housing Archives - Lakewood Informer

Mayor Suspends Rules for Parkland Dedication Issue

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on January 20, 2025.

Mayor Wendi Strom suspended normal City Council procedures to have an emergency discussion on January 13, 2025 regarding issues resulting from the new parkland dedication ordinance. Strom says this was time sensitive so it couldn’t wait until the next meeting and most of Council agreed with her. However, even with the suspension of city policies, Lakewood is still bound by the Colorado Open Meetings laws that require public notice for agenda items. Without that notice, there was no public comment regarding the discussion because no one knew it was happening. One issue Strom initially raised was concern that single-family homeowners are being required to dedicate part of their land to parks. However, other Councilors showed that the real issue was overall development. Strom says the city has not issued any permits since December 7, 2024, when the ordinance was approved. Council Member Nystrom, the only Councilor to sound positive about the new ordinance, pointed out that there may be inaccuracies on how the ordinance is being applied. Nystrom’s point of view was echoed by the author of the ordinance, Cathy Kentner.

Mayor Strom did not say how many people were adversely affected by the new ordinance, but this move is extraordinary. Even in other time-sensitive circumstances, such as when hundreds of Belmar Park residents were begging for emergency intervention, Strom did not suspend the rules. In fact, with her inauguration, she has moved public comment to the end of the meeting in a move that guarantees most people do not stay for comment. The parkland ordinance itself was time sensitive due to the ballot initiative deadlines. Council chose not to address the issue at all.

Strom asked for a vote to direct staff to present some amendments to the ordinance at the January 27 meeting. She also later agreed with Councilor Roger Low’s statement that “it would be incumbent on members of council to proactively draft those amendments and work with the city attorney’s office, presumably to draft those amendments and circulate them [we] will be authoring the amendments and staff merely writing them up.”

It is evident that many processes will still be decided over the next month. No data was presented to demonstrate the problem, but Mayor Strom says that will be coming as staff present real life stories of the harm the ordinance is doing to residents and staff. No one mentioned the residents who were positively affected by the ordinance except for Councilor Nystrom.

Accusations of Bait N Switch

Strom says she does not believe residents knew what they were signing or the unintended consequences of the original petition. This narrative was espoused by several Councilors at previous meetings, including multiple times by Council Member Roger Low. It’s an ironic stance to take coming from the council who approved official ballot language to de-TABOR the city without ever mentioning TABOR.

Council Member and Mayor Pro Tem Shaharezaei went so far as to accuse the resident petition gatherers of pulling a bait and switch. She says they touted the initiative as a way to get more parkland but really it was about reducing density. She says these unintended consequences are something that needs a response.

Shahrezaei did not acknowledge that the parkland dedication initiative was a result of unintended consequences of City Council not being accountable for adequate oversight of the existing ordinance. That issue has been ongoing for over a decade. But Councilor Low ran through some math to acknowledge that resident density and parkland should have some sort of equilibrium.

Parks Versus Development

The ordinance is not about development per se. It is about the fact that more people need more parks in order to sustain the equilibrium Councilor Low spoke of. For decades people have moved to Lakewood for the plentiful parks. So much so that Lakewood Council recently pushed a bill to de-TABOR, partly to fund park expansion.

Many Councilors returned to the original argument from months ago that there was no way to mandate reasonable parkland dedication and still allow development. Those Councilors just want the development. Urban versus suburban development.

Councilor Mayott-Guerrero said that she hears the frustration of residents but there are several projects in her ward that are underway and are affected by this ordinance. She says that she has not heard any objection to developing several large lots in her ward. “Whatever your motivation and your impetus is, I believe that the way that this was written is going to result in a level of cost to the people of Lakewood and to the community that is really irresponsible for us to allow to continue.”

Council Member Cruz pointed out that this is impacting affordable housing developers. Affordable housing developers include Metro West Housing (MWH). Cruz did not discuss the MWH attempt to put 44 units on 1.6 acres, without including enough parking or a wide street, let alone neighborhood parkland for these new residents.

Councilor Sinks clarified that there was not a ordinance rewrite. Councilor LaBure agreed, stating that this would not be a rewrite, but rather tweaking some words.

Willful Misinterpretation

Councilor Nystrom says there are inconsistencies and, in her opinion, inaccuracies around the way the new ordinance has been applied. She also pointed out that there are many positive emails from residents, it’s not all negative as the other Councilors state.

Nystrom’s comments hint that the ordinance interpretation may be being used as a political football. She is the only Councilor to bring up a contrarian view and sound supportive of the resident-sponsored initiative.

Normal City Council procedure requires Councilors to submit a Request for Council Action to start a discussion. In other governments, elected officials can introduce legislation and call for a vote. In Lakewood, instead of Council Members authoring legislation, they must gain agreement from a majority of Members to hold a study session to generate ideas. Alternatively, they can assign staff or a committee to find solutions.

No Time to Think It Through

City Attorney McKinney-Brown says this move is “unusual but nothing illegal.” City Council must work by passing ordinances. She continues, “If the City Council believes they have plenty of time to workshop this and think their way through it, then you can start from a, a less intensive jumping off place.”

Her statement seems to suggest that Council may be acting off gut reactions and hasty conclusions. However, Council Member Low “signaled” that a third reading may be used to add additional time due to the amount of public interest in the topic and Councilor Rein agreed.

Council voted unanimously for the motion to have a first reading January 27.

Jedi Mind Tricks – The New Zoning Code WILL BE Good

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on January 18, 2025.

The widespread zoning changes Lakewood made in 2013 resulted in a resident-initiated movement known as “strategic growth.” Residents were unhappy with the increased, high-density residential units being built that unbalanced the economic growth of the city. Ten years later, city leaders are still not listening to residents. On December 9, 2024, Lakewood City Council passed a resolution stating the city will have a “zoning rewrite that is bold, imaginative, embraces innovation, and the diversity of needs for the full City of Lakewood.“

This resolution is not normal procedure. Normally, there is a proposal presented to the public that will show specific plans on promoting homes for the unhoused, increased density, and decreased greenhouse gas emissions. This is not that.

Rather, it is a declaration that the city already has its mind made up to implement these changes. And because they seek to be “bold”, the Council will approve whatever the contractor recommends, whether or not the public likes it.

It’s like Lakewood is playing a Jedi mind trick. Lakewood leaders want a zoning code to accomplish a bold new agenda and they are saying: you can’t see the code but it will be good for you. You will like it.

Residents are waking up to the fact that the “anti-growth” narrative was just a way to belittle those who disagreed with the establishment. Look at how residents react to the proposed developments at Whippoorwill and Belmar for proof that no one is asking to stop all development. They just want it done reasonably and in line with existing neighborhoods.

Residents are also waking up to the fact that the “affordable housing” narrative is false because Lakewood doesn’t have a housing shortage. These two narratives are how Lakewood justifies the need for this zoning code change. Lakewood needs to pass this resolution and zoning code before more residents wake up. Going through proper public discussion took years for a short-term rental policy and the zoning code is much more significant.

Being “bold” seems to be a new political buzzword meaning leaders are crossing a line. Bold is fast-moving, which could be dangerous in government designed to work slowly through public discussion.

In this case, as you can see below, the new zoning code will potentially destabilize neighborhoods by extensively changing the rules to densify development in every code. The zoning code was established to keep neighborhoods stable, so residents know the type of neighborhood they are moving into. With these proposed changes, the zoning code can even be used to expedite spending for the homeless, which is a budgetary process normally outside the scope of zoning.

The resolution cites the new comprehensive plan as proof that residents approve of this zoning code change. This is disingenuous at best because:

The comprehensive plan doesn’t mention specific action, just “feel-good” goals. Think in terms of everyone agreeing on world peace except that for one person peace means the peace that comes after world war.
Lakewood hired a consultant to rewrite the zoning code BEFORE the results of the comprehensive plan were finalized, substantiating that the game was rigged.

Read the resolution below and see how wonderful it sounds. For each bulleted objective from the resolution, there is an example (in white italics) that shows how it could be twisted into something that residents would not like, most of which have been mentioned by city and state leadership.

The revised Zoning Code will:

Be a zoning rewrite that is bold, imaginative, embraces innovation, and the diversity of needs for the full City of Lakewood, including:
- Strategies that target the full range of housing needs compatible in scale and form with existing neighborhoods;
- Increase flexibility in all zoning districts where appropriate to provide needed additional density;
  - (A pertinent example of this in the Belmar Park development fiasco where a new mega-apartment complex will be built that does not match the existing neighborhood. And that’s within existing zoning! Imagine an apartment building in place of your next-door neighbor’s house or the gas station on the corner.)
- Lead to an increased supply of housing that is more affordable and attainable for individuals below 100% AMI, including for seniors, teachers, first responders, frontline workers, artists, and younger families.
  - (Since there is no way to guarantee new housing goes to seniors, new housing will likely go to investors just like it goes to investors now. This point is just emotional blackmail.)
Eliminate minimum lot sizes while maintaining reasonable setback and other dimensional standards;
- (Buildings are now being built within a few feet of the sidewalk, as opposed to having ten feet of grass and a parking lot in front. This change increases wildfire hazard. It could also mean eliminating the original house to put four tiny houses on one lot – as discussed during a planning commission meeting. Or putting 15 units per acre, as per state suggestions.)
Improve connected lighting, sidewalks and bike paths;
- (More bike lanes and less car lanes. Think of the separated lanes on Garrison or narrow lanes in Belmar.)
Improve mixed-use development;
- (the 2013 rezoning already “improved” mixed use, resulting in replacement of promised commercial units with purely residential. This will eliminate even more business space.)
Codify a 90-day deadline to approve affordable housing projects;
- (residents fought the Whippoorwill affordable housing project for 18 months. This change will allow council to silence and ignore resident concerns.)
Adopt a meaningful inclusionary zoning policy, either as part of, or as an accompaniment to, a zoning rewrite, which creates below market sale and rental units.
- (inclusionary zoning is a market manipulation. It is modern day rent control, demanding all other units have high prices to subsidize around 10-20% of units being below market rate.)
Promote strategies and policies that will meaningfully and measurably reduce Lakewood greenhouse gas emissions, conserve water, and incentivize sustainability, each with timely goals and implementation;
- (This includes eliminating parking requirements, even less gas stations or bringing back the fee-in-lieu option for parkland.)
Lead to Lakewood* meets the requirements of Proposition 123 (as modified by HB 23-1304) regarding Affordable Housing Programs;
- (assuming this means fully adopting the state agenda and giving up the fight on local zoning rights that other cities are picking up.) *-”Lead to Lakewood” is in the original resolution. No idea what this means
Put fewer constraints on homeowners and renters, give Lakewood residents more choice, raise property values over time, and promote naturally occurring affordable and attainable housing;
- (For example, there have been several suggestions to remove occupancy limits which could lead to overcrowding, health and fire hazards. Group homes in the middle of R1 neighborhoods have already caused problems in Lakewood. There are also suggestions to eliminate emergency staircase standards.)
Expedite the site selection and procurement of temporary sleeping units and shelters, and promoting and prioritizing permanent supportive housing;
- (Give less notice that a homeless shelter is moving into your neighborhood – there are too many things wrong with this to list. And procurement has no place in a zoning code.)

Require that the construction, maintenance, and improvements of buildings owned or leased by the city will, where reasonably appropriate, minimize emissions, maximize sustainable design principles, and be built, maintained, and improved with a view towards also serving as a community asset beyond their utilitarian function.
- (Some City Councilors are concerned that the city is not getting LEED certified or have net zero emissions, both of which are EXTREMELY expensive.)

The Lakewood resolution was written at the direction of the City Manager, thus by-passing public input. This allowed City Council to “signal” residents that this bold change was coming. That way there is nothing for residents to oppose until it’s too late to make changes.

The reality is Lakewood does not have a shortage of housing. Changing the zoning code in the name of affordable housing is misleading. Read “The Totally 100% Fake Housing Shortage”.

Limiting New Gas Stations

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on January 14, 2025.

Lakewood passed a new ordinance to reduce new gas stations in order to increase public health, January 13, 2025. Not only will this decrease the number of future gas stations, the ordinance demands the new gas stations provide electric charging stations, one of which must be the latest, fastest technology. This is will substantially increase the cost to construct a new gas station while benefitting a diminishing number of customers who are purchasing electric vehicles. Lakewood also eliminated two zoning codes from permitting gas stations.

If Lakewood’s plans to bring in thousands more residents through affordable housing efforts pay off, everyone in Lakewood can anticipate waiting longer in lines. Gas stations are one of the few businesses that are still thriving in Lakewood.

Rather than re-inventing the wheel, please read the article below for more of the adverse effects of similar legislation in Denver. In another parallel move, Denver passed the same legislation as Lakewood, a week before Lakewood voted (correction 1/15/25 – Denver’s ordinance only passed to committee)

Lakewood’s ordinance is more extreme than Denver’s because of Lakewood’s market manipulation in demanding charging stations, even dictating the type of stations, but otherwise the legislation is similar. The adverse effects were not discussed by Council.

Sharf: Denver gas station ban a swipe at car mobility

January 13, 2025 By Joshua Sharf, Complete Colorado

Denver city councilors last summer proposed to limit the construction of gasoline stations in in the city, ostensibly in response to a citizen outcry a deluge of new gas stations being built on land that could instead be used for housing.

Actual legislation has now been okayed by the city planning board, and is worse than imagined.

A sweeping ban

The ordinance would enjoin new gas stations from the overwhelming majority of Denver, including near areas where new, higher-density housing is being built. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the proposed legislation is part of the city council’s campaign to make driving in Denver as miserable as possible.

Sponsored by council members Paul Kashmann and Amanda Sawyer, the bill would ban new gas stations within ¼ mile of any existing gas station, within ¼ mile of a light rail station, and within 300 feet of any protected districts, zoned for low-density housing.

A staff study from last May discussed exempting gas stations catty-corner to existing stations, but now there will be no such exemption. There will, however, be an exemption for gas stations that are part of new large-sized grocery stores with over 20,000 square feet of space.

Lakewood to help fund major development at 6th and Union

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on January 11, 2025.

Lakewood blighting new development
New designation allows city funding participation
Votes seem cemented due to prior planning with developer
Property not blighted prior to sale

On January 22, 2025, the Lakewood Planning Commission will vote on designating a new development area as an Urban Renewal. This designation will allow the city to fund part of the development. The development in question is called “The Bend” and is located on what used to be the Denver Federal Center, southeast of the 6^th and Union intersection. The property includes an ex-Superfund site that has not been remediated. However, the property was not blighted before the property sale, when all buyers could plan for city assistance. Instead, the area was deemed a prime location for commercial activity, according to comprehensive and special studies.

Aerial map of Union Blvd area — Site boundaries from the Union Blvd Corridor Plan, 2011, pg 2

Once again, Lakewood has contracted a study to prove to the residents that they have no choice except to do what is really a discretionary action. The study by Ricker Cunningham shows that “the survey concluded that nine (9) of the 11 total possible factors [for blight] are present at varying degrees of intensity, but all at levels considered adverse to properties, businesses, and persons living, working, and traveling through the area.”

Read the study:

9.11.24 The Bend @ Lakewood Urban Renewal Plan revised 12.30.24 corrected 1.8.2025 Download

The study is some research but more justification for what the city apparently wants to do. There is no explanation from anyone about why it wasn’t blighted anytime in the last 30-50 years since the site was decommissioned. An earlier designation would have created a more equal playing field for those bidding on the property, in the name of full disclosure. As it stands, it seems that one developer is getting a special deal.

The study even documents that the Planning Commission meeting is a foregone conclusion:

“… in addition to the public hearing (February 24, 2025), were scheduled, noticed, and conducted. Specifically, the Authority considered the Plan on XXXXXXX at a duly noticed meeting, and the Planning Commission reviewed the same on January 22, 2025, where they determined it to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.“ – Study, pg 8

Jefferson County, City of Lakewood, Jefferson County School District R-1, West Metro Fire Protection District, and Mile High Flood District have already negotiated tax assessment and revenue agreements, prior to the public hearing.

“It is the intention of City Council in adopting this Urban Renewal Plan that the [Lakewood Reinvestment] Authority has available to it any and all powers authorized in the Act and considered necessary and appropriate to implement this Plan. Because powers conferred by the Act include facilitating the completion of improvements for which public money may be expended, the intentions of this Plan are considered to be in the public interest and a necessity, such finding being a matter of legislative determination by City Council with its adoption.” – Study, pg 9

Lakewood May Pay for Site De-Contamination

Is this prime location for commercial activity really an area of blight? Debatable since it is called both prime and deteriorated in city documents but without this blight designation, Lakewood cannot fund the development.

“Union Boulevard has grown over the years and has achieved recognition as a prime location for business” – Union Boulevard Corridor Plan

To qualify for a blight designation, the site has been deemed deteriorated. This property was a federal military site that contains a toxic landfill. The study says the city may pay for old infrastructure and decontamination. Is the city signing up to pay for environmental remediation? Or is that only useful for designation purposes. So far no one has suggested actually decontaminating the site. Instead, the proposal is silent with respect to current plans but in the past the intention was to build over the hard parts.

In the quote below, the bold is the blight condition, and the suggested city contribution follows.

“Deterioration of site or other improvements – removal of trash, remnant infrastructure, weeds, and contaminants;” – Study, pg 11

Many of the conditions of so-called “blight” mean that the property is undeveloped. For example, to read this report, any property without a water line, or a street without curbs should be blighted.

“Existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or other causes – fire protection equipment, water lines, and storage facilities to ensure adequate flow;” – Study, pg 11

Since these are all conditions of an undeveloped property, and the developer bought the property knowing this and is now asking for the property to be blighted so the city can contribute, the question is: how much did the city promise the developer before purchase?

How much did the developer plan on receiving? Did they ever plan on doing this on their own?

The primary purpose of the plan is to allow the city to spend money

“the first objectives of any and all urban renewal plans is to provide the municipality with a workable program for expending available resources to mitigate and prevent the spread of blight, foster needed rehabilitation of improvements within designated locations, and advance community priorities expressed in adopted policy and planning documents.”- Study, pg 9

Contrary to what may sound like an innocuous renewal area recommendation, this is a major commitment to develop an environmentally sensitive area, with contentious high-density homes in an already congested traffic area.

The plan aims to “advance community priorities,” which is a very subjective statement. The plans refer to designs started in 2008. Think of how much traffic has increased since then. The 2017 traffic study says traffic allowances will be needed and makes several recommendations, see below, which the city will also pay for.

Union area transportation study 11-22-2017

Current plans for the Union corridor are based on the layout of Portland, Oregon to increase density and walkability (see page 30). The new walkability plan completely rewrites the original city plan and block layout of a previous generation. The current plan also claims to be written for the next 50 years but is evidence that 50-year planning is difficult at best. This plan is a complete overhaul and urbanization of the Lakewood people here love.

Do residents want to partner with developers to build 2000 units near an unremediated toxic landfill?

The plan is to “use financial resources available to the [Lakewood Reinvestment] Authority for the express purpose of the same; and to actively promote and partner with private investment and reinvestment interests.” – Study, pg 10

The vote to approve the blight is January 22, 2025 with the Lakewood Planning Commission.

*All opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author

Radiant Painting and Lighting
720-940-3887
karen@paintwithradiant.com
https://paintwithradiant.com/

Lakewood Abuses Emergency Declaration Power

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on January 7, 2025.

Cold weather has been an accepted fact of Colorado life for thousands of years. That is, except in Lakewood, where normal winter weather has been declared an emergency for the last two years. The city’s seasonal emergency declaration allows Lakewood to bypass its own procedures and operate a homeless shelter — without a required permit. Did Lakewood lack planning, or did the city plan to use an emergency declaration to purposely operate without official votes? Another emergency declaration will be made, if it hasn’t already been, for 2025, the third year in a row.

“Any time there is forecast to be an extraordinary emergency/extreme weather event involving sustained temperatures at or below twenty (20) degrees Fahrenheit I have determined that a local extreme weather emergency exists requiring and authorizing me to exercise any or all of the emergency powers vested in me as City Manager…”

Extraordinary weather event? Meaning natural Colorado winter weather?

Sustained cold? Like, overnight? How is this extraordinary?

“In Lakewood, the summers are warm, the winters are very cold and snowy, and it is partly cloudy year-round. Over the course of the year, the temperature typically varies from 23°F to 87°F and is rarely below 7°F or above 95°F.” –Weatherspark.com

The weather itself is not the emergency. Rather, Lakewood leadership wanted to start a homeless shelter but did not want to go through the normal process of public hearings to decide on a homeless policy. This public process would be open for community comment but the establishment of homeless shelters is a contentious issue that could lead to unfavorable attention. So, to avoid this prickly issue, it appears that Lakewood City Manager Kathy Hodgson issued an emergency proclamation declaring that normal weather is an emergency, completely bypassing public policy processes, presumably with City Council’s full approval.

With this emergency mechanism in place, Lakewood could immediately start operating a homeless shelter. Interestingly, Lakewood had already applied for state funds, assuring the State that it would get the required permit when necessary. Unfortunately for the citizens, by the time the permit hearing is held (still in future), Lakewood leadership could claim the emergency process has been historically in place for the past few years, with funding appropriated – thus automatically approving the required permits.

A permit is necessary by code to operate a homeless shelter. Lakewood had to write a new law in 2023 to operate a temporary shelter.

The emergency shelter mechanism appears to be a carefully constructed misinformation tactic that abuses the public trust. Most significantly, Lakewood has completely bypassed important public policy discussions which resulted in citizens in cities like Arvada to vehemently oppose proposals for getting into the homelessness industry.

Severe Weather Shelter Activation
"Activation is involved through emergency declaration"

From Lakewood City Council Study Session, November 18, 2024:

“Our hope is that we can ribbon cut this address as a 24/7 shelter in 2025,” said Chris Conner, Manager Housing and Thriving Communities. He assumes the shelter permit will be approved. Still, there was no mention of public policy debate of homeless response in Lakewood and no response to public criticism of the current shelter.

City Council has made it clear during study sessions that they approve of staff policy. Study sessions have no public comment or votes. The only vote so far has been to approve the fund appropriations. There will also be the anticipated vote from the Planning Commission for a shelter that everyone seems to think is guaranteed.

Lakewood City Manager Kathy Hodgson continues to get annual bonuses and salary increases, while Council approves of finding legal loopholes to make policies materialize without official Council votes. That keeps the policy power within the City Manager’s office and allows those involved to blame others for the lack of proper public process.

Read the 2024 emergency declarations yourself…

Emergancy Declaration – 01-05-2024 Download

Emergancy Declaration – 11-04-2024 Download

Lakewood’s Gross Misinterpretation

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on January 5, 2025.

From Cathy Kentner

This week it came to light that the city of Lakewood is disseminating purposeful and gross misinterpretations of the new parkland dedication ordinance. City officials have made the decision to require land dedication for the replacement of a single family home while blaming it on the recently passed Save Open Space Green Initiative. And, what is even more ridiculous, they have told a landowner they must create an easement, a part of their yard, that would be open to the general public. This is clearly not what the new ordinance states.

1. The parkland dedication ordinance does not require land dedication when an individual is replacing a single family home with another single family home. For decades the parkland dedication ordinance, and resulting formula, has been based on the number of anticipated residents added to the city. Therefore, when replacing a single family home with another single family home, no land dedication is required because there are no residents being added.

2. The parkland dedication ordinance does not require an easement for public access on private property. Even if the city were to erroneously require land dedication, the ordinance clearly states “The land area that may remain in private ownership must be added to the project’s open space requirement…” The open space requirement on a home does not require an easement open to the public.

It would seem that the City is deliberately putting up an unnecessary barrier for a single family home replacement and blaming it on the newly passed ordinance. Yet at the same time, the city is going out of their way to mitigate if not eliminate any barriers that would inhibit large developments of market rate and luxury apartments. Instead of encouraging families to stay, we cater to big money developers and corporations. In the process we displace longtime residents who can’t afford to live here anymore and cause urban sprawl as they go further from Lakewood for a single family home.

The Save Open Space Initiative was not created on false pretenses. There is no covert agenda to stop growth as some have suggested. The reality is we have a finite amount of land. If it is being absorbed by large expensive developments with no required provisions for open space, parkland dedication, trees, or affordable units, we will be creating an unaffordable, unhealthy environment for future generations. This initiative aims to restore the balance of open space and parkland with the creation of the kind of housing that is wanted and needed. Much was lost over the past 12 years when developers all chose to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication.

The Save Open Space Lakewood Green Initiative was passed by the city council who can, and arguably should, direct their staff to follow it appropriately. If necessary, council could very easily amend the ordinance to clarify that adding one unit does not meet the threshold for parkland dedication.

Perhaps if the city supported its residents with the same vehemence shown to developers, we could diminish the divisiveness that dominates our discourse.

Original News Story

Lakewood family looking to rebuild home told they must give up part of property under new ordinance, Danielle Kreutter, Denver 7

Whippoorwill Withdrawn

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on January 5, 2025.

From Jonna Helm, as of November (apologies for the delayed posting)

After 18-months of the community sharing concerns surrounding the site suitability and safety issues with the entrance and exit through Youngfield St for the proposed development on Whippoorwill Dr (Williams Pointe apartments), the developer has officially withdrawn their major site plan application and canceled their building permit application with the City of Lakewood.

Over the course of the last year, the development underwent six separate major site plan reviews with the City of Lakewood’s Planning Department. At the time that the developer withdrew the major site plan application, the site plans still had challenges that had not been rectified, and the plans were not approved.

During the last snowstorm, we shared with the developer’s board members and city staff, yet again, multiple incidences of vehicles unable to make it up W. 15th Place, which is the location that the developer chose for the sole entrance and exit for the apartments.

Thursday, November 7: UPS delivery truck unable to get up W. 15th Place: Video: UPS Truck unable to get up road and deliver to W. 15th Place- 11/7/24.
Friday, November 8: truck unable to get up W. 15th Place as he entered into the neighborhood traveling northbound on Youngfield (making a right turn). Video: Truck Unable to get up W 15th Place 11/08/24.

As one resident wrote to the developer’s board members in response to our email: “

Thank you so much for sharing these events which highlight the issues we’re facing in what’s only the beginning of our winter season. It’s blatant negligence at this point for the city to ignore our concerns and move forward with W 15th Pl as the ingress/egress for the Williams Point project and I truly hope they make an impact, before it’s too late”.

The following day, we received multiple emails from the developer. The first email in response to sharing the videos: “Thanks you for sending this information. I believe you should continue to work with the city on the lack of safe streets in your neighborhood”. Followed by another email: “I’m writing to inform you that we will not be completing our financing of Williams Pointe this year. We will continue to work on temporary and permanent uses of the property”.

At this time, we are unsure what the developer is planning for the site but we can only hope that between the cost and complexity of developing this small, steep hillside and the headwinds and challenges that had not been able to be rectified through six separate review processes, that the land will be kept as open space or used to expand the adjacent Blue Star Memorial Park, which is currently a small road-side park along W. Colfax Ave, that is dedicated to our armed forces.

Blue Star Memorial Park – City of Lakewood

At any rate, we thank the community and everyone who has taken the time to share and bring these concerns to the attention of our city and developer.

Lakewood Chooses Which Lives to Save- Homeless First

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on January 3, 2025.

Lakewood has spent time and money trying to find a correlation between homeless deaths and cold weather. This might seem obvious, but Lakewood elected officials want to claim the number of lives saved. However, the statistics don’t cooperate. There are no weather-related deaths identified amongst Jefferson County homeless. The leading causes of non-natural death in Lakewood are from mechanical falls, drugs and suicide which far outpace weather exposure. City Council is not spending millions of dollars on those causes. Even the number of homicides in Lakewood outstrips the number of deaths from exposure in all of Jefferson County. No increased spending on police. Is the priority really saving lives? Which lives are the responsibility of Lakewood government?

Current statistics are that two Jeffco homeless a month present for help with hypothermia-related symptoms in emergency or urgent care. From 2020-2023, 8-12 Jeffco residents die from hypothermia per year. This category was not significant enough to break out in prior years. There is no data on which city these people are from or if they are unhoused. With the number of unhoused increasing in Jefferson County, the likelihood of any accident will also increase.

The Jeffco coroner did not identify any deaths from weather-related or hypothermic causes among people experiencing homelessness” (from Lakewood Study Session presentation minute 14)

It is an unfortunate reality that people experiencing homelessness suffer due to the cold. However, it is not a significant cause of death, despite what elected officials are saying. Lakewood Manager of Housing and Thriving Communities, Chris Conner, provided various reasons as to why homeless did not die of hypothermia, including that Lakewood is now saving them through the new shelter. The data shows that hypothermic deaths are not statistically significant in any Jeffco population, before or after the shelter started.

From the Jefferson County Coroner’s Office 2023 Report

City staff highlighted statistics from the Jeffco Coroner’s report which shows the total number of accidental (non-traffic) deaths across all of Jeffco. Weather exposure is the 4^th leading cause of death in that category with a total of 9.

Jefferson County Coroner’s Office Annual Report 2023, Page 27

MECHANICAL FALL: “The majority of accidental deaths investigated by the Jefferson County Coroner’s Office (JCCO) are due to injuries such as hip fractures or intracranial hemorrhages from mechanical falls in the elderly population. Accidental overdose or drug toxicity deaths also account for a large portion of accidental deaths investigated by the JCCO.”

Given the statistics, unless they are elderly, an unhoused resident is far more likely to die from drug intoxication than exposure to the elements.

A closer look reveals that the number of county-wide deaths from exposure is far less than the number of Lakewood suicides, traffic accidents or homicides. (Note that the traffic accidents did not occur on any road with the newly lowered speed limit.) Although most deaths are from natural causes, there were 15 homicides in 2023 and City Council has repeatedly refused to investigate crime as an issue.

Jefferson County Coroner’s Office Annual Report 2023, Page 61

There is no breakdown of accidental, non-traffic deaths, that occurred in just Lakewood but those statistics have been requested for future reports.

Westword did an in-depth investigation into exposure deaths among the homeless and found that all 8 deaths in that year were accompanied by drug or alcohol intoxication.

Given the amount of death by drugs, if Lakewood’s goal was to save lives, a better priority may be to get into the business of mental health or drug treatment, rather than shelter.

Lakewood Expanding Homeless Program

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on January 1, 2025.

Denver’s Sanctuary City status has pushed many of Denver’s homeless into Lakewood. As a result, Lakewood has taken up Denver’s homeless industry and is building a multi-million dollar business. And just like Denver, Lakewood is relying on growing the homeless response. Left unsaid, is that to continually have more response, there must always be homeless to respond to – a reinforcing circle of political expediency that has caused Denver to be one of the worst in the nation despite spending $274 million. Lakewood’s latest study session reveals city staff expanded emergency days and City Council is asking for more. All without any council vote on a city homeless policy – which would easily pass but would require public hearings. All Council Members who spoke at the meeting encouraged more spending and more services for the homeless shelter. Several thanked staff for coming up with this policy although policy is Council’s domain – after a proper vote.

Mayor Strom acknowledged on November 18, 2024 that homeless advocacy was a new thing for Lakewood to get involved in and there have been growing pains. She also acknowledged that having good communication to notify people when the shelter was open was very helpful.

Council Member Mayott-Guerrero was also thankful for more communication between staff and Council but was concerned even more was needed. She asked if Lakewood had enough homeless navigators to get the word out to the homeless community. Like Mayor Strom’s statement, there was no concern expressed for letting the rest of the community know what was going on or if they agreed.

Chris Conner, Manager of Housing and Thriving Communities, said several times that turning people away from the shelter was untenable and that Lakewood would need to grow services in order to be sustainable. He said he did not want to open the shelter permanently without knowing that there was overflow capacity, which the county is currently filling.

Jefferson County provides hotel vouchers for shelter overflow. Vouchers are coveted commodities so Lakewood staff work hard to randomize so that no one can exploit a system just to capture a hotel room. Hotels may not be within Lakewood. Lakewood provides transportation to hotels, through Bayaud Enterprises. Jefferson County pays to bring people back from hotels in order to return the unhoused to Lakewood. Lakewood had a bid out, as of November 18, that would include paying for transportation again in 2025.

The unhoused are incentivized, and reportedly prefer, to stay in Lakewood, a growing program.

Lakewood staff has new emergency criteria that will open the shelter 50-70 nights a year while also increasing the amount of people served by 50%.

Conners said that solutions to homelessness would be to either increase shelters or move people into housing. He said that the move to housing will be when he would be asking for more help in terms of personnel and budget, meaning he is not talking of personal homes.

Keep in mind that Lakewood is altering its ordinances to allow for temporary housing, that seems to fit the definition of housing as a solution, i.e. Lakewood permanently funding housing for a population.

In every case, the feeling is that more resources are needed with no limit.

Councilor Sinks expressed the concern about getting the 24/7 operations started soon.

Council Member Cruz acknowledged there is more need in Lakewood than we can currently handle so she welcomed the county program to pay for hotel rooms. She is happy that Lakewood expanded the days the shelter will be open. Again, no council vote was taken on any policy regarding days or policy to open.

Many Councilors expressed the hope that other cities follow Lakewood, including Mayott-Guerrero, Cruz, Shahrezaei, Low, and Rein, and some asked how Lakewood could pressure other cities into participating.

Will surrounding cities give in to peer pressure to start homeless initiatives or will they listen to their constituents first? Arvada had to cancel the plans of City Council after listening to residents. Lakewood is not even listening to the neighbors of the shelter as crime increases and Lakewood becomes a magnet for homeless.

Mayor Pro Tem Shahrezaei expressed gratitude that city staff built a policy that includes what she was hearing from stakeholders.

What stakeholders? There was no city survey like they do for much smaller projects such as an individual park plan or giant multi-step surveys to keep your tax dollars. And isn’t it the job of City Council to set policy?

Shahrezaei’s statement acknowledges the runaround and backroom dealing that made this homeless shelter slash navigation center possible. Her statement also corresponds with that of Strom and Mayott-Guerrero, celebrating the increased communication with everyone but the community at large and only after the plan was implemented.

Council Member Low thanked the staff for “framing the discussion around the hypothermia issue and the emergency room visits.” He went on to say, “I think that’s a very sobering but meaningful statistic for us to be looking at and hopefully we can continue to have that number be zero or as close to it as possible so if we could have the city continue to get us that at least annually to assess whether this is continuing to save lives.”

There was no explanation as to why, if the number of deaths has always been zero or close to zero, Lakewood would need a shelter. It is unlikely that a shelter will decrease deaths below zero.

Low is also interested in having city staff expand meal services at the shelter, an idea brought up by several councilors previously. He encouraged staff to increase the budget for next year as necessary to support the clear agenda of City Council regarding this activity.

All Council Members who spoke at the meeting encouraged more spending and more services for the homeless shelter (Councilors Olver and Nystrom were silent).

Nothing really new came out of the study session, except this may be the only time residents will hear that Lakewood will be expanding homeless services, without vote, without a Council policy, and without public conversation.

Lakewood Cries Foul Over New Ordinance While Ignoring Own Laws for Years

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on November 18, 2024.

By Regina Hopkins

At the Lakewood City Council meeting on Monday, November 4, 2024, council members spent three hours deliberating a new ordinance, O-2024-28, and whether to approve it or send it to a special election, which was expected to cost Lakewood between $175,000 and $350,000. Despite expectations that the council would send it to an election, in an unexpected turn of events, the Council enacted the ordinance itself, arguing that doing so would save taxpayer money and expedite an inevitable legal battle related to the Colorado Legislature’s recently enacted HB 24-1313.

While Lakewood cries foul over the supposed legality of the newly passed ordinance, its longstanding failure to enforce Lakewood’s own ordinances reveals the hypocrisy of the City’s stance. Ordinance O-2024-28, introduced by the grassroots group “Save Open Space Lakewood,” was sparked by the plan to build a massive zero-lot-line luxury apartment complex next to Belmar Park, the city’s crown jewel. This development became the final straw, igniting widespread outrage and drawing attention to the even larger issue of ignoring open space requirements throughout Lakewood and unchecked overdevelopment.

Councilor Paula Nystrom highlighted the issue, saying, “We’re in an untenable situation, but there’s a reason we ended up here. Citizens shouldn’t have to protest, gather signatures, hire lawyers, or jump through hoops just to have their voices heard.” She continued, “The question isn’t whether this petition is perfect; it’s about understanding how we got here and how we can prevent this from ever happening again.”

For the past 13 years developers have exploited loopholes in Lakewood’s ordinances without facing any repercussions, as the City repeatedly sides with developers at the expense of green space. The City’s prior ordinance, which required 5.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents for new developments, had been ignored every single time. This raises the question: Since 1983, when Lakewood’s first Park and Open Space Dedication ordinance was adopted as part of the first Municipal Code, and included a “fee in lieu” option, how many acres of land have been sacrificed to development rather than preserved through park dedication? Arguably, a significant amount. The City’s consistent approval of the “in lieu of” fee has undermined the intended balance of the original ordinance, leading to a significant loss of green spaces amid ongoing development. We are losing more and more places every day for plants and animals to thrive without human impact.

Lakewood’s sudden focus on the legality of the new ordinance is a diversion, as the City tries to portray the citizen-led initiative as unlawful. This focus overlooks the fact that, for years, the City allowed developers to use the fee in lieu option without exception, failing to exercise thoughtful discretion in its widespread application across the city.

Had the City exercised better foresight and applied reasonable common sense in enforcing the ordinances already on the books, it wouldn’t be facing this situation today. Instead, by allowing developers to contribute to the City’s coffers while avoiding actual land dedications and now hoping that the newly passed citizen-led initiative gets challenged in court, Lakewood is revealing its true priorities: supporting unchecked development that benefits developers while disregarding the needs of residents, the environment, and escalating larger concerns about global warming.

Councilor Nystrom emphasized, “From all the studies done post-COVID, we know that nature is essential for people’s well-being.” She added, “Every apartment building should include green space… These are fundamental human needs, as well as environmental needs.” Nystrom’s perspective highlights an understanding of both human and ecological needs that is sorely lacking among many of her pro-development colleagues on the Council.

Councilor Roger Low’s claim that Ordinance O-2024-28 would eliminate affordable housing is simply false. In fact, it would likely benefit those residents in affordable housing the most by ensuring access to green space, which is often overlooked in favor of prioritizing density. The real affordable housing issue lies with Lakewood’s failure to meet the urgent demand it has identified. The City has already overdeveloped much of its available land with luxury and market-rate units, leaving little room for affordable housing. Let’s be clear about where the responsibility lies—with the City itself. Lakewood’s overdevelopment has already created a barrier to meeting the community’s needs, limiting its options, while attempting to deflect attention by blaming O-2024-28.

When the petition was initially drafted, it fully complied with existing ordinances and laws. However, the ballot initiative process takes several months, including time for gathering signatures, to move forward with a petition of this kind. As citizens gathered signatures in April and May 2024, their grassroots group gained significant momentum. In response, state lawmakers introduced a last-minute change to pending legislation. A paragraph provision slipped into HB 24-1313, a 62-page bill addressing Housing in Transit-Oriented Communities, in the final days of the Senate legislative session mandated that municipalities offer a “fee in lieu” option to bypass preserving open spaces. It’s no coincidence that the fee in lieu “amendment” passed as the ballot initiative was gaining traction—its success threatened the development industry’s profits by closing a longstanding loophole. This is a pattern of behavior we’ve seen before from the Lakewood City Council, driven by their ties to state representatives and developers, and it’s this pattern that has raised significant public awareness of the City’s disregard for community concerns.

The City seems to believe Lakewood residents will happily and willingly sacrifice their green spaces in favor of overcrowded, high-density developments that prioritize profit over quality of life. But Lakewood residents love their open spaces, and for many, it’s why they choose to live here. They don’t want it to become just another extension of Denver’s metropolitan sprawl. The City’s push for new development, prioritizing growth over the well-being of residents, has failed to balance the needs of both current and future residents it claims to serve. The ballot initiative sends a clear message: Lakewood residents have had enough of overdevelopment and will no longer stand for it.

This petition is a victory for preserving open space, reflecting the community’s desire to protect Lakewood’s character and environment. When City Council ignored the issue, citizens exercised their constitutionally reserved right to petition for change that their elected officials were failing to address. The City urgently needs councilors who listen to their constituents and prioritize green spaces and open areas over developer profits. We must continue this grassroots effort and send a clear message: we will not let this progress be undone. Make your voice heard—email City Council at [email protected].

A photo of Belmar, highlighting the area at risk from encroaching development proposed directly adjacent to it.

Regina Hopkins bio:

Regina is an environmental advocate from Lakewood, CO, with a lifelong passion for preserving the natural world. Her deep connection to plants and animals has grown over the years, fostering a profound appreciation for the planet’s ecosystems. Dedicated to safeguarding the habitats of wildlife and plants, Regina works to protect all living creatures—especially those without a voice. She advocates for sustainable practices and policies to ensure the environment is preserved for future generations.

Tag: housing