Uncategorized

The intent of the proposed Lakewood rezoning eliminates the words “of the City of Lakewood” so that the code reads to be for general purposes of anyone anywhere. In the current version, stating “Lakewood” may seem redundant or inherently understood, but why take it out? By taking it out, the new inherent question is “for whom”? In the redline below from section 17.1.2 of the proposed code, if the zoning code is not to ensure the economic vitality of the city, whom is it for? Even worse is where the wording changes from “citizen of Lakewood” to “resident.” Perhaps Planning Commissioner Elena Overall articulated it best when she said: “We must allow more housing to be built, and that’s not to the comfort of the existing property owners, um, who are here. There are many people who are not here because they are not here yet.” In other words, the zoning code doesn’t need to change for the people of Lakewood. It needs to change to bring in others. Even though Lakewood officials owe representation and allegiance to the residents of Lakewood, concerns about REMOVING “citizens of the City of Lakewood” are valid. Perhaps this is a little detail, but with this change, it will be entirely possible for Lakewood to justify a development like The Bend because it ensures economic vitality -– for that developer. The city will subsidize development by sacrificing taxes and has now assumed liability for future environmental impacts. This move did not ensure the economic vitality of the City of Lakewood. So it’s time to change the rules. We have too much legislating by clamor, by tumult, by pressure. Representative government ceases when outside influence of any kind is substituted for the judgment of the representative. — Calvin Coolidge

From Lenore Herskovitz In Lakewood, do we have a housing crisis or an affordability crisis? These terms are often used interchangeably, but there is a difference. A housing crisis refers to a broad situation where there is a systemic shortage of available housing. An affordability crisis focuses on the financial strain of housing costs regardless of the overall availability of housing units. The latter seems the most applicable to our city. A Zillow tabulation posted on June 30, 2025 for Lakewood indicated that there were 768 available rental units with a price range of $0-$1800 a month. This increased to 1098 units when the price range was expanded to $1600-$3000 a month. Additionally, there were 568 houses for sale. These figures would seem to indicate that there is not a supply shortage. Demand is low, at least in part, because of a lack of affordability. Even with rent reductions and other enticements, vacancies continue. So, what exactly is the definition of affordable housing? As defined by HB-1304, rental housing is affordable to a household with an annual income of at or below 60% of the area median income (AMI) and that costs a household less than 30% of its monthly income. Affordable housing also means for-sale housing that could be purchased by a household with an annual income of at or below 100% of the AMI, for which the mortgage payment costs the household 30% or less of its monthly income. Because the state has determined that there is a ”housing crisis” any new construction should help mitigate the problem, so higher density is promoted. Increase the supply, decrease the price, increase the demand. The theory of supply and demand. Yet that is not what is happening. According to a property manager with 25 years of experience, Lakewood does not have a supply deficit but demand is low. The 2012 zoning code rewrite removed density limitations, which caused concerns years before the Strategic Growth Initiative (SGI) appeared. Community members, more than a decade ago, worried about the effects of increased development on the environment, traffic and infrastructure. Has progress been made or does the City keep blaming others for the affordability crisis without providing any substantial solutions? There are certainly a lot of meetings, conversations, and consultants but what has actually changed? We continue to offer enhancement menus and perks to entice developers to build more affordable units without any guarantee that they will follow through. We have an abundance of market/luxury rate, high-density apartment projects with more planned for the future. The Bend proposal would consist of over 2000 units at the federal center site with 200 designated as ”affordable” and 1800 added to the market rate housing pool. HB 24-1313 had targeted increasing density in transit zones, yet nothing in the bill addresses affordability requirements for the buildings. As a result, the 300+ apartment building at 12th and Wadsworth (plagued with problems and still a work in progress) will not have any affordable units, although it is adjacent to the light rail and blocks away from Colfax. The Kairoi development in Belmar is within a transit area, yet none of its 400+ units will be affordable. And there are more to come. If they proceed with plans for an 800-unit development on W. Colfax, a food desert will be added to the mix that creates more luxury apartments. What are the tools being used to fix our affordability problem and how effective are they? There is no doubt that the challenge is complex and difficult. According to Councilor Sinks at the June Ward 1 meeting, Jefferson County has a shortage of 22,000 affordable units. One of many suggested solutions is inclusionary zoning which would require a developer to incorporate a certain percentage of affordable units in a proposed project. During the June 18, 2025 Housing Policy Commission meeting, the participating councilors decided on a 6% requirement. The consultant hired by the City had recommended a 5% starting point. Would that mean that the developers of The Bend could reduce the number of affordable units from 10% to 6%? Sources to fund affordable housing are needed. These include fees-in-lieu and revenues from the lodging tax, the marijuana tax and sales tax. Government subsidies are another part of the equation. (See memo from June 18 meeting). Additionally, the City is supporting aligning the zoning code with inclusionary zoning by increasing density and reducing lot size and parking to offset any increased cost to developers. The public has been told that ADUs  (accessory dwelling units) and STRs (short-term rentals) could help address affordability. STRs would provide extra income so a single parent could afford to stay in their home and ADUs would provide a home for aging parents. It has evolved into something quite different since the laws were passed. For ADUs, you can rent out the ADU and even the main home as long as it remains the primary but not necessarily only residence. STRs no longer require the owner to be on the property. At times, ADUs are being used as STRs if the owner has difficulty finding long-term renters. Great moneymakers for established homeowners, while lower earners continue to struggle to find a path to affordable ownership. In December of last year, Travis Parker, the Chief of Sustainability and Community Development, introduced the idea of a Housing Credit program to the Housing Policy Commission. This program is presently in place in Aspen and Basalt. This year a consultant was brought in to further the discussion on this complex idea. Several beneficial ideas were part of the soon to be sundowned SGI. Because of a severability clause in the document these suggestions are still viable. One is a means of expediting the permitting process. Another provides for oversight for developments greater than 40 units. This would require developers for larger projects to come before Council and justify the community need for their project. This would impede the continued proliferation of unwanted market-rate/luxury apartments. There will be Council members

I am overwhelmed by the many people who came because they are concerned about Lakewood’s direction. We had loads of great food – I will never worry about participation again. You are all wonderful! The majority of people who came were very concerned about the new zoning changes. Many of them had not heard anything about them until Karen Gordey posted a summary about how Lakewood is Selling Out Its Neighborhoods. There are a lot more explanations to give about that and we didn’t dive into many of the other shenanigans going on due to lack of time. Please take a look at the Lakewood Informer and if you don’t find the information you are looking for, please contact me. I will schedule a phone call or get an article out so that everyone can find the answers to these questions. Summaries and answers to questions: Next Steps: July 28 – First Reading on Zoning Karen Gordey is leading the charge against the undesired zoning changes. Please come to silently protest. Wear a white shirt and bring a sign. Please be respectful, take a seat if there is one and do not block the exits. This is how Littleton SUCCESSFULLY fought against the exact same zoning changes there. Thank you once more to everyone who participated, to our fabulous group leaders and to everyone who helped make this a success.

From Eve S., Lakewood resident       Lakewood’s Comprehensive Plan and the new zoning ordinances do NOT protect our native and migratory wildlife. Without a specific Zoning Regulation the City will allow all land-use development regardless of the destruction of the few remaining wildlife areas. We need a Wildlife Preservation Zone that allows us to create refuges for wildlife. The Comprehensive Plan mentions protecting wildlife. We need enforceable laws that set up and preserve wildlife areas. We have Arts Districts and Historic Districts and we protect homeless populations. “Open Space” as defined by the city includes rooftops and building patios. Our “Parks” are for people, not wildlife. In Lakewood, Parks and Open Space have nothing to do with natural flora and fauna. Only a new Zoning Regulation that protects them will prevent the destruction of all of our remaining natural habitats.    When the Planning Commission passed all the measures Kairoi wanted, the chairman said he couldn’t help Belmar Lake because in Lakewood there are no regulations that protect wildlife. In Longmont and other Colorado cities natural areas are protected.     But how can we get the Council to listen? 

Lakewood City Council will vote to purchase the closed school, Emory Elementary on Monday, April 28, 2025. Lakewood intends to keep the soccer fields and transfer the building to the Action Center, a non-governmental organization that provides food and homeless services. That intent to transfer was included as one sentence in the staff memo for the property purchase. However, the reason why the transfer is necessary was not disclosed. Lakewood has planned for years to purchase the school as part of the city’s strategy to increase the number of homeless shelters in Lakewood. The first reading of this purchase occurred on April 14, 2025 The problem is that the building is not going to Lakewood as the end-user. Lakewood is buying the school and fields with the intention to immediately sell or transfer the building to the Action Center, for an undisclosed amount of money while keeping the soccer fields for city use. Lakewood then intends to somehow take possession of the existing Action Center to operate a second homeless shelter, completing their navigation center concept, according to an explanation to City Council by City Manager Hodgson (see Lakewood Informer news for more details here and here). The Action Center does not have to go through the public bid process, and surrounding residents have not been made aware of the end goal that will have this service center in the middle of their neighborhood. Also of concern is that Lakewood will sell or exchange this building at a loss, since they argued that the school board should do just that – Lakewood argued Jeffco should give Emory Elementary to the city at a loss as a public service for the homeless initiative. Jeffco is not honoring its public process to first subdivide the property and then publicly go through the full disposition disclosure process for the non-city property. The subdivision and separate property sale precedent was set for Vivian Elementary, another closed school located in Lakewood, the purchase of which will also be approved April 28, 2025.   For Vivian Elementary, the developer was forced to buy their own parcel after the school subdivided the property for Lakewood. That guaranteed a public process to disclose the end-user of the property while also ensuring the best price for the sale. In contrast, for Emory Elementary, the property will remain intact until it is too late for the public to know the whole plan or for other parties to be able to bid a higher price for any parcel the city does not intend to keep. Lakewood operating million-dollar property deals to benefit the Action Center, well-meaning as they are, is reaching outside of the city mandate, even if the city was being transparent, which they are not. And the school board is so far not demanding that the property be subdivided and sold to the end-users in a transparent process either. Lakewood’s existing shelter, operating through RecoveryWorks, is not a proven success. It was started as a “free money” initiative, and now state and federal funds are being reduced.  Other cities are reducing their shelter capabilities. Yet Lakewood is increasing their shelter commitments. A drastic increase to funding Lakewood homeless is not what the city promised when they said they needed to deTABOR. A public discussion of how Lakewood will continue to fund these initiatives is long overdue and it looks like Lakewood would like to keep it that way. Jimmy Sengenberger reported in February that Jeffco changed their school process to make it easier for Lakewood to buy closed schools in what was called the “municipal option.” That option, designed for cities, is now being abused for property swaps via an opaque process. Lakewood will argue that the swap will ultimately benefit Lakewood’s general goals, so no specifics need to be disclosed or approved. This questionable process leaves Lakewood residents feeling like decisions are being made without due consideration of all impacts. Therefore, the most important decision is not whether to buy this school property. It is whether Lakewood residents want more government-sponsored homeless services. If residents do not want to expand homeless services, then Lakewood would not need to buy the current Action Center. If Lakewood does not need to buy the current Action Center, then Lakewood would not need to buy Emory Elementary as a new Action Center facility. Simple. But that whole process has not been disclosed or discussed prior to the vote on April 28, 2025.

CRISP & GREEN are thrilled to be the Featured Vegetarian Sponsor at this year’s Denver Colfax Marathon on May 18th. We’ll be serving up our signature fresh, healthy salads to over 4,000 runners post-race, and that’s just the beginning. Visitors to our booth can also: Want to support early? Donations can be made here: https://www.coloradogives.org/story/8vtnef This is a high-energy, feel-good story highlighting local business, community wellness, youth empowerment, and giving back

By Eve S, also posted on LakewoodSpeaks Many residents chose to live in Lakewood because we appreciate the native wildlife and plants that we have found in this area. The Envision Lakewood 2040 plan emphasizes “Sustainability” without seriously considering our natural environment. It does not present a plan to preserve habitats for our native species and for the species that rely on our resources when they are migrating. I believe that “Sustainability” should include a written emphasis – a promise – to prioritize wildlife conservation for us and for future generations. If we lose pollinators, birds and mammals that have sought refuge in the remaining pockets of natural habitat, we have not created a sustainable city. The outcry over the construction of a large apartment building next to Kountze Lake at Belmar Park points out the need for more protection of our wildlife. A few concessions have been made. The City’s website statement says that the “park, however, doesn’t have any official designation as a bird sanctuary.” Vision 2040 omits any plans to designate ecologically important, but vulnerable areas, as “Preserves”, “refuges” or “sanctuaries”.  Some land should be set aside, or zoned, as “Natural Areas”, to remain as they are. These areas will be distinct from “parks” that are stripped of trees, and then are paved over for playgrounds. If we do not zone for Preserves now, the land and habitats will be gone forever. It is notable that the City predicts the developer will replace the 69 large trees at 777 S. Yarrow St. with lots of small, new trees, or they will pay a fee in lieu. We all know that replacing older trees with new trees does not preserve the habitat needed by many animals from insects to birds to mammals. Removing all the undergrowth, shrubs and bushes sterilizes the land. Lawns are not good substitutes for natural flora. The City will accept a small buffer next to the Kaori development. However, we should require professional environmental studies, especially water and air quality studies, to determine the size and placement of buffers which adjoin designated Preserves. Vision 2040 should require environmental impact analyses. Modern developments create a great deal of pollution, including toxic construction waste, trash, pet waste, light, noise and automobile pollution. Pesticides, herbicides and insecticides are applied to the soil and air and, unless restricted, will spread with through the air and through run-off to nearby ponds and creeks. The City’s proposed zoning ordinances seek to expand the limit on the heights of buildings that are adjacent to parks, as well as residential areas. This change is welcome, especially if Preserves are included in this application and if the height limits are sufficient and not exempted for affordable housing.  A tall building with clear windows that reflect the sky and clouds that is constructed next to a nesting area is sure to result in many bird strikes which happen when birds unwittingly fly into the windows and are killed. Some cities now require new constructions to use windows that deter birds because they have been designed to appear opaque to birds without decreasing the desirability of the windows. Planning requirements could prevent many unintended deaths. Vision 2040 zones and funds Arts Districts designed to enhance our communities. Similarly, wildlife lifts our spirits and enhances our lives, and there should be little expense in retaining habitats as they are. Preserves should be recognized as special districts, just as Historic and Art Districts are. We should not have to fight the City to protect the remaining retreats of our wildlife. Along the Front Range, as well as in most of the world, native species face more potent stress every year due to habitat loss, pollution, climate change, etc. A decade ago, I observed bird species and small animals that are now rarely seen in our city. By protecting small natural pocket parks and larger Preserves, perhaps we will be able to show our children a flock of yellow-headed blackbirds again or a pair of foxes playing at dawn. For more info, see  Lakewood Speaks – Item 3: PL25-0002 – Envision Lakewood 2040 ; Lakewood Speaks – Item 4: OA25-0001 – Zoning Ordinance Amendments