Uncategorized

The Jefferson County Legislative meeting on April 24 revealed many different viewpoints and issues, ultimately leading the county to take an amend position on the governor’s land-use bill, SB23-213. Commissioner Kraft-Thorpe brought up many reasons to oppose SB23-213, including that the county should show support for all the cities within the county that have officially opposed the bill. That was not reason enough for the other Commissioners. One person heard from city representatives in their personal capacity that they supported SB23-213, even though the official city stance was that of oppose. From the county’s point of view, SB23-213 impacts municipalities more than the county, although rumors exist that the local control concepts in SB23-213 may be expanded to the county level next year. The amendment for increased Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) evinced the most concern, especially because provisions for infrastructure were not addressed. That means an ADU could be build without a septic system, draining right into the aquifer. Citing California, who passed a similar bill last year, not many ADUs are not built, so that may not be a real consideration for Jeffco. Reason to support the bill was that local control is “not solving the problem” of affordable housing, so something must be done. Commissioner Kraft-Thorpe addressed this directly by saying that the bill does not address affordability, only density. She also expressed concern over the elimination of public process in this bill. Commissioner Dahlkemper said that the county already had processes in place for public input, and that may help this issue. One interesting comment was that a developer had called, seeking county help in protecting business corridors in transit areas, rather than just using all the area for high-density residential. Business taxes provide the funding for residential services like police. No movement in protecting business corridors is currently happening. Jeffco majority decided on an amend position on SB23-213. Specific amendments will be left to staff or offered by others.

At the April 5 Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) meeting, Lakewood City Council Member and DRCOG Representative Jeslin Shahrezaei expressed support for DRCOG taking the leadership role over regional pollution reduction grant. The grant is newly available through the EPA called the  Climate Pollution Reduction Grants (CPRG). These grants are a part of the Inflation Reduction Act, announced as “the most significant climate legislation in U.S. history”. As such, the grants make money available to municipalities and local governments. Lakewood is not currently seeking a grant itself but is signaling its aim to be included in available efforts. As one of the 67 most populous Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), the Denver-Lakewood-Aurora MSA can receive $1 million as part of Phase 1. The grant needs a leader for the application and management. DRCOG may seek to serve as that leader. In this way, DRCOG may play a pivotal role in Lakewood’s climate decisions, much the same way they did in choosing to eliminate funding for commuter routes without a formal discussion or vote by Lakewood Council. Money from this grant can be used for staffing, modeling, and studies to reduce climate pollution. Climate studies are a controversial issue. From pewresearch.org: “The credibility of climate research is also closely tied with Americans’ political views. Some 55% of liberal Democrats say climate research reflects the best available evidence most of the time, 39% say some of the time. By contrast, 9% of conservative Republicans say this occurs most of the time, 54% say it occurs some of the time.” Those numbers come from a 2016 study and America has only become more polarized since. Lakewood’s Sustainability Plan was written in 2015. One tip from Harvard Business Review on polarizing issues is:  “Before engaging in public debates, leaders should ensure that they have addressed polarization within their own organizations.” They also say to engage the “67% of Americans in the ‘Exhausted Majority,’ who say they feel fatigued by politics and feel forgotten in current debates.” Have Lakewood Council, residents, and the “Exhausted Majority” been engaged in decisions to support the latest federal climate goals? Supporting DRCOG’s leadership is Lakewood’s step toward supporting those goals. The  Inflation Reduction Act could “potentially reduce U.S. emissions by 40% by 2030”. Federal goals align with Lakewood’s sustainability goal of 50% emission reduction by 2030. Lakewood’s next target date is 2025, with a goal of achieving a 20% reduction in greenhouse gases below 2007 levels. According to the 2021 report, Lakewood is currently at a 12% reduction.

The recent loan agreement for the removal of 995 Sheridan Blvd sparked questions about the finances and handling of the loan. Further reading into L.M.C. 3.26.030, shows another provision which states: “…the city shall never be a joint venture in any private entity or activity which participates in the economic development fund” The traditional interpretation of this clause is that the city shall not receive profits from a joint venture, but a loan agreement is a new construct for the city. This agreement is instigated for city purposes, more than the business. One Council Member raised concerns that Lakewood was not set up with loan officers and other traditional bank operations which made for safe financial practices. That concern was dismissed with the explanation that the city was not making loans to people but making an investment in the land, which is guaranteed. The loan will be made to Ten Sheridan, LLC, enforced by a lien on the property. Council Members asked how much money was available in the fund but no clear answer was possible because the 2022 financial report is not yet available. The current estimate is the fund holds over $9 million but that is not the full answer. Lakewood counts about $5.5 million in investments as of the 2021 financial report. There was about $3.8 million in cash. So the current loan represents one-quarter of the remaining cash available unless significant changes have occurred in 2022.

At the April 10, 2023 Lakewood City Council meeting, Lakewood has taken the unprecedented step of authorizing money from the Economic Development Fund to demolish and remove a vacant building at 995 Sheridan Blvd for non-economic reasons. The building, the old Holiday Plaza shopping center, has been deemed a public safety concern. By paying for the demolition and removal of this building, Lakewood will gain an estimated 18-24 months of time that the community will not have to deal with the eyesore and associated criminal complaints. The money for the loan will come from the Economic Development Fund, which is restricted by code for the purpose of promoting economic development within the City, but in this case will be used for public safety. The property is intended for mixed-use development. Residents of the area spoke overwhelmingly in favor of this proposal. Although the city had previously granted the property a blight status to facilitate redevelopment, that development has been slow to occur. The property has been mostly vacant for over 10 years and the number of service calls has grown to almost 130 a year. The new owners of the property have plans for demolition and removal. However, the typical construction loan is tied to building permits and permits take a long time to obtain. That’s why vacant buildings are left standing until new building permits, and the associated construction loans, are obtained. That timing may change now that Lakewood has devised this method of using the Economic Development Fund to cover public safety.  Lakewood Mayor Adam Paul calls it “a bold move”, explaining that the fund cannot be used directly to help the homeless but this is another way to serve the community. In fact, using the fund itself is the bold move. According to Lakewood Municipal Code, L.M.C. 3.26.030, “The purpose of said fund shall be to provide funds from the city to further the economic development goals of the city by providing financial assistance to projects attracting enterprises that City Council determines will further the accomplishment of the city’s economic goals.” Traditionally, the fund has been held to the expressly stated restrictions by sponsoring economic projects to cause revitalization.  In this loan agreement for 995 Sheridan, no new projects attracting businesses will be funded. Economic authority derived from city’s police power – no direct economic authority granted to the city All economic goals must be “in furtherance of the public health, safety and welfare”, as stated in policing powers for the city, under which the economic development fund was created. By focusing on the ends instead of the means, there seems to be no limit as to what the fund can be used for, and in fact, that question was not discussed, although some kind of “restriction” was universally acknowledged. Will there be any restrictions to future fund use? Can any loan be made in the name of public safety? No one on Council or staff made the argument that this loan agreement would have economic benefits, per se. The benefits presented focused on public safety. Mayor Pro Tem Wendi Strom summarized the discussion by saying “I know it is no guarantee we are going to get our money back” but this will “increase public safety”. This loan is a pilot project. Using the Economic Development Fund for public safety will allow many future projects throughout the city. Measures of success/failure of the project were not presented. However, by using the economic development fund for public safety directly, Lakewood is providing a measure of the success/failure of the fund for attracting businesses, by showing there may better ways to spend the money or perhaps that the fund is overfunded for its purposes. The loan agreement was approved 8-3, with nays being Council Members Janssen, Olver, and Springsteen.

By Lenore Herskovitz On January 28, 2023 City Council held their Annual Planning Meeting to establish their strategic goals and priorities for the upcoming year. Two facilitators from Point b(e) Strategies assisted in this process. Their completed report is provided in the PDF at the end of this piece. The last part of the facilitators’ document requests that each councilor set up a rank order of goals based on his/her perception of the needs of their communities. Once the goals were ranked, the final compilation would be presented to the public. The individual rankings were  done through Survey Monkey and the results were unavailable to the public. However, through several CORA requests and phone calls I was able to obtain the City’s final report. An email from staff directed me to a new website with instructions to click on each goal to show tasks and status (see https://lakewood.clearpointstrategy.com/) OBSERVATIONS FROM CITY WEBSITE GOALS Re: Secure, Inclusive, and Affordable Neighborhoods Task: Add inclusionary zoning to an upcoming Housing Policy Commission agenda and then follow-up with a study session. FACT: Last spring this topic was scheduled for discussion by the Development Dialogue Committee. The day before the meeting, the majority of City Council members voted to disband the committee claiming it was redundant because the Housing Policy Commission would be working on this. To this date, inclusionary zoning has been ignored while the Commission spent the past year focused on the recently passed Short Term Rental policy. Re: Effective, Accountable, Transparent, and Data Informed Government Task: The City Manager will provide a quarterly update regarding City Council goals. Status: Completed Although the website says this task is completed, several councilors that I spoke to were unaware of any update. These quarterly reports should be specific about progress, delays or stagnation regarding the priorities and need to be made public. Task: Continue efforts to improve accessibility of the website and meeting notes. Status: In progress It should be noted that in spite of the request to consolidate websites to minimize confusion, the City chose to create a new site to post this report on priorities. Without assistance from staff no one would even know this exists. This new site does provide a history of goals from previous years. There is a pattern of completion when it comes to commissioning studies but less success when it comes to implementing the results. Visible, measurable changes often only reach the status of “in progress”. If City Council is persistent maybe that can change.

*Correction 4/14/23: Councilor Able attended the full meeting, including data from Councilor Olver The March 20, 2023 Lakewood City Council meeting was to study multi-modal transportation; specifically bike lanes. The session included a presentation by staff for Council consideration. Council Member Rich Olver, an experienced biker, brought additional data in the form of pictures of specific bike lane hazards. Rather than “study” this data that was “outside of our norm”, multiple members of City Council and the City Manager appeared to leave the meeting in silent protest. Summary of the meeting The presentation by staff included an overview of the advantages of biking, biking lanes, and options for bike lane creation. According to Max E. Kirschbaum, Director of Public Works, the challenges that Lakewood faces include “Retrofitting an existing street can often require widening.” Depending on the treatment, a bike lane could cost $500,000 per mile. The next step for this project would be to identify priorities and establish a budget. Several corridors are considered ready for “quick action”, such as existing bike lanes that just need vertical separation, or roads that are wide enough. Following the presentation, Council Members had requests to prioritize their wards, requests to look into grant money and mention of some challenges to bike lanes. Discussion was limited to these individual comments. Silent Protest Council Member Olver prepared some slides to show specific problems in Lakewood at the end of the meeting. However, Mayor Paul advised the Council that it is “outside of our norm” for Councilors to present data, therefore he advised that Council did not have to stay for Olver’s data. In fact, Mayor Paul cut his video as soon as Olver started talking. Other Councilors followed suit. Councilors Shahrezaei, Mayott-Guerrero, Stewart, Vincent, Mayor Paul and City Manager Hodgson all cut their video, seeming to leave the meeting rather than listen to data presented by a fellow Council Member. Olver provided visual data of bike problems in the city (see below). In fact, most of the problems were in Wards 1 and 3 (Olver is Councilor for Ward 4), but Councilors Shahrezaei and Stewart appeared to leave. Councilors Able and Janssen stayed for the entire meeting (Paragraph corrected to show all specific names 4/14/23). This silent protest of Council Members seems to suggest that only data prepared by staff is suitable for consideration, which is at odds with the idea of a study session. Olver’s data showed that connectivity is a bigger issue for those currently using bike lanes, rather than vertical separation on existing lanes. He showed several easy fixes for dangerous spots and his data was specific to Lakewood, rather than the general overview that was involved in the staff presentation, that had a different focus. Even without Olver’s data, it would be appropriate in a study session to discuss specific problems such as whether to prioritize vertical separation or connectivity. That discussion did not happen. All details will be left to city staff to decide.

Two Colorado bills were under scrutiny at the Lakewood legislative committee meeting April 3. HB23-1190 Affordable Housing Right of First Refusal: Concerning a right of first refusal to purchase qualifying multifamily residential property by a local government. This bill was first discussed at the last legislative committee meeting where votes were split on how to proceed. Councilors Stewart and Shahrezaei were leaning toward support, Janssen leaning to oppose and Vincent deliberating. At that time, Councilor Stewart had discussed the issue with city staff who said Lakewood did not need this tool right now, but Stewart said it might be good to have the tool available. An official vote on 1190 was postponed until the next meeting. However, the next committee meeting was a special meeting called by Council Member and Legislative Committee Chair Rebekah Stewart. Her stated intention was to discuss SB23-213. Councilor Janssen stated that she had emailed about 1190, and noted the minute mark that the committee agreed in the last meeting to discuss 1190. Janssen made a motion to oppose HB23-1190. The motion failed 3-2, with Janssen and Olver in favor (to oppose), and Stewart, Shahrezaei, and Vincent opposed. HB23-1190 is planned for Senate committee vote the following day (April 4). HB23-1190 has passed the House committee with Lakewood taking a “Monitor” position. SB23-213 is Governor Polis’ Land Use bill seeks to implement statewide zoning and land use regulations. That power currently resides locally. Lakewood typically allows the Colorado Municipal League (CML) to lobby for the city, except on select bills where they are in opposition. In this case, the CML is strongly opposed to this bill. Councilor Janssen made a motion to take a similar stance, to strongly oppose the bill. The motion failed 3-2, with Councilors Janssen and Olver in support (to oppose) and Stewart, Shahrezaei and Vincent opposed. Reasons stated to oppose SB23-213 largely reflect the same concerns shown in the CML position paper; that it takes away local control, that it does not create affordable housing and that it ignores problems created such as parking and transit. Lakewood’s delegate to the CML, Council Member Stewart, said that she communicated her desire to see amendments included for inclusionary zoning before moving forward. Overall, her main concern, which was repeated by everyone who is opposed to opposing the bill, was that the bill may pass and that Lakewood wants “a seat at the table”. However, there were no prepared amendments for Lakewood to discuss at any table, so at this point the majority opinion seemed to be to wait and hope there were amendments to make the legislation better. Only one member offered supportive comments to SB23-213. Councilor Shahrezaei stated that “we are at the inflection point” for problems like affordable housing, that may now be a regional problem. In that context, only statewide control of the factors underlying the housing marketplace will work. Both bills will continue in discussion at the next Legislative Committee meeting.

The March 13th Lakewood City Council meeting included 3 hours of public comment, mostly regarding short-term rentals (STRs). People spoke both for and against STRs. However, the biggest reveal was that ALL sides spoke about the lack of enforcement of current ordinances, which leads to speculation of how new measures, like censure, may be implemented. Public comment shows residents perplexed at the city allowing illegal STRs for years.  However, the city argues STRs are not illegal because the words “short-term rental” cannot be found in ordinance, so they have never stopped the activity. Residents argue that STRs are commercial lodging, like hotels, that has long been banned in Lakewood through zoning.   At one point, “The [Lakewood] Planning Department determined that short term rentals are most closely related to Bed and Breakfast, which is only allowed in certain residential zone districts, with a Special Use Permit. This action banned short-term rentals in the City of Lakewood, unless reviewed and approved via the Special Use Permit Process, which requires a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission.“ (see pg 4 of the 2018 memo for more details) The STR ban was never enforced. No member of the public spoke with confidence that the city will enforce these new ordinances either.  It is important to remember that there are advantages to STRs. However, when you start so far below the trust curve, at the first sign of a problem, people will not be patient while waiting for a resolution. They will know there is no resolution for them. Parking Many residents spoke about the parking problem that has been worsening in Lakewood. Where streets used to have one big family with extra cars or one long-term rental with extra neighbors, now people are having to deal with student housing, group homes with unlimited residents and overflow from apartments with limited parking. These are not enforcement issues per se. The city will correctly point out that there is nothing illegal with extra parking used by students or apartments. Residents will point out that the city changed zoning to allow student housing and decreased apartment parking, thereby causing the parking problem. They are afraid STRs will be a similar situation of the city causing problems it cannot fix later. Other Issues Speakers raised other enforcement issues such as crime at light-rail stations and local stores.  One spoke of neighbors who are hoarders, creating neighborhood annoyances and safety concerns. One spoke of long-term owners who didn’t maintain their homes. Another spoke of long-term renters growing marijuana. Speakers repeatedly expressed concern over problems they see, and the lack of action to make things better. A rough tally of speakers shows that: Residents seemed to be asking why the city doesn’t enforce its laws, or why the city changes laws that cause problems for certain segments of the population. Censure At the end of the meeting, Lakewood Council decided to study censuring fellow Council Members. Members speaking in favor of the measure are concerned about the use of non-politically correct language in Council dialogue, and it is this issue which is the suspected trigger for censure. Council has a duty to self-police and censure could be a useful tool if applied equally. However, this seems to be another rule that would be implemented selectively. In fact, one of the reasons censure was removed from Council procedures was that it was a tool used by the majority for political purposes only. (See the full discussion at 4 hour 27 min mark) As a basis for implementation standards, Council Member Springsteen inquired about other alleged, censurable actions. The Mayor muted her – not once, but twice. These types of behaviors do not indicate that Council is committed to self-policing, but rather that they may use a new rule to selectively mute opposition thinking and ideas. Lakewood residents gave example after example of how bending ordinances for selective purposes led to a breakdown in trust that makes governing harder, not easier. For people to understand the government is working for them, for ALL OF THEM, they must see that actions are not intended for political purposes. LAKEWOOD CITY COUNCIL, STUDY SESSION, MAY 21, 2018 ITEM 4 – PRESENTATION/DISCUSSION – SHORT TERM RENTALS

Lakewood City Council meeting on March 13th included 3 hours of public comment, mostly regarding short-term rentals. Rather than summarizing the arguments, this post links to a representative video for the various arguments. Argument AGAINST ALL STRs. Comments by Mr Josh (?), starting at the 1:19 mark… Argument IN FAVOR of OWNER-OCCUPIED STRs. Comments by unknown starting at 1:58 mark… IN FAVOR of COUNCIL/COMMUNITY process. Comments by Imara at 2 hr mark…. IN FAVOR of INVESTOR-OWNED STRs. Comments by Mr. Smith at 2:42 mark To see the resulting short-term rental ordinance, see the city’s website. Any person who does not want to be highlighted on LakewoodInformer can email us for removal. Thank you all for your public involvement.