Toxic Legacy: Uncovering the Chemical Contamination at the Denver Federal Center – Part 3: The Bend Project and the City’s Blight of Transparency
By Karen Gordey See Part 1 and Part 2 for more background The Lakewood Planning Commission met on January 22, 2025; the day after the West Metro Fire Department Board of Director meeting. During this meeting, Anne Ricker from Ricker Cunningham presented “The Bend” to the Planning Commission. Commission Kolkmeier stated, “Just note for folks, listening and reminder to commissions and folks in attendance today that this is an unusual matter that comes before us. We don’t typically get asked to make a recommendation as it relates to compliance the comprehensive plan on an urban renewal project. But it is pretty straightforward. The specific question that we will be discussing today is whether or not the proposal that is presented is in compliance with the comprehensive plan already adopted by the city of Lakewood. That is the current plan, not the next plan that is still in process.” The documents (located on Lakewood Speaks) provided to the Planning Commission were the following: Where is the Blight Report also known as a Conditions Survey? Why does the Lakewood Planning Commission not know what the actual approval process for Urban Renewal project is? The blight survey, while mentioned in the presentation, was not presented separately to the Planning Commission. On February 3rd, I submitted a CORA request and subsequently received the blight report. It is a 42 page document. The closest document (shown above) would be the first one titled, “9.11.24 The Bend @ Lakewood Urban Renewal Plan revised 12.30.24 corrected 1.8.2025. However, that document is only 32 pages and is missing the following pertinent information (and therefore is not the Blight Report/Conditions Survey): The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Environmental remediation Institutional Controls CDPHE findings Any land use restrictions Red Flags in the Blight Report Here are just a few of the inconsistencies: Feel free to look over both documents using this link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1O0eNIOLdCo833C0xGKrvvRAeH9sUeVez and ask yourself why would this type of pertinent information be omitted from the public documents. Is This Really “Blighted”? Because the property is predominantly open land, the statute requires at least 5 out of 11 blight factors to justify a designation. The planning commission presentation claims the land meets 9 out of 11. A striking figure, considering the area’s size and federal legacy. The City Council has yet to vote this as a new urban renewal project so it is not yet officially blighted. Additionally, the deed and the developer both mention an underground storage tank that leaked VOCS and MTBE. However, do we know where this underground storage tank was located on the DFC? Historical government documents tell a different story. They reference TCA, TCE, DCE and never mention MTBE. Building number at the Denver Federal Center changed over time, so: is the tank even in the location cited? Is it the same tank? (Editors note: You can research underground storage tank locations at the EPA website) If the full report acknowledges multiple land use restrictions, how did the Lakewood Planning Department approve this development, phased or otherwise? The Missing Piece: Where’s the GAP Analysis? The gap analysis is supposed to justify public financing tools like TIFs. It reveals whether costs; such as contaminated land, demolition, or regional infrastructure make a project financially unfeasible without help. But in this case, no gap analysis exists. A Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request was made. Below you can see the response from the city of Lakewood. This is especially alarming because contamination at the DFC is well documented – and (contamination) has even been used to justify TIFs in other cities (like Castle Rock and the Gates property at Broadway & I-25). Additionally, I am not sure why the Lakewood Planning Department would think the Federal Government would do a gap analysis on private property for a potential Lakewood Urban Renewal project. Finally, one final question is what portion of the land is the development planning on giving the city for parkland dedication? Per the latest ordinance, hazardous land cannot be given to the city. This means that the landfill area with the “no ground disturbance restrictions” cannot be dedicated for parkland. Yet another reason to do a gap analysis to determine what amount of money this will cost the developer, city, taxpayers etc. Water Woes: The Lawsuit You Should Know About Lincoln Properties has been trying to obtain a commitment to water and sewer service from the Green Mountain Water Board (GMWSD) since approximately July 6, 2023. Because a decision has not been made, Lincoln Properties has filed a lawsuit against the Green Mountain Water Board. In court filings from Jefferson County District Court, Lincoln claims that the district has withheld service, or at least failed to act, on its application for water and sewer hookups since July 6, 2023. GMWSD did receive a 74 page environmental report from Trihydro in August of 2024. However, no new testing has been conducted since the board could not decide how to proceed, including no testing for the 26 chemicals in the consent decrees. I attended the April 8, 2025 board meeting and spoke during public comment. In short, I explained I am not anti-growth but rather I am for common sense growth. Lakewood will not go back to being the bedroom community we were years ago. The northern piece of the property has a build restriction and the entire property has a groundwater restriction. There are additional questions that need to be answered: It will be interesting to see how the GMWSD court case plays out. City Council is meeting on this topic during a study session on April 21, 2025 which is a virtual meeting. Per the agenda and the accompanying materials, they will be learning about metro districts and TIFS. Additionally, the builder is seeking guidance from the city on availability of sewer services from the city. How much is that going to cost the taxpayers of Lakewood? As you can see, there are a lot of unanswered questions that need to be answered. Maybe
