Nystrom

Second Zoning Ordinance Passes in a Desperate Rush Lakewood City Council adopted zoning sections 1, 2, 4, and 5 in a desperate rush that lasted until 2:30 AM, brushing aside pleas to adjourn and take more time for review to reconvene at a reasonable hour. The final vote followed: About three hours of public comment About three hours of council debate 34 amendments discussed Several denials of substantive changes The zoning vote didn’t even begin until around 11 PM, which is the time council typically adjourns. From that moment on, amendments came in rapid succession, but when anything meaningful surfaced, someone, typically Councilors Low or Mayott-Guerrero, shut discussion down because it was not the time for substance. Although few to begin with, any amendment that could have had an impact was defeated. By the time the ordinance passed at 2:30 AM, bleary-eyed councilors had pushed through a highly anticipated but largely unchanged plan. This vote showed that even though there was rhetoric from some Councilors about taking time and listening to residents, approval was a done deal. A Night of Symbolism, Not Substance The first amendment set the tone for the night. Councilor Sinks proposed a feel-good goal about “working toward homeownership.” It wasn’t binding, just aspirational, and even that failed. Throughout the night, councilors debated minor wording changes while dodging big-picture issues. At one point, Councilor Mayott-Guerrero bluntly asked staff, “So does this do anything?” The answer: “No.” The takeaway: most amendments were political window dressing, not policy shifts. Passage Highlights Council’s Predetermined Path The sheer volume of amendments revealed just how unprepared the code may have been. Many changes corrected errors or reversed recent decisions—like minimum lot size and setback rules that had been approved just weeks earlier. The public was not able to review or comment on any of these amendments. Still, nothing altered the trajectory: higher density, fewer restrictions on development, and a zoning overhaul designed to move forward no matter the objections. Mayor Strom signaled the strategy in an interview, saying “big issues” would be postponed until later to ensure passage. Councilor Low reiterated this unofficial policy, saying that Council has been talking about zoning for months and there shouldn’t be complex amendments at this point. The strategy played out in real time, as council rejected or watered down anything remotely impactful. In other words, and as residents have complained, it’s a “done deal” by the time it gets to public vote. Residents’ Concerns Addressed in Name Only Amendments seemed more aimed at appearances than solutions. For example, several amendments were made to increase transparency. Written justification for discretionary decisions will now be posted online. But while transparency is good, DISCRETION was the issue, not transparency. Residents are concerned about the many areas where decisions are made by one unelected bureaucrat. That core issue remains unresolved. Transparency without accountability is meaningless. In fact, a motion by Councilor Paula Nystrom to grant Council the ability to review Major Site Plans died for lack of a second. No one else on Council took the opportunity to address the core issue of discretion by adding Council review and accountability, even if the concept needed additional discussion. Another example involves waiving city fee for housing projects, which is a sore point for some residents. Instead of rethinking the policy, the council opted to simply post a justification online. A brief victory for the public came when council initially voted to require a special-use permit for pickleball courts in residential areas, only to reverse the decision 10 minutes later. One last example: an amendment calling for a comprehensive report on the effectiveness of the new zoning code was made by Councilor Nystrom. Councilors Rein, Isabel Cruz and others watered it down until it was not comprehensive and could not suggest there was any reason for a report. The worry was that asking for a report implied there might be problems to report on. In other words, the present-day City Council protected itself from anyone finding any problems in the future. A Late-Night Sprint By the end, fatigue was palpable. Most of the public had left by the time Council started deliberating at 11 PM. Council had the option to table the motion at any point, which meant discussion would pick up where they left off, so no repeat would be necessary and there would be no time lost. Council procedures mandate that a decision to continue the meeting start at 11 PM in order to maintain reasonable hours. Despite this, Council started the discussion without a check-in and continued far past normal. Councilor Low used the late hour as a reason to skip deeper discussions. Staff were scrambling for reasonable suggestions when fatigue set in. Discussion was curtailed starting at 12:30 AM with multiple “call the question” votes. Councilor Sinks motioned to adjourn at 1:30 AM. That call was rejected. The majority pushed ahead, determined to pass the ordinance. Councilor Mayott-Guerrero argued that public supporters had been organized for this meeting and it would be “irresponsible” to stop. No one mentioned the grassroots residents who showed up without City Council organizers, who felt Council was irresponsible to continue the meeting so late on items the public couldn’t review. The majority who voted to push on were Strom, Rein, Mayott-Guerrero, Shahrezaei, I. Cruz, and Low in a 6-5 decision. Councilor Rein’s vote was key to moving this forward, even if eventually he voted down the measure when his vote was not critical. The Nature of the Changes Here’s what came out of three hours of amendments: 5 amendments on trees, solar panels, parks, and other sustainability-related items 4 amendments for transparency without accountability 4 amendments rephrasing items resulting in no change 3 amendments that were too substantial to consider 4 amendments that reversed prior decisions 4 times the question was called One of the biggest changes the public couldn’t preview may be the shift to make Lakewood multilingual, or at least bilingual, for physical mailings. This is a big policy