economic Development

19. Please rate the following statements by circling the number which best represents your opinion. The City should ... Strongly Somewhat leith er agree Somewhat trongly Don't ~ ~ nor disagree disagree disagree ~ areas ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 Promote efforts to attract and recruit new types of retail bu inesses to \Xlheat Ridge ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...... te efforts to revitalize business corridors such as 381h venue, 44th venue, Wadsworth Boulevard and Kinlin~t Street...... 1 2 3 4 5 6

20. For each type of shopping, please estimate how frequently you make purchases in Wheat Ridge: Somewhat

Heald1 services ...... ! 3 4 eals and entertainment ...... 1 3 4 Household items ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6

Wheat Ridge Citizen SUJvcy Page 4 of 7 21. When you shop outside ofWheat Ridge, why do you shop outside of Wheat Ridge? (Check all that apply.) D Don't shop outside of Wheat Ridge D It is convenient; on my way to or from work or near my home D I like the range of quality goods and services D Desired item is not available in \Xlheat Ridge D It is more affordable D Visit a mall or other major retailers D Other 38th Avenue/Main Street 22. To what extent do you agree or disagree that 38th Avenue between Sheridan and Wadsworth is the City's m ain street or downtown area? D Strongly D Somewhat D Neither agree D Somewhat D Strongly D Don't agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree know 23. During an average month, how many times, if ever, do you visit businesses on 38th Avenue between Sheridan and Wadsworth? D Every day D Several times a week D Once a week D 1-3 times a month D ever

24. How important, if at all, are each of the following features for 38th Avenue between Sheridan and Wadsworth? Very Somewhat Jot at all Don't Essential important important important know Install better sidewalks, landscaping and other pedestrian amenities such as s · bike racks and · ...... 1

25. In 2014, Wheat Ridge voters defeated a measure that would have narrowed the official street width designation for a portion of 38th Avenue between Upham and Marshall Streets, allowing the City to reduce the number of vehicle lanes in order to expand sidewalks and other landscaping and pedestrian amenities. To what extent do you support or oppose each of the following aspects of the 38th Avenue project? trongly omewhat either support Somewhat ~ to expand sidewalks and

The temporary restriping, outdoor cafes and landscape planter d1at were installed in 2012 ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 ~ e The proposed cost of the project ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 eraU, the long term • ion established in the 201 t 38th enue Corridor ian ...... t Policy Topics 26. How important, if at all, is it to improve the attractiveness of the city's corridors? D Essential 0 Very important D Somewhat important D Not at all important

Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey Page 5 of 7 27. If the City were to seek to improve the attractiveness of the city's corridors, to what extent do you support or oppose dedicating resources to code enforcement for this effort? 0 trongly 0 Somewhat 0 either support 0 Somewhat 0 trongly 0 D on't support support nor oppose oppo e oppose know

28. To what extent do you support or oppose the City of Wheat Ridge funding bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the city? 0 Strongly 0 omewhat 0 either support D Somewhat 0 Strongly 0 Don't support support nor oppose oppo e oppose know 29. To what extent do you support or oppose each of the following types of bicycle and pedestrian improvements?

2 3 4 5 2 3 5 Bicycle and pedestrian signage ...... 1 2 3 4 5 30. In 2014, Wheat Ridge voters defeated a measure that would have increased the City's sales tax from 3% to 4% that would have supported roads and other infrastructure as well as parks and recreation improvements. Thinking about your own view of that sales tax measure, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following potential reasons for not supporting the measure. Strongly Somewhat 1 either agree Somewhat Strongly Don't agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree know sufficient ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sales tax is not a fair and eguitable source of municipal general fund revenue ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 The City does not need to make additional investments in it infrastructure and facilities ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Insufficient information about what specific projects would be funded by the sales tax increase ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Fdt that the tax increase would likdy be used to fund 38th venue streetsca e · rovement ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 31. Thinking about a possible future tax increase, please indicate how important, if at all, each of the following characteristics of a tax increase measure would be. \'ery Somewhat ot at all Don't Essential impo.rtant Important important know

2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

Information Sources

32. In a typical month, about how many times, if ever, do you use each of the following? 1-3 times Once ~

Social networking sites (i.e., Facebook, T'l.vitter, YouTube, Linked In, Google Plus) ...... 1 2 3 4 5

\XIhc."a t Ridge Citizen Survey Page 6 of 33. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members used the following sources of information for news about Wheat Ridge? 1-2 3-12 13-26 More than

D enver Post...... l 2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 Radio news ...... 1 2 3 4 5

\'\lord ofmouth ...... l 2 3 4 5 Demographics Our last que rions are about you and your household. gain, aD of your responses to thi urvey are completely anonymous and wiD be reported in form only. Dl. About how long have you lived in Wheat Ridge? D9. How much do you anticipate your household's total (Write 0 if si.,x months or less) years income before taxes will be for the current year? D2. In what city do you work? (If you work in more than (Please include in your total income money from all one city, check the box for the city in which you most sources for all persons living in your household.) often work.) 0 Less d1an 15,000 0 ·50,000 to 74,999 0 Arvada 0 Louisville 0 15,000 to 24,999 0 75,000 to 99,999 0 Aurora 0 orthglenn 0 25,000 to 34,999 0 100,000 to 124,999 0 Boulder 0 Thornton 0 35,000 to 49,999 0 125,000 or more 0 Broomfield 0 Westminster DlO. What is your age? 0 Denver 0 \Xfheat Ridge 0 18-24 0 45-54 0 75 + 0 Englewood 0 Od1er 0 25-34 0 55-64 0 Golden 0 D o not work (student, 0 35-44 0 65-74 0 Lakewood homemaker, retired, etc.) 0 Litdeton Dll. What is your race? (Please check all that apply.) D3. Please check the appropriate box indicating the type 0 \'Vhite of housing unit in which you live. 0 Black or frican American 0 Detached single-family home 0 Apartment 0 Asian or Pacific Islander 0 Condominium or townhouse 0 Mobile home 0 American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 0 Other D4. Do you live in senior housing such as an assisted living or senior living community? D12. Are you Hispanic/Spanish/ Latino? 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 o DS. Do you own or rent your residence? D13. What is your gender? 0 Own 0 Rent 0 Female 0 Male D6. How many people (including D14. Did you vote in the last election? ___ people yourself) live in your household? 0 Yes 0 o D7. How many of these household 'rbaak you vecy much! Pleue letUID. the COIIlpletecl members are 17 or younger? ___ people quelltionnaire, in the posfa&e·paid eavelope .,..mcle.d, to: DS. Please indicate the number of dogs and cats in your atioaal Research Ceoter, IDe. household. (Please write 0 if none.) 2955 Valmont Road, Suite 300 umber of dogs ___ Boulder, CO 80301 umber of cats ___

\XIhear Ridge Citizen Survey Page of7