Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

federal center

Toxic Legacy: Uncovering the Chemical Contamination at the Denver Federal Center – Part 3: The Bend Project and the City’s Blight of Transparency

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Development, Entrenched BureaucracyTagged , , , , , , ,

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

Read More

Lakewood Playing Games with Blight Statutes to Increase Development

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on Posted in Development, Word GamesTagged , , , , 1 Comment on Lakewood Playing Games with Blight Statutes to Increase Development

Lakewood is using every tool at its disposal, and then some, to aid development at 4th and Union, known as The Bend. The latest proposal is to blight the property in order to include it in an Urban Renewal Project so that the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority can fund the development. The Lakewood Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the first step of this process on January 22, 2025. However, despite a presentation on blight, there was no consideration of blight status for this vote and other developments in the area, like St. Anthony’s, did not receive financial assistance. Since the blight finding relies on environmental contamination, Lakewood should get involved in cleaning up a toxic landfill to make this legal, which is also not being proposed. This vote concentrated on whether the new development conforms with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan was written by Lakewood to include this high-density development, which has been in the works since 2013. There was no examination of whether the residential units being built were needed per the provisions of urban renewal, such as mitigating slums. Examples of Games None of these factors were discussed or by the Planning Commission but one approval leads to another in this process. No elimination of slum or blight Per Colorado State Statute 31-25-102 (1), the purpose of a blight designation and urban renewal is to eliminate blight or slums. In a typical blight situation, there has been deterioration of structures that now need repaired. That’s not the case here. Raw land is not suitable for a blight designation. Adding infrastructure is just development. The problem, as Lakewood seems to see it, is that they want to enable the developer’s goal of 2000 units of high-density residential in an area that wasn’t designed for that many units. A smaller development may work. Lakewood wants to change the standards from when 6th Avenue and Union were constructed to today’s goals of high-density and walkability. That’s not blight. That’s development. And per Lakewood’s own presentation, it is illegal to use blight designations for the sake of development for its own sake. The only problem with the land is that there is a toxic landfill on the north end. Neither Lakewood nor the developer is currently proposing mitigating that risk so there is no elimination of blight conditions in this proposal. Merely finding blight, if it even exists, is not enough to comply with statute. Lakewood points at projects like a landfill in Castle Rock that underwent a similar blight process.  During that process, the landfill was cleaned. Cleanup is not proposed for The Bend site which is not a city landfill but a toxic munitions dump. So the underlying blight condition, if any, will remain in place. Comprehensive Plan Baked in A new Comprehensive Plan will be approved in February.  There was no pause on The Bend blight vote to see if it would meet any revisions that arise during the vote. Both the current and upcoming plan are written in such a way that city staff can interpret Comprehensive Plan goals to mean just about anything. And this area has been targeted by developers (not necessarily residents) for high-density residential for more than 10 years. In fact, the Comprehensive Plan details what Lakewood would want to see built on that land so this whole argument is circular. It is just the city writing what it wants in multiple places and then using those multiple places as justification. Shortage of SAFE housing According toC.R.S. 31-25-107 (5), if residential housing is to be developed, there must be a demonstrated lack of decent, safe and sanitary housing. Remember that this statute is designed to eliminate slums. “(5) In case the urban renewal area consists of an area of open land which, under the urban renewal plan, is to be developed for residential uses, the governing body shall comply with the applicable provisions of this section and shall also determine that a shortage of housing of sound standards and design which is decent, safe, and sanitary exists in the municipality; that the need for housing accommodations has been or will be increased as a result of the clearance of slums in other areas (including other portions of the urban renewal area); that the conditions of blight in the urban renewal area and the shortage of decent, safe, and sanitary housing cause or contribute to an increase in and spread of disease and crime and constitute a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare; and that the acquisition of the area for residential uses is an integral part of and essential to the program of the municipality.” Lakewood will not be eliminating slums and there was no consideration of safe and sanitary housing. Instead, Lakewood points to a “shortage” of housing that is in dispute (see “the Totally 100% Fake Housing Shortage”). Lakewood also points to the need for “affordable housing”, which is not considered in statute. Playing Favorites St. Anthony’s did not get financial assistance through the Lakewood Reinvestment Authority and it has the same sort of environmental conditions that the land being developed further north has – that is it is technically clean for development.  Again, the new development will not be developing or mitigating the toxic landfill that forms the base of the environmental concerns there. But For The need for Lakewood to provide this tax incentive is the “But for” argument. “But for” the urban renewal designation, development may not happen. This is patently false since the developers have been planning on funding the project for years without the blight designation.

Read More
Scroll to top