Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado
Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado
Defending the referendum requires legal counsel. Regular residents cannot navigate full legal proceedings alone. Although there can be no issue committee at this time, and therefore no campaign donations, an attorney is stepping forward to assist.
If you wish to support the effort, donations can be sent directly to:
Latest Amendments Below is a summary listing all the amendments discussed on September 8, 2025, to accompany the general meeting description. These are in addition to the amendments found on LakewoodSpeaks, which are also additions to the many changes that were made before. Amendments have been constant. Residents were unable to preview these. Councilor Sinks suggests adding a goal for home ownership. Failed on first try Councilor Ken Cruz made an amendment to protect the tree canopy and increase green resilience. Passed unanimously. Councilor Ken Cruz suggested another amendment to say that the zoning code is not retroactive. Passed unanimously. Councilor Roger Low restated the amendment from Sinks so that it passed unanimously. Councilor Nystrom suggested an amendment to mandate staff create a report detailing affordable housing generated from the zoning. Such “lookbacks” are common but don’t often generate results or change. Nevertheless, Councilor Mayott-Guerrero argued vehemently that staff don’t have time to do this level of review. Councilor Isabel Cruz said Nystrom’s amendment suggests there will be problems that need to be reviewed. Reasons to have a lookback needed to be taken out and reframed so that future Councilors remain neutral. Nystrom’s amendment took 3 votes to pass. Mayott-Guerrero argued that looking for a specific list of things of concern suggests there is something to be concerned about. All hints of concern needed to be deleted before finally passing the amendment to have another ineffective and neutral lookback pass unanimously at 11:25 pm. Councilor K. Cruz made an amendment to have written justification for any waivers granted by the Director. This motion was only for waivers, not for other matters that rely on Director’s discretion. Director Travis Parker says this is already standard practice. Passed unanimously at 11:30 PM. Councilor K. Cruz suggested an amendment to clarify the Director’s ability to grant waivers so that park property can be used for non-park purposes, like fencing. Mayott-Guerrero asked staff bluntly, “so does this do anything?” Answer, “no.” Passed 8-3 at 11:41 pm. Councilor Nystrom made a motion to delay the ability to cut down trees until the development is going to start. But as proposed, the language suggested that existing homeowners would need permits to cut down sick trees, which was a problem in previous versions. Motion fails with only Nystrom voting for it. On second try it passes with only Low against. Nystrom moves another amendment regarding the fact that Lakewood waives fees for certain projects in the name of the public good. Nystrom wants written justification for such decisions posted on the website. Such justification is already made. Passed unanimously. Councilor K. Cruz moves that all public notices be posted on the website and that physically mailed notices be multilingual. Passed unanimously at midnight. Councilor Nystrom made an amendment to include public information on the preplanning application review that after completion. Again, not for any public action, just to make information public. Councilor Shahrezaei had researched this topic and said that similar proposals had been rejected several times before because of the amount of work for Council and staff on answering questions for projects that don’t get completed. Motion failed at 12:17 AM with all of Council voting against it except for Nystrom and K. Cruz. Councilor Nystrom motioned an amendment to grant Council the ability to consider any Major Site Plan within 17 days of the Directors decision for public hearing. This amendment is actionable by the public and Council, not just a transparency item, and it is in place in other cities. The motion failed for lack of a second. On a second try, the motion was seconded and discussed. Councilor Furman said he thinks this may allow Council to make arbitrary decisions. Low says this leads to weaponization of NIMBYism and would chill development. Shahrezaei called the question for the first time that night on this issue. Motion fails again at 12:30 AMwith nays being almost everyone – Strom, LaBure, Rein, K. Cruz, Mayott-Guerrero, Shahrezaei, Sinks, I. Cruz, Low and Furman. Nystrom suggested an amendment to have additional environmental assessments for development that impact parks. Mayott-Guerrero expressed concern for how much work this would be for staff. She says delays could affect government funding and that she is working for government funding. There was no dissenting discussion to show it’s not just a timing issue; this decision prioritized development over the environment. Once the site plan is approved, it is hard, if not impossible, to get a new plan based on environmental considerations. Director Parker says it may not be possible to meet Prop 123 deadlines when having an environmental review. Motion fails at 12:42 AM with only Furman and Nystrom in support. Councilor Sinks made a motion for pickleball courts require a special use permit in residential areas but allowed outright in commercial and light industrial areas. This amendment would keep pickle ball noise away from residential areas. Mayott-Guerrero says that’s not a good idea. Low and Rein needed more information. Motion fails the first time. With modifications to remove express allowances in commercial and light industrial areas, the motion passed 8-3 at 12:58 AM. Nays were LaBure, Mayott-Guerrero, and Low. Councilor Sinks made another motion pickleball and sport court use definition. Low says it is too late in the process and too late at night to consider this. A motion to call the question passes. Motion fails at 1:05 AM 5-6 vote. Amendment 20 negated the first pickleball motion so there was a motion to reconsider. The pickleball court amendment was then repealed at 1:10 AM in a 10-1 vote. Discussion sped up after this point. Councilor Isabel Cruz motioned for plant nurseries to be allowed in R-L-B and R-L-C zones as a special use. There was no discussion. Unanimous approval at 1:12 AM. Councilor K. Cruz made an amendment so that roadside stands can include produce from other properties. The original motion failed. The motion was reworded to have produce from the host property be labeled as such. This made produce
From savebelmarpark.com The 777 S Yarrow public hearing is very close on: May 7th at 7:00 PM at 480 S Alison Parkway, Lakewood, CO You may now enter public comments online at: https://lakewoodspeaks.org/meetings/869. You may have to click on item 3. Unfortunately, a likely defect in the Planning Commission’s online file upload process has been identified and was reported via a follow-up public comment. However, that public comment was rejected by Lakewood for violating comment policy. It appears the comment was rejected out of an assumption that the Planning Commission software could not possibly be broken. The city clerk was also very helpful in providing examples of other comments with attachments that were publicly posted as proof that the upload process is not broken. Notably, NONE of the examples provided by the clerk included the .doc file extension. Therefore, because Lakewood was obviously not going to investigate a reported defect that could potentially have been suppressing public comment file attachments for a long time, perhaps years, I investigated. It turns out that the Planning Commission does NOT accept all of the file extensions specified on the file upload dialogue (which is shown in the image at the top of page). Once I converted the .doc file to a .pdf file, then the upload process was successful! If you upload a file with a supported .doc file extension, for example, it appears to work properly. However, if your comment is approved for publication, the attachment is never displayed. This is a material error because members of the public may reasonably assume their upload was successful since no error message is ever produced at any point in time during this process. Nor does the moderation process capture file upload errors and notify users. Nor are members of the public ever advised that the software may be unreliable and may silently dispose of file uploads. Upon reviewing public comments just this morning, one person who supports approving the Kairoi project referenced his attached letter. But no attached letter was displayed. So his attachment may also have been lost by the software. Therefore, members of the public or any parties with a matter to be heard by a quasi-judicial panel could upload files for the official hearing record and discover after the hearing record is closed that their file uploads were rejected. Then it is too late to re-submit their files. This problem is also complicated by a significant conflict of interest due to the fact that Mr. Parker, Lakewood’s executive in charge of making development recommendations to the Planning Commission and/or City Council, is also and incredibly an advisor on the executive team of the same software company that is at the crux of possibly suppressing public comment by silently rejecting documents intended for quasi-judicial hearings. We suggest the city is indifferent both to the public perception and the risks of this conflict of interest. We also suggest that as a result of enabling this conflict of interest, the city is also indifferent to the requirement for software quality control. Please consider that a quasi-judicial hearing is a legal proceeding. What if the clerk of a court periodically discarded or lost documents delivered by litigants without telling anyone? What do you think would happen to that court clerk if this malfeasance came to light after years of discarding court documents? We are not suggesting any Lakewood employees are disposing of these files. The comparison is being made to the apparently inconsistent software vs what if an employee hypothetically did the same thing? We doubt that an employee would get off so easily. But in Lakewood, the software does get off easily. And consequences can be significant if a court is not diligent regarding management of important technology used in processing court documents or evidence. Consider the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the fiasco over their DNA tests. It was recently revealed that hundreds of DNA tests were allegedly ‘manipulated’ over a 30-year time period and as a result material facts were omitted from official records even though no DNA matches were falsified. The CBI Director stated: ““Our actions in rectifying this unprecedented breach of trust will be thorough and transparent.” Will Lakewood be as forthcoming regarding ignored software defects that potentially corrupted public hearing records? Has this defect been suppressing relevant files for years? It is possible. Especially considering Lakewood does not seem responsive to any report that the software does not work properly. Anyone who has previously reported a problem may have received a similar response that it was user error because other people can upload files – but of a different file type. Therefore, we strongly urge that Mr. Parker be required to recuse from any matter that may eventually involve the Planning Commission or City Council where the PeopleSpeak software is used to accept public comments for any quasi-judicial hearings or city council meetings. In the meantime, any past decisions made by the Planning Commission or City Council where online public comments were accepted from the public should be reviewed and new hearings potentially announced once the software is fixed. Stay tuned and thanks for listening, Steve
