Tag: Lakewood

Whippoorwill Withdrawn

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St for the proposed development on Whippoorwill Dr (Williams Pointe apartments), the developer has officially withdrawn their major site plan application and canceled their building permit application with the City of Lakewood.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.     

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.  


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.


From SaveBelmarPark.com

Lakewood has issued a directional drilling permit ROW24-01480 to the developer as follows: “Xcel Energy gas main extension for new build.”

That might sound like a typical thing to do for a new build.  But there are some problems.  

No ‘new build’ has been approved.  Or has it?  Has the city made a secret deal?  Why does the city assume this is a done deal when it is still up to the Planning Commission to decide?  Do city staffers have inside information?  Have city staffers been having ex parte discussions with Planning Commission members regarding approval of the project?  

Based on this new permit issuance and the included announcement by the city that there will be a new build at 777 S Yarrow St, we urge that the entire Planning Commission recuse themselves from the decision and refer the matter to the next appeal level in order to avoid what would obviously be a predetermined and biased decision.

And further, doesn’t it seem strange extending an Xcel natural gas line to serve an unapproved site when Xcel has explicitly stated the site plan proposal ‘does not seem feasible’?   Especially considering the gas line requirements Xcel specifies have not been satisfied even on the 4th site plan submittal from the developer?

Read more here…


In less than a year, the $0.10 fee from shopping bag sales have generated $692,000 for Lakewood so far. That revenue was only 60% of the $0.10 fee. The remaining 40% stayed with the stores, which means local stores made about $461,333 from plastic bags fees. Lakewood revenue from bag fees will be used to support multiple sustainability projects in 2025, including an Organic Waste Pilot Program as well as a project focused on Multi-Family Waste Diversion Resources.

The plastic bag fee is a state law even though “plastic bags result in about half the emissions of alternative bags,” a fact known since at least 2014.

@John Stossel
Plastic recycling is a “dead-end street."
That quote…unbelievably…is from 
@Greenpeace.
In my new video, we debunk the recycling religion.

The Organic Waste Pilot Program would include a variety of test programs aimed at increasing participation in both backyard composting and community collection hub programs for food waste.

The Multi-Family Waste Diversion project would develop toolkits, educational resources, and provide technical expertise to property owners and managers of multi-family buildings with the goal of supporting the establishment of recycling and potentially organic waste collection service.

These seem to be expensive education projects but new projects could still develop. Lakewood anticipates generating over $250,000 every year from this fee.

From Lakewood Study Session on Sustainability, November 18, 2024

Most of Lakewood City Council is concerned that Lakewood will not reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Although Lakewood has been increasing climate change regulations and spending for over a decade, it’s not enough and the city will be increasing both spending and regulation in 2025.

Are these goals achievable and which programs are most effective?

Lakewood is still developing its model to predict emission reduction. It is almost impossible to attribute which programs result in the best emission reductions because every result is intertwined not only with other programs but with the existing climate, which by definition is changing.

Lakewood has more sustainability goals than surrounding cities. Lakewood is named “one of 119 cities across the globe providing leadership in environmental action and transparency by the Carbon Disclosure Project”, showing Lakewood is more aggressive than most of the world. The city is currently working on a new climate vulnerability study, a new sustainability plan, updating zoning codes and building codes for increased required sustainability measures. Votes on the new codes are scheduled for spring.

Full-time sustainability staff has increased from 2, in 2014, to 12 in 2025. Dozens more part-time staff are employed throughout all city departments. According to Sustainability and Community Development Director, Travis Parker, about 30% of the new comprehensive plan focuses on sustainability.

Despite already doing so much, every Council Member present asked about doing more during the November 18, 2024 Study Session on Sustainability.

The key to City Council goals was to secure more funding. Council Member Jeslin Shahrezaei points out that cities like Fort Collins and Denver have a dedicated sustainability budget. She says grants for one project at a time is not a long-term solution. She believes residents want more funding to go to sustainability efforts. According to Shahrezaei, Lakewood played a pivotal role in securing a regional $200M grant because it has the tracking numbers for emissions and workforce.

Council will talk about new revenue generating possibilities at the annual retreat workshop.

Council Member Paula Nystrom asked for a new program and budget for residential greenhouse gas emission reduction for the upcoming revised budget.

Lakewood has not asked residents to support the climate change fight directly with their pocketbooks before. Staffing initiatives often start as “free money” from other sources and continued past the grant’s expiration date without a public discussion. More direct taxing and funding suggestions represent a significant new direction for Lakewood, especially on the scale of new programs at millions of dollars a year.

Councilor Glenda Sinks was concerned about being able to track sustainability spending through the budget. This was a good question without a good answer. According to Director Parker, Lakewood is not showing much in the budget yet because it is in the “enviable place of having more money available than we have plans for yet but that won’t be the case for long.” There was no answer as to where the money is shown in the current budget.

Councilor Roger Low echoes the need for clear spending and goal tracking in the budget. He would like to see more progress on SolarApp implementation.

Council Member Sophia Mayott-Guerrero floated a new idea to expand the greenhouse gas fee and have a larger spending pool to be used for things like sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, park maintenance, road maintenance, climate impact and water impact. All of these could be viewed as “sustainability” measures.

Several Councilors, including Cruz and Shahrezaei, were interested in making sure that money was distributed equitably. They want to make sure that low-income areas were first in line for assistance, as was intended through the federal program that Lakewood receives funding from.

Councilor Jacob LaBure would like to be a national leader in sustainability efforts. LaBure points out that much of the federal money may be lessening under a new administration. As a result, he suggests Lakewood do more internally. For instance, Lakewood may require garbage and waste contractors to only use contractors with EV vehicles. Mayor Strom echoes the benefits of buying or contracting EV vehicles companies. Councilor LaBure would like to mandate new buildings, especially city buildings, be LEED certified through the building code. Director Travis Parker says some buildings could already meet LEED standards but do not want to pay the quarter million dollars to get certified.

Councilor Rein would like to see more specificity in the sustainability plan in order to get Lakewood on track for less emissions. He is interested in the city getting a LEED certification. City staff say big new projects under city control, like the new maintenance facility, may not be able to get LEED certification but will be sustainable on some level. Rein asked staff if the current budget has enough funding to improve sidewalk connectivity and make the city more walkable in order to cut down on vehicle traffic. Staff answered there was not enough funding.

Upcoming dates on sustainability
Feb 1, Mar 3 Mar 17, Apr 28, May 12, Jun 9
From Lakewood update on sustainability

From Anita Springsteen, Esq.

Attorney and former Lakewood City Councilor Anita Springsteen, Esq. filed three lawsuits against the City of Lakewood this week regarding its violation of the Colorado Open Meetings Law (COML) during three Executive Sessions in a row on August 26th, September 9th, and September 19th.


The cases are all filed in Jefferson County District Court.


The first lawsuit (24CV31555) is on behalf of a citizen, Lenore Herskovitz. The City did not give proper notice or record the August 26th Executive Session, stating only that is was with regard to “legal advice” for an appeal the City won against Colorado Christian University an entire year prior to the meeting. As Ms. Herskovitz was an intervenor in that case (City of Lakewood v. CCU, 22CA1202 and 2021CV30629) – she had a right to know the purpose of the Executive Session and why there would be “legal advice” for a case the City won.

The other two lawsuits (24CV31588 and 24CV31574) on behalf of Ms. Springsteen, pro se, are with regard to Executive Sessions held on September 9th and 19th, only referencing “negotiations” to buy undisclosed property. No specific topic was given in violation of COML. However, citizens suspect the meetings involved the purchase of Jeffco school property – a controversial topic of great public interest. Citizens feel that concealing the topic was both in bad faith, and illegal.

(Note: These meetings are not archived online. They were executive sessions which are not available for the public. An example agenda is provided below.)

Ms. Springsteen spent four years on Council from 2019 to 2023 objecting to what she believed to be constant efforts on the part of Lakewood City Council and staff to conceal information from the public. The City has now become so bold in its lack of transparency that three illegal closed meetings were held without a second thought.


Hopefully the Jefferson County Court will remind the City of Lakewood that the citizens are in charge, and that government transparency is critical and required by law.


A former elected official should not have to sue her own City to force officials to follow the law.



Springsteen Law Firm, LLC
Anita M Springsteen, Esq.
Anita@springsteenlaw.com
www.springsteenlawfirm.com
7208383421

Lakewood residents voted to give up their TABOR refunds forever. The measure started with Lakewood encouragement, used tax dollars to see what words messaged the best, and raised over $50,000 from people who benefit from city dollars. The money will be used for basic city services like parks and public safety, freeing up money for other city pet projects such as electrification and homeless initiatives.

The final vote tally came out 61.7% in favor, 38.2% against.

From Jefferson County unofficial election results

The first campaign committee report showed that a majority of city council members donated to the committee including Councilors Sinks, Low, Shahrezaei, Rein, LaBure, Nystrom and Mayor Strom. Greg Stevinson also donated $10,000. Stevinson just had more land annexed by Lakewood in May, 2023.

The second report shows the Lakewood Police Union and Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 21 each made $10,000 donations.

From second campaign finance report of Our Lakewood

An interesting note is the $5,000 donation from the Colorado Gives Foundation. In 2024, Lakewood started a partnership with the foundation, appropriating $500,000 to give them* to develop more affordable housing (see budget book pg 23).

*Correction 13 Nov – Lakewood appropriated the money to spend on Colorado Gives affordable housing projects but is not giving the money directly to Colorado gives.

This circular relationship shows that the TABOR refunds will not just affect parks and potholes, as sold by Lakewood.

Ironically, a day before the election, Councilor Roger Low went on a rant during the City Council meeting, expressing outrage that a resident petition was not honest with the residents who were signing it. He said that if residents were asked to sign a petition that is probably illegal, they wouldn’t have gotten as many signatures, and his hypothetical description is a “much more accurate title”.

This sentiment was echoed by the majority of councilor, just like they agreed with the TABOR initiative language that there will be no new taxes. However, the city leadership failed to disclose that no new TAX RATES is not the same as no new TAX REVENUES.

Lakewood residents will be paying increasing Lakewood tax revenues with the passage of this measure. The amount in resident pockets will get be lessened.

Lakewood has budgeted an ongoing $466,000 for Severe Weather Sheltering. This is a separate initiative from the Navigation Center but for now, the Severe Weather Shelter operates out of the Navigation Center. Once remodeled, the Navigation Center will have full-time sheltering capabilities. The Severe Weather Shelter is only for times when the temperature reaches below 32 degrees. In Colorado, there are about 153 days a year below 32. Lakewood leadership has not yet reached a consensus on sheltering options for the very hot days, but that discussion is happening. These are two separate discussions, weather sheltering and everyday sheltering, to serve different needs for the homeless population. The result is more homeless sheltering options and an increased budget. Money will come from the city General Fund. A decision on where to have a permanent Severe Weather Shelter has not yet been disclosed.

Lakewood has also set aside $300,000 from the Economic Development Fund to donate to unhoused non-profits, as well as $9.5 million to buy property for potential homeless initiatives.

Graph from BestPlaces.net showing approximately 153 days below 32 degrees

Lakewood resident Wendy Purcell has formed an issue committee to fight against Lakewood’s ballot initiative 2A to keep your TABOR refunds. This is a David vs Goliath story. What makes someone step up when the entire city government is against her? Lakewood Informer asked her.

*Updated with links to previous articles below


What made you decide to start an issue committee against the city’s TABOR initiative?

We are so lucky to have Natalie Menten as our TABOR watchdog all these years in Colorado. I am a handful of concerned citizens that want to keep TABOR refunds for Lakewood residents. Thanks go to Mary Janssen & Lynnda Gies to help get the word out about the city of Lakewood’s TABOR constant requests to take our refunds away forever.

Do you think you can compete with the big money the establishment has raised? Stevinson gave $10,000 and the majority of City Council has contributed.

Yes we can


Why do you think Lakewood can survive without your TABOR refund money? Every department is making statements about how dire things will be if they don’t get more money. Are they believable?


No. The city needs a balanced budget to expand the city as quickly as possible without any pushback from the residents the city depends on.
The city is lobbying through through taxpayer-funded communication agents and established facebook channels.

How does an everyday resident like you get your message out?

We had a few posts on a some websites. Lynnda Gies & I canvassed the intersection of Alameda & Garrison on 10/20/2024 & got a positive response from the drivers for voting NO on Lakewood 2A.


Lakewood Facebood ad to retain TABOR funds

Further Reading:

City Uses Budget Presentation to Push TABOR Retention

TABOR Will Be on the Lakewood Ballot

City Seeks to De-Tabor but Over Collects Property Tax

Give us your TABOR refunds, says Lakewood

Lakewood Lobbies for Your TABOR Refund

Lakewood and Jeffco To Spend Money To Keep Your TABOR funds

Lakewood Budget Board Recommends Keeping Future TABOR Refunds

Lakewood City Council stopped efforts by city staff to put up signs that would discourage panhandling or window washing. In July, Lakewood City Manager Kathy Hodgson proposed draft language that would ask residents not to give money to panhandlers. After getting feedback from Council Members in August, all efforts were put on hold. City Council apparently would not support putting such signs up. An online community discussion, summarized below, shows Lakewood residents are frustrated with Lakewood’s lack of action. Lakewood implies permission by continuing to deny action against it.

The proposed signs would not be a solution by itself. In fact, it would have blamed the givers rather than addressing the panhandlers. Other cities post signs similar to those below. Douglas County has claimed to have “nearly eradicated its own unhoused population with a simple message to its citizens: “Handouts Don’t Help.””

Examples of posted signs
Examples of signs used by other cities. Lakewood did not have public drafts.

A recent discussion on nextdoor.com started with one Lakewood resident wishing that Lakewood would follow Arvada’s example by posting signs discouraging window washers. From the discussion, it is clear that most residents are frustrated with the presence of window washers in Lakewood. The key sentiments include:

  • Safety Concerns: Many residents express concerns about the dangers window washers pose to themselves and drivers by running through traffic, potentially causing accidents, and creating legal liability issues.
  • Aggressiveness and Intimidation: Several participants feel uncomfortable and even intimidated by the aggressive behavior of some window washers, especially when they continue to wash windows despite being told “no.” Women, in particular, report feeling harassed in these situations.
  • Policy and Law Enforcement: There is widespread frustration with Lakewood officials for allowing this activity to continue, contrasting with neighboring Arvada, where police reportedly prevent it. Residents feel that Lakewood is not enforcing existing laws and is not taking action to protect them.
  • Mixed Views on the Washers’ Intentions: While a few participants argue that window washers are trying to earn an honest living, most residents perceive it as an unwanted and intrusive form of begging, with some even equating it to harassment.
  • Desire for a Ban: A large number of residents would prefer that Lakewood implement a similar policy to Arvada, banning window washers from medians and intersections.

Overall, the general consensus leans toward a desire for stricter regulation or a complete ban on window washing at intersections, driven by safety concerns and the negative experiences of many residents. (Note: discussion summary and conclusion by ChatGPT)



Lakewood Informer


Resident generated news for Lakewood, Colorado.

Contact Info


Subscribe


© 2022 Lakewood Informer | All Rights Reserved
Designed by Mile High Web Designs