news Archives - Page 6 of 10 - Lakewood Informer

Lakewood to Censor “Misinformation”?

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on September 15, 2024.

The Lakewood Advisory Commission (LAC) has proposed changing its ethics rules to allow penalties for misinformation. This rule change is a result of information posted by the Lakewood Informer. As discussed in the public LAC meetings, this change would allow Commissioners to be removed from the LAC if they are found to have violated the new ethics rules.

Lakewood Informer publisher, Karen Morgan, is also a volunteer Commissioner on the Lakewood Advisory Commission. Morgan posted an article by guest author Bill Foshag titled “A Review of Lakewood’s Proposed “Beneficial Home Electrification and Upgrade Program”.

This piece was not authored by Morgan and made no claims to be from Morgan in an official capacity. It was published under the Lakewood Informer banner, which makes no claims to speak for Lakewood or the Lakewood Advisory Commission in any way. Note: This current article, authored by Morgan, also does not speak for Lakewood, the LAC or Morgan in any official capacity.

Nevertheless, Morgan was asked to censor the Foshag article by changing the content.

The Foshag article is a well written, thorough rebuttal of the information presented by the LAC in their report to the Lakewood City Council. Foshag presents clear facts and tells the side of the story not presented by the LAC. The LAC proposal makes several one-sided claims about climate change, the benefits of electrification through elimination of gas-powered appliances, and the need for government mandates and incentives.

The LAC proposal includes no balance and no drawbacks to their recommendations.

The Foshag article states:

“Traditionally, governing bodies have found it easier to regulate individuals, as corporations and larger organizations have lobbying groups and funding, and are better equipped to fight back and litigate if necessary.”

According to Morgan, LAC Commissioner Glenn Weadock asked Morgan to remove or alter this sentence because he felt Morgan should know it was not his intention or the intention of the LAC to go after single-family homeowners just because they are vulnerable.

Morgan refused.

It is true that there was no public discussion regarding single-family homeowners being easy targets. But the point is moot since Foshag’s post did not say “Glenn Weadock thinks….” Or “Lakewood thinks…”. The statement in and of itself is not untrue.

Moreover, the LAC proposal does, in fact, recommend targeting existing single-family homes (from pg 10, Recommendation 2):

“Expand to target existing single family homes without square footage restrictions, including benchmarking (baseline energy performance) and free comprehensive home energy audits. Audits can be revenue neutral to Lakewood with IRA/BIL grants.”

The proposal outlines the specific ways it would like Lakewood to affect residences: “Innovative beneficial electrification technology (such as heat pumps) and weatherization are best practices to reduce fossil fuel emission sources from homes under such future programs.”

The proposal goes so far as to cite examples of full gas elimination (from pg 5): “San Jose, CA, like numerous other cities, is outlawing natural gas into new single family homes through their Reach Codes.”

The LAC proposal is not unbiased research; it is a carefully curated set of facts to support an agenda. The agenda, in this case, appears to be to force existing and new single-family homes to eliminate or reduce gas powered appliances, reducing fossil fuel usage and reducing the energy choices for homeowners.

The Informer sentence “Traditionally, governing bodies have found it easier to regulate individuals…” is a fact that was called misinformation because it gave someone the wrong impression.

As a comparison, the LAC gives the impression that the actions presented in their proposal will reduce greenhouse gases, that the action is needed urgently, and that residents will suffer no performance loss when they write: “action to reduce greenhouse gasses must be undertaken urgently. Working to transition Lakewood homes to electricity will move the city in the right direction.”

All of their statement is debatable.

“Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information. Misinformation can exist without specific malicious intent; disinformation is distinct in that it is deliberately deceptive and propagated. Misinformation can include inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or false information as well as selective or half-truths.” – Wikipedia

Karen Morgan, in her official role of Commissioner, is often the sole no-vote to LAC actions, always voting no for the same reason – because the report is incomplete without presenting the other side. Without full information, policy decisions are made that are regretted in the future.

There is not a clear line between misinformation and things people don’t want to hear. As one Lakewood resident said,

“Misinformation is true facts the government doesn’t want you to hear because it will change your perception of what you know is truth”

During the City Council discussion on reducing speed limits, Lakewood Police and Transportation departments did not concur with recommendations from the LAC that reducing speed limits would decrease accidents. Mayor Pro Tem Shahrezaei said she’d like to highlight the LAC research that did not include any dissenting information. Such an act shows how the LAC proposals are used to justify the actions specific people want to see, rather than unbiased research. As such, the entire green remodel proposal, or speed limit proposal, etc., could be deemed misinformation.

The LAC is scheduled to vote on the new code of ethics in the September meeting. The code is not available for review online. Although no hearing or appeal process is actually included in the proposed rules, Commissioners can be removed on the basis of a misinformation ethics violation.

Residents Feel Unsafe Around Navigation Center Crime Increase

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on September 13, 2024.

A Lakewood resident gave an impassioned speech about how crime has dramatically increased around the Lakewood Navigation Center. She spoke immediately after City Council passed their new ordinance to allow more transitional housing for homeless. This resident lives near the new Navigation Center shelter and has had her life threatened multiple times. Council members, like Council Member Low in Monday’s meeting, like to point out studies where crime has decreased around pallet homes or shelters in Los Angeles. What they don’t say is that crime first dramatically increases due to the city’s policy of enabling crime through compassionate non-enforcement and enabling of unhoused activities.

“Today is the third time in less than three months that my life has been threatened…. These people told me they would knock me off my bike, beat me to death and kill me.”

“They go back there and smoke their crack and smoke their meth.”

“When we call the police, WE become the criminals.”

See this Lakewood resident speak at video minute marker 2:05:30

Transcript:

I live [in Ward 1]. The Garrison station’s there, the James Richie park is there, the action Center’s there, and just a few blocks from that is your Recovery Center.

I can’t walk to the grocery store. I can’t ride my bike around my neighborhood from all the drugs and you all sit here with all this enthusiasm to help the homeless.

I’m not an uncompassionate person. I have compassion to help those that want to help themselves.

Drug addicts are not housing insecure.

Yes, they live on my street and they endanger me every single day. I can’t go and dump my garbage without this, okay (holds up can of mace). I can’t dump my garbage. It’s literally 20 feet from my house because I have to carry mace.

Today marks the third time, not the second, I was a little upset when I called you today, the third time in less than three months my life has been threatened. Three times! Do you guys get threatened every day in your neighborhood? Do you have to carry mace just to dump your garbage? I doubt it.

The police are familiar with this.

Every time myself and my other neighbors contact [the police] we’re the criminals.

Those of us that have worked hard all of our lives and paid for a place and pay our taxes and we’re the criminal. Oh but they’re homeless! Today the police officer when I called dispatch they said do you want to press charges and I said absolutely!

These people, five of them, said they were going to knock me off my bike, beat me to death and then kill me, which was both the same thing.

They asked if I wanted to press charges. I said yes.

No one came.

They told me to wait in the Action Center in the parking lot. I did for 15 minutes while they all dispersed and harassed me on their way out of town or wherever they were headed and then, when the cops finally got there after I called 911 the second time, three officers show up in three different $250,000 vehicles and go,

“What do you expect us to do?”

That was the response after they interrogated me, the victim. It was what do you want us to do. This is crap. You guys know it.

The police aren’t doing anything.

You guys have an ordinance sign ordinance 9.66.10. It’s got the City of Lakewood written on it and it says no trespassing in giant letters. It’s down to a ravine it also backs up to a derelict property that has drug dens on it. That’s all they do. They go back there and smoke their crack and smoke their meth. That’s what they do. I know it for a fact. I’m not just making it up to be mean to homeless people.

This is a dangerous little corridor. It’s a simple fix folks and it doesn’t take $250,000 SUVs to fix it. How about you put a couple of e-bike cops out there. They could ride between Garrison and Carr Street and 13th and 14th and be busy 24 hours a day.

24 hours a day they would be dealing with crime

City Not Disclosing Where New Units for Homeless Going

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on September 10, 2024.

Lakewood City Council amended the building code to allow transitional housing for homeless on September 9. There were no defined programs, no defined projects, no defined locations, no operational guidelines and no defined structures. City Council Members spent most of their comments defending the lack of specificity by saying this is just the first step. They pointed to the housing crisis as evidence of need. Council positions are summarized below. The vote was 10-1, with Councilor Olver being the sole no vote. Programs can start as soon as the city acquires land, which was not approved in the 2025 budget.

Councilor Rein proposed a contentious amendment that would require the city to own or control the housing programs. There was push back from Council Members Shahrezaei, Mayott-Guerrero, Stewart, Cruz, Low, Nystrom, and Sinks. The feeling seemed to be that Lakewood should buy the land with taxpayer money and allow the programs but essentially give it to private actors to use for the homeless. An interesting note is that many Council Members frequently mention their work for non-profits while advocating like they are soliciting donations, rather than legislating from a government responsibility standpoint.

There is a homelessness crisis and if we don’t do anything we are complicit…. People have a right to shelter. – Public Comment, Amber Varwig

Rein eventually removed his owned or control language. That means any non-profit can control the program. As Council Member Shahrezaei pointed out, this includes faith-based programs. Once approved, the city will have no control over the program.

“It is irresponsible to change this ordinance for plans that you are not willing to be transparent about.” – Public Comment, Wendy Shrader

There is no defined project, policy or process for a city approved project so staff was unable to answer many of the City Council questions, which was awkward because City Council obviously had specific things in mind and they struggled to figure out how to get their base assumptions resolved.

“How far from the usual do you want to go in amending this building code” …Transitional housing is not within in the purview of the building code to begin with. – City staff response upon being questioned on whether it is even possible to put “own or control” definitions into the building code.

Without a defined “City of Lakewood Transitional Housing Program” , and without a defined approval process, this discussion could morph into anything in future.

Council Member Comments and Positions

Stewart: Asked questions so that staff can reiterate that these units are safe. Clarifies that City Council asked for this ordinance before other pieces come forward. She says that when they tried to do safe parking they had a vendor lined up and then had to wait because the city hadn’t changed the ordinance first. She clarifies with staff that the word control and approved is not defined in the ordinance as passed, which she agrees to.

Mayott-Guerrero: Says we’ve been working on getting this housing ability for two years. Now that there is a code they can work on a specific project. She says there are already homeless here and so taking care of them prevents problems later on. This is a local solution to a national problem. Rejects using the building code to try and control a program and does not try to define what a program means in the ordinance.

LaBure: Questions if garage door mechanisms are included in the amendment. Sees the need to address the affordable housing crisis but half the city is zoned R1 so we need to change the building code.

Low: The city needs to provide housing so that people can get the help they need. Says LA and Denver crime went down around pallet homes. Reiterates that the proposal is a result of council request, not a specific project and asks how the specific project would be approved. Answer is that the approval process has not been set but there have been conversations about what is needed. There may need to be a permit review involving public hearing.

Sinks: Clarifies that these new units will not be going into parks or open space.

Cruz: Asks whether a non-profit could partner in these projects. The answer is that it is only city approved, does not need to be city controlled. She says there is a human cost in not taking action.

Rein: Next step is for staff to provide a framework to answer all these questions, such as does it need a special use permit, which is an option but not certain. Rein motions to add language “owns (in whole or in part), or controls, or both” to the projects. so that the city always has “skin in the game”. He later removes this language.

Shahrezaei: As to the amendment, she approves the subcontractor relationship, (rather than the having the city own or control). City staff answers that this is a policy decision and that control could come from the permitting process.

Nystrom: Strongly states that City Council has nothing specific planned, they are just getting ready. Lakewood has a homelessness problem. People who are living on the streets need our help. Naysayers should consider being more compassionate.

Strom: Thank you to everyone working on this for the last couple years. This aligns with our priorities.

Scorecard: Amend Building Code for Transitional Housing

Strom: Aye

Shahrezaei: Aye

Sinks: Aye

Mayott-Guerrero: Aye

Cruz: Aye

Stewart: Aye

Low: Aye

Olver: Nay

Rein: Aye

LaBure: Aye

Nystrom: Aye

BACK TO THE 50s! LAKEWOOD COMMISSIONERS DECIDE THAT PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT MAKES IT TOO HARD ON DEVELOPERS.

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on September 9, 2024.

Press Release

A Resolution drafted by the Lakewood Planning Commission sought to address inadequacies in the process for Major Site Plans. The request for a Resolution came from Rebekah Stewart on City Council and was in direct response to the 6-story apartment complex planned directly adjacent to Belmar Park, its lakes, and established natural habitats. The Resolution notably promoted a paragraph recommending there be “an evaluation of the potential effects of a park adjacent development on habitats with the park, including any demonstrable effects on park flora and fauna”. In the Sep 4 discussion of the Resolution, Commissioner Kolkmeier mentioned that this was not a new concept and that Ft. Collins has an ordinance exactly on this topic, so that there were models available to draw from. However, Commissioner Buckley stated that he did not know what Ft. Collins experienced from this ordinance, and therefore recommended striking the paragraph from the Resolution. After a half-hearted round robin where other commissioners stated “perhaps we could recommend that City Council review the Ft. Collins ordinance” and “it’s unfortunate not to address the ecology at all”, the commission voted 4 to 1 to remove the paragraph and not consider protecting the environment in a review of Major Site Plans, even when they might be located adjacent to a park.

There is well documented peer-reviewed research of the adverse impacts of adjacent development on wildlife from increased noise, light pollution, pets – especially cats, bird strikes on window glass, and general human-caused disturbance. An industry as vilified as Oil and Gas is required to perform environmental assessments before beginning projects. However , the Lakewood Planning Commission has decided that in our human-centric world, protecting the environment should not be a factor that developers need to bother with. From developers to Lakewood: “Thanks!”.

Aerial view of Belmar Park and 777 S Yarrow St

History. Belmar Park was voted into existence in 1973, after a long-contested struggle of what the original Bonfils Stanton estate should become: a development that would provide a tax base for the newly incorporated City of Lakewood or a large, centrally located park. The outcome, Belmar Park, is described on the city website as one of the “true jewels of the city park system, a peaceful enclave in the center of town” that comprises 132 acres of natural area. It is valued for its wildlife (avidly photographed) and also for the serenity and tranquility it provides to park visitors.

Threats to the Park. In the 50 years since the inception of Belmar Park, the city of Lakewood has inevitably seen much growth. One recent proposed development at 777 S. Yarrow St., which currently contains the two-story Irongate office building, threatens the integrity of the park by adding 412 luxury apartment units in a six-story complex on 5 acres immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the park. Sixty-five mature trees would be removed. The project is legally zoned for this density after a zoning change in 2012. Done as a city-wide “legislative rezoning”, the change did not require neighborhood notification that most rezoning involves. The 2015 Comprehensive Plan further exacerbated the problem by designating Belmar Park and the adjacent land as a “growth area”, which allows for dense multi-storied structures. Also, with the designation of a Major Site Plan, the project to date has been reviewed only by city staff, with no input from City Council or the public. Residents of Belmar Commons townhomes, located within 300 ft of the project, were notified in 2023, 2 years after the project plans had been submitted to Lakewood.

Impacts to the Park. How would Belmar Park be affected by such development on its periphery? Over 240 species of birds have been catalogued at Belmar Park, according to Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s eBird.org, including resident, breeding, and migratory birds. There is written authority on the detrimental effects of noise and night lighting on bird mating, nesting, and reproductive success. There is wide documentation of the threats to birds from collision with buildings and glass, a danger that the nearby multi-story building would present as birds fly eastward across the lake with afternoon sun reflected on the windows. The mature trees on the project site provide nesting and foraging sites for songbirds and raptors. As far as more people experiencing nature, there have been articles about our public spaces being loved to death. As a frequent visitor to Belmar Park, I have watched people fishing near the No Fishing signs, and social media has reported turtles being taken from the lake. With the addition of 412 apartment units encroaching on the park, degradation is inevitable.

Public outcry and City of Lakewood Position. When the public became aware of the project in August 2023, people filled City Council chambers to protest in each meeting from September into January 2024. Most City Council members and Mayors Adam Paul and Wendi Strom contended there was nothing that could be done to change the proposal due to the “right to build”. This raises the question, why does development supersede the wishes of the community and Lakewood’s own ordinances and plans, such as The Existing Tree Preservation ordinance, which requires protection of mature trees and design plans that minimize disturbance to such trees; the Lakewood Sustainability Plan, with a goal to achieve a 30 percent tree canopy by 2025; and The Lakewood Comprehensive Plan, which reads that new developments should be compatible and seamlessly integrate with existing neighborhoods (in this case the park and 1and 2-story townhouses.)

Additionally, according to the Lakewood Municipal Code, the calculation of land dedication requirements for park and open space, the developer owed the City 3.3 acres of parkland, which would have created a buffer with the park. However, the City opted to accept an “in lieu of” cash offer from the developer with no land donation, and intends to use the funds for a parking lot south of the library, effectively removing more trees and green space.

Where we are now. It is clear that the deteriorating Irongate office building should be demolished. The City declined to bid on the property when it became available in 2019, as reported by Westword. Development that is more appropriate in scale for the site, that adheres to the Lakewood ordinances, would be considered acceptable to much of the community. Any recent negotiations between the City Planning Staff and the developer are unknown at this time. However, for the first time in 12 years, the Planning Director has recommended a Major Site Plan to the Planning Commission for review. Years ago City Council ceded their authority to review such projects because of the time involved, and since then, Major Site Plans have been reviewed by staff with no public interaction with the developer. The review date is to be determined, but the meeting will be an opportunity for those concerned to once again voice their opinions. A decision by the Planning Commission that favors the developer over the needs of the park and the community will be challenged in court.

One-Sided Presentation To Limit Lakewood Gas Stations

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on August 11, 2024.

The Planning Commission presented evidence of health and environmental harm from fueling stations and car washes. No evidence from the other side was presented. With only one side represented, it is no surprise that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended to restrict gas stations in Lakewood, while at the same time increasing electric charging stations. Council comments generally reinforced that view and city staff will be drafting new ordinances to implement these recommendations.

The Planning Commission discussed the issue at three public meetings. In the presentation, this sounds like all sides were heard. However, inviting comment or being open to comment is not the same as researching or actually hearing the other side.

No industry representatives made comment or presentation and no information was brought forth to represent their side. Only one person made comment on LakewoodSpeaks to support the market economy. This led to a one-sided, forgone set of recommendations from the Planning Commission.

An example from the presentation of what the Planning Commission found to be a compelling argument:

“Within 10 years 80% of all fueling stations will be unprofitable (due to the switch to EV cars), leaving stranded assets that will need environmental remediation” – cited by Planning Commissioner Kip Kolkmeier

Does Lakewood have a profit standard for businesses to open? No.

Does Lakewood bear any responsibility for environmental costs if remediation is needed? No.

Is EV car use on track to eliminate gas cars? No, not without government force.

None of that was mentioned.

Planning Commission recommends eliminating gas stations in all mixed use zoning, which they claim are designed for pedestrian, cycling and mass transit use. This statement does not align with ordinance but is a move the city seems to encourage, whether explicitly stated or not. Most public policy discussions that encourage walkability do not explicitly say cars will be eliminated (*Originally worded to be sound harsher)

Purpose of Mixed-Use Zone: “Provide a well-designed site circulation system with a strongly defined pedestrian and vehicular network, good connections to adjacent land uses and efficient connections to transit stops.” Per Lakewood Zoning Ordinance, Article 7.

Planning Commission also recommends increasing electric charging stations, for which there is no business case for proven profitability or need. This argument also proves the misleading nature of “mixed use zoning is for pedestrian, cycles and mass transit.”

Lakewood may consider requiring charging stations as a prerequisite to approving future gas stations. This move will introduce additional market distortions with affects that were not studied at all. Gas stations already have the option to add any charging stations they feel have market demand.

Lakewood staff will be drafting new ordinances to implement these recommendations, while conducting further research.

Lakewood Following Denver

Once again, Lakewood is following in Denver’s footsteps. See some of the other side of the argument from Joshua Sharf, Complete Colorado:

“Never mind your guns, some Denver City Councilmembers are coming for your gas stations.

The Denver Post reports that, concerned by an alleged “sudden proliferation of gas stations,” Councilmembers Amanda Sawyer and Paul Kashmann, among others, have decided that gas stations – apparently uniquely among Denver’s many retail businesses – are taking too much space away from other priorities such as housing. In response to this deadly threat to housing density, they are close to proposing a zoning change precluding new gas stations from being built inside a quarter-mile buffer zone around existing stations.”

Planning Director’s Decision is “Arbitrary and Capricious”

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on July 28, 2024.

Information provided by Jonna Helm

Updated July 28: Public Hearing set for 8/21 at 7pm

Lakewood residents have filed an appeal to approval of the subdivision for 1515 Whippoorwill Dr under the following basis:

This is not a subdivision of land but rather a merger of two parcels of land at the location of 1515 Whippoorwill. In which, Jefferson County has jurisdiction to perform that function, not the City of Lakewood
The proposed development is estimating 300+ car trips per day with the entrance on the blind curve on Youngfield St at W. 15th Place. The intersection at W. 15th Place and Youngfield Dr has no traffic controls and is already hazardous based on the sightlines of blind curve on Youngfield St, in which there was a near dead-on collision in Lakewood news a few weeks ago at this intersection, and the steep slope of W 15th Place, particularly in snow and ice. Adding 300+ trips per day through this intersection is unsafe and will impact traffic flow on Youngfield St.

The Planning Department will now turn this over to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Despite this not being a subdivision but a merger, the City is using the subdivision standards to evaluate the approval of the merger. In review of the subdivision standards, there are numerous other violations to the subdivision criteria and the bullets above are just a broad stroke of the issues that we will be addressed during public hearing.

See the formal appeal here, which alleges several improper processes and decisions.

2024.07.10 Appeal to Lakewood Planning Commission_Applewood Download

Residents anticipate that the hearing date will be sometime mid to late August or early September and ask for support by sharing concerns as with regards to safety of the street access, lack of public transportation, traffic control patterns and street connectivity in the subdivision ordinance:

Part 2: Applicable Criteria—Article 3: Subdivision Design Standards
- 16-3-1 General Standards
- 16-3-2 Residential Subdivision Standards
- 16-3-5 Common space, tracts, or buildings
- 16-3-6 Easements
- 16-3-7 Utilities
- 16-3-8 Street and transportation patterns and connectivity standards
- 16-3-9 Streets, access and transportation

Sign the petition: Change.org

Here are just a couple of photo examples to illustrate the traffic problems on the blind curve. Unfortunately, there are no plans to mitigate these issues.

***Intersection of W. 15th Place and Youngfield St at the blind curve.***
***Car missed the turn and hit the power pole***

***Head on collision between a car and motorcycle at the blind curve***

Video of one of many vehicles that get stuck or can’t up W. 15th Place in winter conditions.

This car tried for over 2 minutes to get up W. 15th Place and never made it. Today only a few cars access W. 15th Place but what happens when there are 300 trips per day with a single entrance and exit to the apartments through this intersection? The City and Developers have no answers.

Our Tax Dollars at Work – Jefferson County Property Tax

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on July 14, 2024.

Repost with permission from Bob Adams, Nextdoor

The Jefferson County Commissioners met at 9 AM on, 9 July, 2024 in a public meeting to vote on a ballot proposal to allow them to keep all the excess funds they overcollected with our 2024 property tax billing. These excess funds would normally be refunded to us because of TABOR. I attended the meeting.

Why overcollected? For several years, the County Commissioners have failed to produce a sound budget. Instead, they spent more than their revenue and drained reserve funds to make it APPEAR they had a balanced budget. This year, they ran out of reserve funds and accounting tricks. The County Assessor did a reappraisal in 2023 as required by State law. Overall, the appraised value of all properties increased by about 37%. By State law, the commissioners were supposed to adjust the mill levy downward to adjust the overall revenue to equal the County budget. Governor Polis even sent a letter asking them to reduce the mill levy. They failed to do so. Instead, they intentionally kept the previous year’s mill levy knowing full well they would collect millions of excess dollars.

The Commissioners then contracted to spend $340,000 of our tax dollars with a politically connected company, The Bighorn Company – Democrat Brittany Pettersen’s husband’s company, to write a ballot proposal (read more about Jeffco and Lakewood lobbying).

I attended the 9AM meeting and it originally seemed all sides of the issue would be heard fairly. I was wrong. The commissioners gave no serious consideration to budget cuts and didn’t mention wasteful spending (such as the County Clerk’s holiday party). They politely listened to all public comments, then IGNORED all comments against or to improve the ballot proposal, and quickly voted to approve it with little discussion and no changes.

This proposal is sneaky and deceptively written:

“WITHOUT INCREASING ANY TAX RATE OR MILL LEVY RATE, AND TO FUND:

● TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE (BUILDING, MAINTAINING, AND REPAIRING ROADS, BRIDGES, POTHOLES, AND OTHER COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE); AND

● PUBLIC SAFETY (WILDFIRE AND FLOOD MITIGATION AND RESPONSE, ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS, CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAMS AND STRATEGIES, AND OTHER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY FUNCTIONS);

SHALL JEFFERSON COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN, AND SPEND THE FULL REVENUES FROM AUTHORIZED REVENUE SOURCES BEGINNING IN FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND IN EACH FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER; AND SHALL RESULTING REVENUE AND EARNINGS BE TREATED AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE AUTHORIZED BY ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION OR ANY OTHER LAW; AND SHALL RESULTING REVENUE AND EARNINGS BE REVIEWED ANNUALLY BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR AND A CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE?”

Why is it deceptive? The ballot provision does away with ALL current and future TABOR protections – but doesn’t say so. It also does away with the annual 5.5% property tax cap. It implies there would be no tax increase. In fact, it’s a major tax increase. It says no increase in the tax rate or mill levy which is a half-truth. With the huge increase in the 2023 property appraisal, the mill levy was supposed to be reduced. Instead, they kept it at the previous high level resulting in a windfall increase in revenue. As a result, it allows the commissioners to INCREASE future tax rates without any taxpayer control.

Looking at and analyzing the facts and events that led to this ballot proposal, it certainly appears this is a deliberate, planned effort by the Commissioners and county to keep and spend the excess property tax revenue they collected this year (2024) and eliminate TABOR and all other legal restrictions on increasing property tax in the future.

Don’t be fooled. The commissioners want us to vote to approve a huge property tax increase now and into the future with a clear attempt to pull the wool over our eyes.

People who don’t own real estate in the County may think this won’t affect them, but it will. Landlords will pass along the tax increase in higher rental rates and businesses must pass along the tax as higher prices on their goods and services. This ballot proposal will increase inflation even more.

Increased Housing Density Coming to Your Neighborhood

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on July 7, 2024.

The City of Lakewood is looking for a consultant to write new zoning codes to:

densify existing neighborhoods,
improve equity, and
remove parking restrictions.

Current efforts to density have caused Lakewood to develop problems with traffic, stormwater drainage, parking and more. Existing developments have not been designed for high-density.

The city has not offered any solutions to these problems. In fact, parking is such a problem that Lakewood is studying requiring parking permits for residents – paid for by residents – rather than mandating increased parking in development plans. This proposal will intensify that problem and increase the amount of resident-funded parking permits throughout Lakewood.

Lakewood appears intent on exacerbating existing problems by allowing more densification to solve another problem… affordable housing.

It must be noted that parking, traffic and stormwater management are key functions of the city government, whereas housing is traditionally regarded as a market-based function.

There are two citizen-led initiatives in Lakewood news demonstrating that current densification is not in line with the city’s existing ordinance to maintain the existing characteristics of existing neighborhoods: a new development near Belmar Park and on Whippoorwill near Youngfield.

City ordinances are a series of laws that rule Lakewood’s development. However, Lakewood staff can interpret these rules through the lens of the city’s Comprehensive Plan.

The existing Comprehensive Plan states (pg 3-12):

“The City will continue to support the diverse image and character of the community by maintaining the existing characteristics of neighborhoods with existing single-family residential zoning; creating appropriate transitions between commercial, multi-family, and mixed-use development and single-family zoned areas; and encouraging contextually appropriate infill and redevelopment projects.”

For the last several years, Lakewood has de-emphasized the existing characteristics of neighborhoods and transition zones in favor of other factors, which has caused conflict with resident groups, such as those mentioned above.

Lakewood is currently developing a new Comprehensive Plan to show the direction of the city for the next fifteen years. The densification proposal coming out before the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is finalized shows that Lakewood anticipates knowing what the results will be, regardless of any input the community provides.

The proposal reads: “The Contractor will identify goals, recommendations, and implementation strategies, to ensure the new code is consistent with the 2040 [Comprehensive] Plan.“

Since this proposal calls strictly for plans to densify, it appears that the Comprehensive Plan may have to be adjusted to match densification, rather than vice versa.

The Planning Commission will serve as the community input for this project.

See the full proposal here:

RFQ 6188 – Amend Zoning Ordinance 2024.06.21 Download

Concerns and Comments for Whippoorwill Dr

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on July 4, 2024.

Guest Submission from Toni Riggio, sent to City of Lakewood Planning, Engineering, Traffic and Ward 1 members

This letter is in response to the Subdivision Notification Letter received by mail by the City of Lakewood on 5/3/24. There is a multi-family development that is proposed at 1515 Whippoorwill Dr (Ward 1) with the Ingress/Egress at Youngfield St, 15h Pl and Youngfield Dr and I am writing in opposition to that access point based on the following reasons:

Concerns and Comments for Case# FI23-0016 and S23-0025/1515 Whippoorwill Dr

Proposed Ingress/Egress is where 3 streets come together

1- Youngfield Street: is an increasingly busy corridor. Traveling South requires a full stop at the blind curve to see oncoming traffic before turning onto 15^th Pl. Traveling North has low visibility as you turn right onto 15^th Pl.

2- 15^th Place: Per Aldridge Transportation Consultants recent memo in etrakit, is “a steep 10% grade” uphill as you turn in. This street is a no outlet/ not a thru street that serves 13 homes.

3- Youngfield Drive: is currently a narrow dirt road, not a through street with limited width to expand to the required 36’ for Mixed Use zoning. Lakewood has made an exception for 28’ which makes the entirety of the Road a fire lane per Metro West Fire Dept.

The neighbors have proposed the Ingress/Egress to be at Colfax Ave for a myriad of safety issues and concerns which are highlighted in this document. The ongoing meetings the neighbors and Applewood Valley Assoc have had with both the developer and the City of Lakewood to have access at Colfax Ave have yielded little results to date. This plot of land was originally zoned Residential (R-1A) and in 2012 rezoned to Mixed Use Suburban, because it backs Colfax Ave. We were given a few reasons why the entrance and exit can’t be on W. Colfax; however, the 2014 plans from the City of Lakewood mandated the access to the site to be at W. Colfax Ave, for the same developer and site. In 2023 the City of Lakewood allowed a Multi-family Residential unit to have access from W. Colfax. This site is across the street from this proposed Williams Point site. Further, based on the CDOT referral, it appears that CDOT is not opposed to the development to be accessed through W. Colfax Avenue as they note in their referral “No access is being proposed on Colfax. If access to Colfax is proposed in the future, the City of Lakewood is the Issuing Authority, so the discussion for access will need to begin with Lakewood.”

This 1.6-acre plot has challenging topography, is crammed with utilities; electric, gas, water, sewer and communications. It has been owned by the current Developer for over 20 yrs. It wasn’t until they received a 9% tax credit from CHFA that they were able to get green lit for max density housing. The CHFA funding was approved based on half-truths of being adjacent to a bus stop and community outreach and acceptance, both which were requirements. None of the immediate 13 homeowners to the proposed project were ever notified prior to this grant. Also, the bus stop, while adjacent to the property, has no direct access from the development without walking/biking .8 miles down a 10% grade on W. 15th Pl, without sidewalks or street lights, out to Youngfield St up to W Colfax Ave which has high traffic, steep grades and no sidewalk, creating safety, ADA concerns and other complexities. Further, employment opportunities, schools and parks are between 1 to 1.5 miles away There is a proposed retaining wall and infrastructure to hold up Colfax Ave which will prevent direct access to and from the public transportation from the proposed development site. (Note: Per CHFA requirements the access to public transportation needs to be within a half mile.)

A traffic study by Aldridge Transportation Consultants, estimates a daily 300+ car trips entering and exiting. The proposed project will have (44) 1- 3-bedroom units with 70 parking spaces. This will result in overflow parking on the fire lane and existing neighborhood, where little enforcement will be available or take even place. The Aldridge traffic study does not take into account the addition of Lutheran Hospital employing 2200 people and many other high-density housing going in nearby. Also, traffic is re-routed to Youngfield St whenever there is an accident on the parallel I-70 highway. This creates bumper to bumper traffic on Youngfield St. each time. The most recent memo from Aldridge fails to address traffic approaching 15th Pl travelling South on Youngfield St and turning left onto 15th Pl.

We are extremely concerned about emergency access back to our neighborhood, as we have had two fires within 10yrs. We are in a special high wind district, which was recently cited by Metro West Fire Dept to be the leading cause of dry brush fires, that is no longer seasonal, but year round.

The existing neighborhood was built in the 50’s. The 2 roads 15^th Pl a cul-de-sac and Whippoorwill Dr. a dead end. In most sections, the widths are 21-22’ no curb and gutter and drainage ditches on both sides and each with roadside mail delivery and trash pickup. This is where overflow parking will occur but is not adequate to receive the additional cars and would make it very difficult for emergency or fire crews to reach the existing neighborhood.

The neighbors in this area have witnessed pedestrians falling in the street while walking out of Youndfield Dr onto 15^th Pl steep grade next to Youngfield St in winter conditions. There have been a multitude of cars getting stuck and/or sliding down 15^th Pl to Youngfield St with snow and ice conditions. This has also included delivery/mail trucks, City of Lakewood snow plows getting stuck in the ditches at the intersection of 15^th Pl and Youngfield St When approaching entrance to 15^th Pl in the snow, you need momentum and speed to get up the 10% grade requiring 4-wheel drive vehicles to be successful. While having this grade may not be uncommon in our mountainous State, this is a contentious intersection with the convergence of these three streets. 2 with steep grades, 1 an increasingly busy street with questionable visibility in both directions.

We have documented the above stated events with videos and photos over the recent 2 years, some but not all are attached here, which have been shared and or provided to City Planning/ Engineers/Commission, City Council members, Developer, AVA, and many residents. I would add that as a resident of this neighborhood for 30 years, I have witnessed these occurrences many times over each and every year, including a head-on-collision at the Youngfield St curve a decade ago. These incidents and accidents will only rise with the addition of this Subdivision development.

Reference Lakewood Title 16.3.1, 16.3.2 Subdivision Standards, 16.3.8 1-4 Street and transportation patterns and connectivity and 16.3.9, this Subdivision does not meet the City’s own Ordinances unless many exceptions, variances or different interpretations are made.

While this only represents a partial detail of concerns, my hope is you will strongly consider these life, safety and ADA issues and concerns brought forth in regards to the Access point for this Subdivision Plat going forward and require the Ingress/Egress to be at Colfax Ave.

Safety First!

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Toni Riggio

Applewood Heights Resident

Photos and Videos below to account for the issues brought to your attention regarding the Subdivision Plat Case # FI23-0016/ D23-0025

**15th place demonstrating our narrow roads are not equipped to handle overflow parking and hampering the ability of emergency and other vehicles to access our neighborhood.**

**West Metro Fire Dept responding to a Fire on Whippoorwill Dr. 2yrs ago. Thankfully no cars parked on either side of the street.**

**raffic jam on Youngfield St. and 15th Pl intersection, when traffic is rerouted due to accidents on I-70. A common occurrence.**

**City of Lakewood Snow plow stuck at intersection of Youngfield Dr. and 15th Pl.**

Links to vehicles without 4WD trying and failing to get up the 15th Pl steep grade in the snow. (Copy and paste link to view)

https://photos.app.goo.gl/4ZWqmWaFHNKVU4vd6
https://photos.app.goo.gl/HZnAeWUTkq8UXv4z7

Link to Prime driver unable to come up the 15th Pl grade, parked at the blind curve to deliver packages, forcing cars to go around into oncoming traffic.https://photos.app.goo.gl/o2TRfw9B8UYMkMWm6

Lakewood Agrees to More Expensive Construction to Make Housing More Affordable

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on June 29, 2024.

Lakewood has approved construction of Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) that are up to 1400 square feet large, bigger than the original house in some areas, in an effort to “remove barriers” to affordability. ADUs are sometimes known as “mother-in-law” suites, a separate apartment that can be rented out on your primary residence. Councilor Stewart made the original request to research increasing ADU use in Lakewood, over a year before the motion passed on June 10, 2024. The two main barriers are the concept of single-family zoning (R1 vs R2) and infrastructure costs. By passing these revisions, Lakewood has densified single-family zoning into dual-family zoning, for every property that can fit an additional dwelling unit onto the land. According to research conducted by the Planning Commission, most people say they do not build an ADU after they find out they would need to pay more for additional water and sewer infrastructure. There seems to be a common belief that because there is room on the land, there should be extra room in the pipes, which is not true. Rather than acknowledge that water districts set those infrastructure fees, Planning Commissioner and Chair Kolkmeier suggested doubling the size of an allowable ADU, from 700 sq. ft. to 1400 sq. ft., so that the infrastructure cost would be a lesser percentage. So overall costs would go up in the name of affordability.

Custom-built ADUs are already expensive compared to commercial apartment buildings that are mass produced. However, an economic analysis of construction costs or rental profits was not researched. Among the ADU proponents, including Councilor Stewart and Shahrezaei, there seemed to be an understanding that someone who went to the expense of building an ADU would be happy to rent the unit at- or below-market price, to a family member or friend.

Others, including Councilor Nystrom and Olver, questioned whether these units would be available for investors, therefore not guaranteeing it would be “affordable”. Nystrom said she was in favor of creating more ownership situations, not rental situations. Olver quoted the real estate mantra “Location location location” and said that creating more supply will not lower housing prices in a desirable location such as Lakewood. Olver’s point has been proved because Lakewood has excess supply yet housing costs have not come down.

Councilor David Rein proposed an amendment to make owner-occupancy required. The motion failed on a 5-5 vote, with the ayes being Councilors Rein, Olver, Nystrom, LaBure and Mayor Strom. The nays were Councilors: Shahrezaei, Low, Mayott-Guerrero, and Sinks. (Councilor Cruz absent).

Without this amendment, the ADU and property can be used for two, full-time rental properties, making them attractive to investors.

Planning Commission Chair Kolkmeier explained that even though these revisions might not increase ADU construction, our current ordinance strangles growth and our residential development is in a death spiral but did not offer evidence. He argues the changes are one way to bring back families and possibly schools but he did not explain how if he believes the changes would be largely ineffective. No one offered evidence, just beliefs that some kind of change by someone was necessary.

Even though housing may be more expensive with these changes, the goal of “liberalizing” the code was achieved.

Councilor Sinks pointed out that these revisions seem like a work around to getting a property subdivided. The property could not be subdivided for separate ownership. A property with two houses would be much more expensive to sell.

If these changes are successful in increasing ADUs, the Councilors who voted for ADUs will be responsible for increasing property prices.

The other barrier, infrastructure costs, was discussed at some length during Planning Commission and Council meetings. The infrastructure fees are set by water districts individually and are not under city control. Rather than acknowledging this fact, Planning Commission Chair Kolkmeier and Councilor Roger Low enlisted the help of State Representative Chris DeGruy-Kennedy to change state law, asking to restrict a district’s ability to set infrastructure costs. This would make existing customers responsible for paying for necessary capacity increases to accommodate new building. That proposed legislation, HB24-1463, was largely defeated. No one at the state or city level explained, or even seemed to know, what the infrastructure fee would pay for, despite explanations available from resident water districts (see below).

GMWSD Statement re ADUs_signed Download

Councilor Jacob LaBure picked up the gauntlet of problematic costs by suggesting the creation of a housing fund that the city can use to pay for people’s infrastructure costs. This suggestion was heard before during meetings on Strategic Housing. Lakewood has already subsidized tap fees before through the Community Grant Program.

The State of Colorado also passed new legislation regarding ADUs this year. That bill, HB24-1152, will require that Lakewood remove owner-occupancy provisions. However, as a home-rule city, Lakewood always has the option to challenge state law for the right to local government. As Lakewood attorney Lauren Stanec said, “if the city decided they wanted to comply with the state ADU bill….”, presumably meaning that as a home-rule city, Lakewood always has the option to fight for its right to local government. The city could remove the owner-occupancy provision now. Lakewood did not, and passed all changes as originally proposed by the Planning commission.

Scorecard: Expanding Additional Dwelling Unit Possibilities in all R1 zones

Strom: Aye

Olver: Nay

Mayott-Guerrero: Aye

Stewart: Aye

Rein: Aye

Shahrezaei: Aye

Labure: Aye

Nystrom: Nay

Low: Aye

Cruz: absent

Sinks: Aye

Tag: news