The CDPHE Air Pollution Control Division is actively working with Terumo BCT to further reduce ethylene oxide emissions. A draft permit modification for Terumo BCT to install and operate additional devices to reduce ethylene oxide emissions from the facility is now available on the division’s website.
Terumo BCT currently uses a device known as a “dry scrubber” to reduce ethylene oxide emissions. The proposed permit modifications would allow Terumo to use a new control device called a “thermal catalytic oxidizer abatement plant” as its primary emissions control. The dry scrubber would then serve as a backup control.
The draft permit is open for public comment from January 7, 2025 – February 6, 2025. Division staff will review all public comments received and use relevant comments to inform the permit updates. The permit is available on the division’s air permit public notices web page. That web page has details and tips for submitting effective public comments.
Terumo BCT has indicated new control equipment could be fully operational in early 2025. Once the equipment is fully operational, Terumo BCT would have to test ethylene oxide emissions to ensure it meets the permit requirements. These tests would use U.S. EPA-approved methods to evaluate emissions reductions.
More air quality monitoring around Terumo BCT
The air division conducts its own air quality monitoring around Terumo BCT and will continue doing so after the new equipment is in place. The division will make this data available to the public on its website once it has undergone quality control assurance and review. The division will use this information to inform its ongoing work protecting clean air in Colorado’s communities.
New regulations and proposals that apply to Terumo’s emissions of ethylene oxide
Ethylene oxide proposed as priority air toxic in Colorado
From January 16-17, 2025, the Air Quality Control Commission will hold a rulemaking hearing on a proposal to identify up to five priority air toxics in Colorado. Ethylene oxide is one of the five priority air toxics proposed for commission consideration. After the commission determines priority air toxics, Colorado will then work to establish health-based standards for each one through a separate rulemaking later in 2025.
This is one of the requirements under Colorado’s Public Protections from Toxic Air Contaminants Act. The division developed the draft proposal with input from monitoring and modeling data, the public, and a technical working group of scientific experts. The division may propose adding more priority air toxics in the future.
You can register to offer a verbal public comment or listen to the January 2025 rulemaking hearing. A registration link to listen or offer verbal public comment is available on the commission’s website.
In less than a year, the $0.10 fee from shopping bag sales have generated $692,000 for Lakewood so far. That revenue was only 60% of the $0.10 fee. The remaining 40% stayed with the stores, which means local stores made about $461,333 from plastic bags fees. Lakewood revenue from bag fees will be used to support multiple sustainability projects in 2025, including an Organic Waste Pilot Program as well as a project focused on Multi-Family Waste Diversion Resources.
The plastic bag fee is a state law even though “plastic bags result in about half the emissions of alternative bags,” a fact known since at least 2014.
The Organic Waste Pilot Program would include a variety of test programs aimed at increasing participation in both backyard composting and community collection hub programs for food waste.
The Multi-Family Waste Diversion project would develop toolkits, educational resources, and provide technical expertise to property owners and managers of multi-family buildings with the goal of supporting the establishment of recycling and potentially organic waste collection service.
These seem to be expensive education projects but new projects could still develop. Lakewood anticipates generating over $250,000 every year from this fee.
Most of Lakewood City Council is concerned that Lakewood will not reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Although Lakewood has been increasing climate change regulations and spending for over a decade, it’s not enough and the city will be increasing both spending and regulation in 2025.
Are these goals achievable and which programs are most effective?
Lakewood is still developing its model to predict emission reduction. It is almost impossible to attribute which programs result in the best emission reductions because every result is intertwined not only with other programs but with the existing climate, which by definition is changing.
Lakewood has more sustainability goals than surrounding cities. Lakewood is named “one of 119 cities across the globe providing leadership in environmental action and transparency by the Carbon Disclosure Project”, showing Lakewood is more aggressive than most of the world. The city is currently working on a new climate vulnerability study, a new sustainability plan, updating zoning codes and building codes for increased required sustainability measures. Votes on the new codes are scheduled for spring.
Full-time sustainability staff has increased from 2, in 2014, to 12 in 2025. Dozens more part-time staff are employed throughout all city departments. According to Sustainability and Community Development Director, Travis Parker, about 30% of the new comprehensive plan focuses on sustainability.
The key to City Council goals was to secure more funding. Council Member Jeslin Shahrezaei points out that cities like Fort Collins and Denver have a dedicated sustainability budget. She says grants for one project at a time is not a long-term solution. She believes residents want more funding to go to sustainability efforts. According to Shahrezaei, Lakewood played a pivotal role in securing a regional $200M grant because it has the tracking numbers for emissions and workforce.
Council will talk about new revenue generating possibilities at the annual retreat workshop.
Council Member Paula Nystrom asked for a new program and budget for residential greenhouse gas emission reduction for the upcoming revised budget.
Lakewood has not asked residents to support the climate change fight directly with their pocketbooks before. Staffing initiatives often start as “free money” from other sources and continued past the grant’s expiration date without a public discussion. More direct taxing and funding suggestions represent a significant new direction for Lakewood, especially on the scale of new programs at millions of dollars a year.
Councilor Glenda Sinks was concerned about being able to track sustainability spending through the budget. This was a good question without a good answer. According to Director Parker, Lakewood is not showing much in the budget yet because it is in the “enviable place of having more money available than we have plans for yet but that won’t be the case for long.” There was no answer as to where the money is shown in the current budget.
Councilor Roger Low echoes the need for clear spending and goal tracking in the budget. He would like to see more progress on SolarApp implementation.
Council Member Sophia Mayott-Guerrero floated a new idea to expand the greenhouse gas fee and have a larger spending pool to be used for things like sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, park maintenance, road maintenance, climate impact and water impact. All of these could be viewed as “sustainability” measures.
Several Councilors, including Cruz and Shahrezaei, were interested in making sure that money was distributed equitably. They want to make sure that low-income areas were first in line for assistance, as was intended through the federal program that Lakewood receives funding from.
Councilor Jacob LaBure would like to be a national leader in sustainability efforts. LaBure points out that much of the federal money may be lessening under a new administration. As a result, he suggests Lakewood do more internally. For instance, Lakewood may require garbage and waste contractors to only use contractors with EV vehicles. Mayor Strom echoes the benefits of buying or contracting EV vehicles companies. Councilor LaBure would like to mandate new buildings, especially city buildings, be LEED certified through the building code. Director Travis Parker says some buildings could already meet LEED standards but do not want to pay the quarter million dollars to get certified.
Councilor Rein would like to see more specificity in the sustainability plan in order to get Lakewood on track for less emissions. He is interested in the city getting a LEED certification. City staff say big new projects under city control, like the new maintenance facility, may not be able to get LEED certification but will be sustainable on some level. Rein asked staff if the current budget has enough funding to improve sidewalk connectivity and make the city more walkable in order to cut down on vehicle traffic. Staff answered there was not enough funding.
At the Lakewood City Council meeting on Monday, November 4, 2024, council members spent three hours deliberating a new ordinance, O-2024-28, and whether to approve it or send it to a special election, which was expected to cost Lakewood between $175,000 and $350,000. Despite expectations that the council would send it to an election, in an unexpected turn of events, the Council enacted the ordinance itself, arguing that doing so would save taxpayer money and expedite an inevitable legal battle related to the Colorado Legislature’s recently enacted HB 24-1313.
While Lakewood cries foul over the supposed legality of the newly passed ordinance, its longstanding failure to enforce Lakewood’s own ordinances reveals the hypocrisy of the City’s stance. Ordinance O-2024-28, introduced by the grassroots group “Save Open Space Lakewood,” was sparked by the plan to build a massive zero-lot-line luxury apartment complex next to Belmar Park, the city’s crown jewel. This development became the final straw, igniting widespread outrage and drawing attention to the even larger issue of ignoring open space requirements throughout Lakewood and unchecked overdevelopment.
Councilor Paula Nystrom highlighted the issue, saying, “We’re in an untenable situation, but there’s a reason we ended up here. Citizens shouldn’t have to protest, gather signatures, hire lawyers, or jump through hoops just to have their voices heard.” She continued, “The question isn’t whether this petition is perfect; it’s about understanding how we got here and how we can prevent this from ever happening again.”
For the past 13 years developers have exploited loopholes in Lakewood’s ordinances without facing any repercussions, as the City repeatedly sides with developers at the expense of green space. The City’s prior ordinance, which required 5.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents for new developments, had been ignored every single time. This raises the question: Since 1983, when Lakewood’s first Park and Open Space Dedication ordinance was adopted as part of the first Municipal Code, and included a “fee in lieu” option, how many acres of land have been sacrificed to development rather than preserved through park dedication? Arguably, a significant amount. The City’s consistent approval of the “in lieu of” fee has undermined the intended balance of the original ordinance, leading to a significant loss of green spaces amid ongoing development. We are losing more and more places every day for plants and animals to thrive without human impact.
Lakewood’s sudden focus on the legality of the new ordinance is a diversion, as the City tries to portray the citizen-led initiative as unlawful. This focus overlooks the fact that, for years, the City allowed developers to use the fee in lieu option without exception, failing to exercise thoughtful discretion in its widespread application across the city.
Had the City exercised better foresight and applied reasonable common sense in enforcing the ordinances already on the books, it wouldn’t be facing this situation today. Instead, by allowing developers to contribute to the City’s coffers while avoiding actual land dedications and now hoping that the newly passed citizen-led initiative gets challenged in court, Lakewood is revealing its true priorities: supporting unchecked development that benefits developers while disregarding the needs of residents, the environment, and escalating larger concerns about global warming.
Councilor Nystrom emphasized, “From all the studies done post-COVID, we know that nature is essential for people’s well-being.” She added, “Every apartment building should include green space… These are fundamental human needs, as well as environmental needs.” Nystrom’s perspective highlights an understanding of both human and ecological needs that is sorely lacking among many of her pro-development colleagues on the Council.
Councilor Roger Low’s claim that Ordinance O-2024-28 would eliminate affordable housing is simply false. In fact, it would likely benefit those residents in affordable housing the most by ensuring access to green space, which is often overlooked in favor of prioritizing density. The real affordable housing issue lies with Lakewood’s failure to meet the urgent demand it has identified. The City has already overdeveloped much of its available land with luxury and market-rate units, leaving little room for affordable housing. Let’s be clear about where the responsibility lies—with the City itself. Lakewood’s overdevelopment has already created a barrier to meeting the community’s needs, limiting its options, while attempting to deflect attention by blaming O-2024-28.
When the petition was initially drafted, it fully complied with existing ordinances and laws. However, the ballot initiative process takes several months, including time for gathering signatures, to move forward with a petition of this kind. As citizens gathered signatures in April and May 2024, their grassroots group gained significant momentum. In response, state lawmakers introduced a last-minute change to pending legislation. A paragraph provision slipped into HB 24-1313, a 62-page bill addressing Housing in Transit-Oriented Communities, in the final days of the Senate legislative session mandated that municipalities offer a “fee in lieu” option to bypass preserving open spaces. It’s no coincidence that the fee in lieu “amendment” passed as the ballot initiative was gaining traction—its success threatened the development industry’s profits by closing a longstanding loophole. This is a pattern of behavior we’ve seen before from the Lakewood City Council, driven by their ties to state representatives and developers, and it’s this pattern that has raised significant public awareness of the City’s disregard for community concerns.
The City seems to believe Lakewood residents will happily and willingly sacrifice their green spaces in favor of overcrowded, high-density developments that prioritize profit over quality of life. But Lakewood residents love their open spaces, and for many, it’s why they choose to live here. They don’t want it to become just another extension of Denver’s metropolitan sprawl. The City’s push for new development, prioritizing growth over the well-being of residents, has failed to balance the needs of both current and future residents it claims to serve. The ballot initiative sends a clear message: Lakewood residents have had enough of overdevelopment and will no longer stand for it.
This petition is a victory for preserving open space, reflecting the community’s desire to protect Lakewood’s character and environment. When City Council ignored the issue, citizens exercised their constitutionally reserved right to petition for change that their elected officials were failing to address. The City urgently needs councilors who listen to their constituents and prioritize green spaces and open areas over developer profits. We must continue this grassroots effort and send a clear message: we will not let this progress be undone. Make your voice heard—email City Council at [email protected].
A photo of Belmar, highlighting the area at risk from encroaching development proposed directly adjacent to it.
Regina Hopkins bio:
Regina is an environmental advocate from Lakewood, CO, with a lifelong passion for preserving the natural world. Her deep connection to plants and animals has grown over the years, fostering a profound appreciation for the planet’s ecosystems. Dedicated to safeguarding the habitats of wildlife and plants, Regina works to protect all living creatures—especially those without a voice. She advocates for sustainable practices and policies to ensure the environment is preserved for future generations.
Correction 9/21/24: There is no single commercial applicant currently under consideration for the Vivian property. This month, following a pre-qualification process, several applicants were invited to submit final proposals which are due in October.
Correction 9/26/24: Paula Reed represents District 2, not District 1. District 2 includes Green Mountain and Lakewood High Schools . Erin Kenworthy is District 4 which has Alameda High School and the now closed Emory Elementary. Three Board Members are up for election this year: Danielle Varda – District 1, Paula Reed – District 2 and Mary Parker – District 5
Thank you readers for your corrections and information!
An untested process caused misunderstandings and hiccups resulting in delays to Lakewood purchasing shuttered Jeffco schools. Lakewood is now negotiating to buy 3 acres of Vivian Elementary School. They are also still asking about acquiring Emory Elementary for use by the Action Center. At a meeting on September 13, 2024, City Councilors and Jeffco School Board Members were able to get a lot of their positions stated for the record; however, this remains a closed process with both managers negotiating on a staff level. There has been no presentation to the public of a plan for school properties. School district documents show that the district must approve the use designation. That means that Lakewood must have presented their plans for the Action Center months ago, during the same time Lakewood Mayor and City Manager were calling the stories “misinformation”.
City officials appeared united in their efforts to buy school property at less than market-rate for city use or for general community sustainability. They cited multiple reasons for deserving a price break:
Due to the trauma of the school closures, giving the property to a deserving party for less than market-rate would be healing
The school board has a history of giving property away for community use so they should stand by that precedent (two examples cited including a property sold to Gold Crown for $1)
Non-profits like the Action Center do a great community service and there should be an equivalent value included in the decision-making process
School District officials were divided in their response. Although everyone from both organizations signaled their willingness to work together, officials are making hard decisions.
Danielle Varda acknowledged the many great ideas they have received for using each building but said there is no way the district can give away all those properties because constituents expect proper fiscal management of public dollars.
“What I’ve been concerned about since day one is that we have a fair process that’s very public, that all people follow and there’s no backdoor deals, no handshakes.” – Daniella Varda
Paula Reed encouraged a new metric to be added to the evaluation process so that properties could be utilized for other uses, not necessarily getting market-rate. She said that Board Members have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that all assets are used for student education but there are lots of ways to contribute to that, including community sustainability. Reed represents School Board District 1, which covers Lakewood schools
School Board President Mary Parker pointed out that every time they would make a deal with one city, another city would expect the same. Indeed, City Council Member Mayott-Guerrero already brought up Mulholm Elementary in her ward, which is not up for disposition yet, but would be of interest to residents there.
Purchase proceedings were held up not only by price but by parcel size. Lakewood seems to be asking for 3 of the 9.9 acres of Vivian Elementary School property, which will be used as a park. One of the initial guiding principles of the School Board was that the property not be subdivided, which contributed to Lakewood’s delayed offer. Under the old rules, Lakewood could not buy just three acres.
Now the school board is rethinking its decision and will allow subdivision. Lakewood is in active negotiation for the 3 acres of Vivian. The rest of the land is being considered by Cardel Homes (among others) for development. There was no Council discussion about Vivian’s purchase but the residents there have mounted intense public pressure to preserve the land and it has been discussed in ward meetings, indicating some Council Members knew of the plan. Apparently, a new purchase option was issued to show the 3 acres as separate but Lakewood Informer cannot readily find that information.
Lakewood has already met once in a mysterious executive session that did not include a specific reason, contrary to Colorado Open Meetings Law. However, at the end of Monday’s study session, Council agreed to another executive session on September 19 to confirm negotiations on a school property. That meeting agenda also does not state the specific property or use they are negotiating for.
The case for Emory Elementary is less clear. Council Member Shahrezaei asked the hard question about whether Lakewood could get the property in exchange for community use. There were no easy answers to that question and no apparent change to Lakewood’s plan to purchase the entire property and let the Action Center use it.
Lakewood may have the same dilemma as the school district if they start giving any non-profit preferential deals, especially if there are multiple properties purchased.
The Municipal Option for school property purchases seems to be in flux as Jeffco schools test the process on Lakewood. According to the posted process (below), Lakewood and Jeffco Schools should have a joint public session after negotiations have concluded. At this point on Sept 18, it is all being handled by privately by staff.
Municipal Process provided by Jefferson County School District
School district officials seem willing to engage in a public discussion about property use but it’s a fast-moving process. Lakewood is finalizing negotiations on Thursday morning. As of Tuesday night the district website does not show an updated status for the school properties.
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!”.
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.
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 betweencommercial, 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.
Denver and Colorado are being sued for rules on climate goals and greenhouse gas emission standards that the City of Lakewood is considering adopting. Denver and Colorado both approved a building performance standard that would force builders, landlords and homeowners to meet emission goals through green remodeling and electric appliance retrofits. Lakewood also has building performance standards through its Article 13. Lakewood takes four times as many climate mitigation and adoption steps as other cities, leading to Lakewood being named a leader in climate action. Lakewood is one of only 119 cities around globe to take steps like building standards. Rule 28 in Denver and Colorado goes even further by requiring “benchmarking” performance since 2021. Based on building performance, it is now time for required cuts, leading to a lawsuit by the Colorado Apartment Association, the Colorado Hotel and Lodging Association and others. The cuts will require costly remodeling. In August of 2023, Lakewood staff recommended the city join Denver and Colorado in the benchmarking program, described below, that only about 30 cities throughout the nation have adopted. However, these policies are not market-tested and they are extreme enough that Denver and Colorado are being sued. If Lakewood leadership adopts the additional staff recommendations, or agrees to recommendations from the LAC on Green Remodeling, the city may find also find itself in the news and in legal jeopardy.
State and local governments don’t have a right to require expensive renovations and appliance swaps to cut greenhouse gases, group suit says – by Michael Booth4:08 AM MDT on Apr 25, 2024
Is Being a Leader a Good Thing?
In a “you say potato…” moment, the lawsuit in Denver shows that one person’s leader is another person’s extremist. Not everyone agrees that going where these climate policies lead is worth it. While the debate rages over climate science, policy makers rarely point out that there are two sides to the story, in order to promote their narrative. Climate policies have real-world economic consequences that could make housing even more expensive.
Lakewood already has an Enhanced Development Menu that requires new development to meets a point scheme, based on the Menu options, that achieves climate goals of rolling back emissions in compliance with state goals. Development is thereby prohibited unless it meets climate goals. The policies Lakewood is currently advocating align with Colorado’s Rule 28 that monitors energy usage for buildings not already covered by the state. This process is called benchmarking, which Lakewood staff describe as “the regular monitoring and reporting of an individual building’s energy consumption to track changes over time and monitor progress towards increased efficiency and decreased GHG emissions.”
While the process may sound routine and innocuous, this program must be put in place before the government can have access to private energy-use data.
Once in place, the data can be used to set the bar and start imposing usage limits, incentives, conversions, etc. Lakewood is specifically talking about the switch from gas-powered to electrical tools and appliances.
Excel energy use from customer bills. This monitoring could be shared with the city for benchmarking.
The Colorado and Denver rules currently only apply to commercial and multi-family units but the policy puts them to the left of cities like Boulder, as seen in the map below. In fact, Denver is second in the nation only to San Francisco. Being on the forefront of the climate change debate gets Denver in the news but it also attracts lawsuits. And Lakewood is recommending these same actions.
Lakewood is taking things a step further and seeking similar solutions for residential homes, the details of which can be found at the city website, with more from the Lakewood Informer news site.
Back in August, Lakewood staff were enthusiastic about Lakewood becoming another purple dot on the map below, which would show their leader/extremist tendencies, depending on your viewpoint. Will that change once the lawsuits start?
Lakewood residents petition to save their parks and open space which the City likes to give away to developers. On April 27th they were at Lakewood’s Belmar Park with petitions.
Background
Local environment advocates will circulate a petition at Lakewood’s Earth Day, on Saturday, April 27, that would force the City from its arrogant behind-the-scenes approval of out-of-control developments to provide significant environmental stewardship for Lakewood.
Once certified with 6,000 required signatures, the petition becomes an initiative which Lakewood is required to vote for. If it doesn’t, it will be placed on a citywide ballot. Over one thousand signatures have already been collected in less than a month.
When: Saturday, April 27 Time: 11 AM -7 PM Where: Heritage Lakewood Belmar Park, 801 S. Yarrow St., Lakewood 80226
“It’s become clear that nothing short of this petition is going to change complacent City staff, the City Council and the Planning Commission to be responsive to citizen concerns and also supportive of preserving our parks and open space,” said Cathy Kentner, who co-created the petition with fellow longtime community activist Rhonda Peters. Both founded Save Open Space Lakewood which is organizing this all-volunteer petition effort.
The petition, titled the Lakewood Green Initiative, was inspired after the public learned Lakewood staff had worked for several years to preliminarily approve and advance the plans of Kairoi Residential, a Texas developer, for a 412-unit, 83 unit per floor, 6 story luxury apartment building with a footprint the size of two football fields which would share the eastern boundary of Belmar Park.
Belmar Park is a 132 acre beloved park in the middle of Lakewood’s growing concrete jungle. It is a peaceful haven for over 230 bird species (many protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act), abundant wildlife and innumerable human visitors.
In preliminarily approving the Kairoi plan, the City ignored its own ordinances on protecting parkland and wildlife, improving tree canopy, fighting climate change and providing affordable housing. Instead it supported the gigantic 800,000 square foot design with no buffer with the park, the elimination of 69 mature trees, and lack of serious analysis of the development’s effects on the environment and on the safety of nearby residents who can only exit on a narrow street.
The public was notified very late as if it was an afterthought. Now the City claims many elements of the project are a done deal and they lack the power to correct this.
Since this deal was initially revealed, the City has placed numerous obstacles in the way of citizen attempts to have input on the development’s outcome. Likewise, Lakewood staff has been actively attempting to thwart approval of the petition. The latest effort was an unprecedented five-day delay. Interestingly, a few hours after a local TV reporter submitted questions to the City, the petition was promptly approved and released to Kentner.
The Initiative Summary as Set by Lakewood City Clerk
Shall the City of Lakewood Municipal Code Chapter 14.16. PARK AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION be repealed and replaced to eliminate the option for developers to pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication and to require the City to accept open space and land dedications for current and future developments.
Several years ago Kentner, who ran as an independent candidate for Mayor and has served on the Lakewood Planning Commission, successfully authored and helped pass a petition to limit population growth in Lakewood; it was subsequently approved in a citywide election.
By not following its own standards, Lakewood has effectively sold what should have been more than a dozen acres of parkland in the last decade. According to information provided by the city, Lakewood has not required land from developers since the Solterra development in 2007 and 2013.
Kentner said there appears to be a gentleman’s agreement between Lakewood and all of its developments so they are allowed to pay the City instead of providing open space.
Although citizens have long felt powerless as Lakewood approved large apartment buildings in charming neighborhoods and at the perimeter of parks, the Kairoi monolith at Belmar Park inspired several groups to work to either limit the size of the building or eliminate it entirely.
SaveBelmarPark.com is a comprehensive website that includes a petition to declare eminent domain on the land between the building and the park in order to create a buffer zone.
Save Belmar Park, Inc. has been organizing, educating and fundraising to pursue legal channels to protect the park.
Save Open Space Lakewood (SOS Lakewood) created a petition to bring these groups together to work toward a common goal of protecting Lakewood’s natural environment.
Lakewood residents petition to save their parks and open space which the City likes to give away to developers. On April 27th they were at Lakewood’s Belmar Park with petitions.
Background
Local environment advocates will circulate a petition at Lakewood’s Earth Day, on Saturday, April 27, that would force the City from its arrogant behind-the-scenes approval of out-of-control developments to provide significant environmental stewardship for Lakewood.
Once certified with 6,000 required signatures, the petition becomes an initiative which Lakewood is required to vote for. If it doesn’t, it will be placed on a citywide ballot. Over one thousand signatures have already been collected in less than a month.
When: Saturday, April 27 Time: 11 AM -7 PM Where: Heritage Lakewood Belmar Park, 801 S. Yarrow St., Lakewood 80226
“It’s become clear that nothing short of this petition is going to change complacent City staff, the City Council and the Planning Commission to be responsive to citizen concerns and also supportive of preserving our parks and open space,” said Cathy Kentner, who co-created the petition with fellow longtime community activist Rhonda Peters. Both founded Save Open Space Lakewood which is organizing this all-volunteer petition effort.
The petition, titled the Lakewood Green Initiative, was inspired after the public learned Lakewood staff had worked for several years to preliminarily approve and advance the plans of Kairoi Residential, a Texas developer, for a 412-unit, 83 unit per floor, 6 story luxury apartment building with a footprint the size of two football fields which would share the eastern boundary of Belmar Park.
Belmar Park is a 132 acre beloved park in the middle of Lakewood’s growing concrete jungle. It is a peaceful haven for over 230 bird species (many protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act), abundant wildlife and innumerable human visitors.
In preliminarily approving the Kairoi plan, the City ignored its own ordinances on protecting parkland and wildlife, improving tree canopy, fighting climate change and providing affordable housing. Instead it supported the gigantic 800,000 square foot design with no buffer with the park, the elimination of 69 mature trees, and lack of serious analysis of the development’s effects on the environment and on the safety of nearby residents who can only exit on a narrow street.
The public was notified very late as if it was an afterthought. Now the City claims many elements of the project are a done deal and they lack the power to correct this.
Since this deal was initially revealed, the City has placed numerous obstacles in the way of citizen attempts to have input on the development’s outcome. Likewise, Lakewood staff has been actively attempting to thwart approval of the petition. The latest effort was an unprecedented five-day delay. Interestingly, a few hours after a local TV reporter submitted questions to the City, the petition was promptly approved and released to Kentner.
The Initiative Summary as Set by Lakewood City Clerk
Shall the City of Lakewood Municipal Code Chapter 14.16. PARK AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION be repealed and replaced to eliminate the option for developers to pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication and to require the City to accept open space and land dedications for current and future developments.
Several years ago Kentner, who ran as an independent candidate for Mayor and has served on the Lakewood Planning Commission, successfully authored and helped pass a petition to limit population growth in Lakewood; it was subsequently approved in a citywide election.
By not following its own standards, Lakewood has effectively sold what should have been more than a dozen acres of parkland in the last decade. According to information provided by the city, Lakewood has not required land from developers since the Solterra development in 2007 and 2013.
Kentner said there appears to be a gentleman’s agreement between Lakewood and all of its developments so they are allowed to pay the City instead of providing open space.
Although citizens have long felt powerless as Lakewood approved large apartment buildings in charming neighborhoods and at the perimeter of parks, the Kairoi monolith at Belmar Park inspired several groups to work to either limit the size of the building or eliminate it entirely.
SaveBelmarPark.com is a comprehensive website that includes a petition to declare eminent domain on the land between the building and the park in order to create a buffer zone.
Save Belmar Park, Inc. has been organizing, educating and fundraising to pursue legal channels to protect the park.
Save Open Space Lakewood (SOS Lakewood) created a petition to bring these groups together to work toward a common goal of protecting Lakewood’s natural environment.
