4. ORDINANCE 17-2025 - AN ORDINANCE to take effect immediately provided it receives the affirmative vote of at least two thirds of the members of Council, or otherwise to take effect and be in force at the earliest period allowed by law, enacting Chapter 161 Complete and Active Streets Education & Advisory Board, of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Lakewood, to establish a permanent Complete and Active Streets Education & Advisory Board for the purpose of collaborating with City officials regarding facilitating safe, effective, and enjoyable multi-modal community usage of public right of way corridors. (referred to COW & PC 4/21/25)
I am also a concerned Lakewood citizen and taxpayer, and I am concerned about the safety and connectivity of our streets when it comes to active transportation. I think the CASE Advisory Board is a great idea for how to understand diverse perspectives/needs when it comes to future opportunities and projects to continue working towards making our city’s streets safe for all who use them. One thing I would recommend considering a change to is that one member have significant lived experience driving through the city. Our streets are currently built to prioritize the needs of drivers, and many of the other Board members (even those who have significant biking/walking experiences) most likely will have had experience driving here as well and can bring those viewpoints into the conversations. I would encourage the city to reconsider that position to ensure the focus remains on the more vulnerable neighbors using our roadways and ensure that their perspectives are prioritized when making changes to the streets that already prioritize cars/drivers. Perhaps we could consider someone who uses our transit system in this spot. Thank you for your hard work and swift action in moving forward with CASE.
I really love the idea of this board. However, I think it is flawed as written.
I'm unclear on the appointment and terms of the CASE.
- If members serve for three calendar years and appointments are staggered so that no more than two members have terms expiring in the same calendar year, how long will it take to have a full board? Will the meetings for the first year even be worthwhile if there are only 2 members?
- Must each member satisfy only one of the requirements listed in 161.02 (a) through (e)?
- Why is someone with significant lived experience driving in Lakewood required, since Lakewood is a city that currently prioritizes driving above all other uses on our rights of way and most of the people that have significant experience biking, walking, and navigating the streets with children also have significant experience driving?
- What constitutes "significant lived experience navigating our rights of way with a disability?" There are a multitude of disabilities that affect how someone will navigate our streets. Mobility impairments will have a drastically different affect on someone than visual or hearing impairments. Temporary impairments give people different perspectives than permanent impairments.
- Why is someone with significant experience navigating our streets with children required? I feel like most of us that walk and bike can pretty reasonably imagine the added perils and difficulties of keeping children safe in a world that is actively hostile to those not in a personal automobile.
I think these requirements need to be more clearly defined. It feels like the CASE should likely have a couple more members and if the city truly values community empowerment, give the CASE an equal seat at the table for all street safety improvements.
As a concerned Lakewood resident and taxpayer, I strongly oppose Ordinance 17-2025 and urge the Council to reject its passage. Using an "effective immediately" clause to fast-track this Multi-Modal ordinance excludes the public and undermines trust in local government. Taxpayers expect transparency and open debate, especially when creating permanent boards within the city code.
This ordinance proposes the establishment of a permanent Complete and Active Streets Education & Advisory Board to advise city officials on the multi-modal use of public right-of-way corridors. While public input on transportation matters is important, there is no crisis or urgent need to bypass the normal legislative process. Multi-modal transportation planning is not an emergency, and rushing this ordinance through appears to avoid public opposition, which is concerning.
The ordinance lacks critical details: how board members will be selected, what authority they will have, how the board will be funded, and how it will be held accountable. This vagueness creates an opportunity for special interest groups to influence the process, potentially undermining the priorities of everyday Lakewood residents.
There has been no meaningful public outreach, no transparency regarding the associated costs, and no evidence of broad community support. Creating a permanent board without addressing these basic concerns constitutes an unnecessary overreach.
This ordinance is not urgent, is poorly defined, and lacks input from the community. The Council should vote NO on this ordinance and allow it to undergo a proper, transparent process. Anything less would undermine public trust and disregard the will of the residents of Lakewood.
I am also a concerned Lakewood citizen and taxpayer, and I am concerned about the safety and connectivity of our streets when it comes to active transportation. I think the CASE Advisory Board is a great idea for how to understand diverse perspectives/needs when it comes to future opportunities and projects to continue working towards making our city’s streets safe for all who use them. One thing I would recommend considering a change to is that one member have significant lived experience driving through the city. Our streets are currently built to prioritize the needs of drivers, and many of the other Board members (even those who have significant biking/walking experiences) most likely will have had experience driving here as well and can bring those viewpoints into the conversations. I would encourage the city to reconsider that position to ensure the focus remains on the more vulnerable neighbors using our roadways and ensure that their perspectives are prioritized when making changes to the streets that already prioritize cars/drivers. Perhaps we could consider someone who uses our transit system in this spot. Thank you for your hard work and swift action in moving forward with CASE.
I really love the idea of this board. However, I think it is flawed as written.
I'm unclear on the appointment and terms of the CASE.
- If members serve for three calendar years and appointments are staggered so that no more than two members have terms expiring in the same calendar year, how long will it take to have a full board? Will the meetings for the first year even be worthwhile if there are only 2 members?
- Must each member satisfy only one of the requirements listed in 161.02 (a) through (e)?
- Why is someone with significant lived experience driving in Lakewood required, since Lakewood is a city that currently prioritizes driving above all other uses on our rights of way and most of the people that have significant experience biking, walking, and navigating the streets with children also have significant experience driving?
- What constitutes "significant lived experience navigating our rights of way with a disability?" There are a multitude of disabilities that affect how someone will navigate our streets. Mobility impairments will have a drastically different affect on someone than visual or hearing impairments. Temporary impairments give people different perspectives than permanent impairments.
- Why is someone with significant experience navigating our streets with children required? I feel like most of us that walk and bike can pretty reasonably imagine the added perils and difficulties of keeping children safe in a world that is actively hostile to those not in a personal automobile.
I think these requirements need to be more clearly defined. It feels like the CASE should likely have a couple more members and if the city truly values community empowerment, give the CASE an equal seat at the table for all street safety improvements.
As a concerned Lakewood resident and taxpayer, I strongly oppose Ordinance 17-2025 and urge the Council to reject its passage. Using an "effective immediately" clause to fast-track this Multi-Modal ordinance excludes the public and undermines trust in local government. Taxpayers expect transparency and open debate, especially when creating permanent boards within the city code.
This ordinance proposes the establishment of a permanent Complete and Active Streets Education & Advisory Board to advise city officials on the multi-modal use of public right-of-way corridors. While public input on transportation matters is important, there is no crisis or urgent need to bypass the normal legislative process. Multi-modal transportation planning is not an emergency, and rushing this ordinance through appears to avoid public opposition, which is concerning.
The ordinance lacks critical details: how board members will be selected, what authority they will have, how the board will be funded, and how it will be held accountable. This vagueness creates an opportunity for special interest groups to influence the process, potentially undermining the priorities of everyday Lakewood residents.
There has been no meaningful public outreach, no transparency regarding the associated costs, and no evidence of broad community support. Creating a permanent board without addressing these basic concerns constitutes an unnecessary overreach.
This ordinance is not urgent, is poorly defined, and lacks input from the community. The Council should vote NO on this ordinance and allow it to undergo a proper, transparent process. Anything less would undermine public trust and disregard the will of the residents of Lakewood.