Tag: Lakewood

Mandy Connell podcast website

From Mandy Connell’s blog

WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN GOVERNMENT WON’T LISTEN? That is the situation that many Lakewood residents find themselves in when it comes to the conflict over green space vs. development. This time it’s Belmar Park, where developers want to build right up the boundaries and pay dispensation money instead of actually honoring green space that is required. I’ve got Cathy Kentner with Save Belmar Park on at 1 to chat about it. Find out more about their cause by clicking here.


Lakewood’s Cathy Kentner did a great job of explaining how this goes beyond growth arguments and into honoring plans to maintain community standards.

Thank you Cathy and Mandy for highlighting this issue!

Listen to the interview here


Screenshot of the Dec 19, 2022 City Council meeting

By Lenore Herskovitz

On Monday, March 24 the City Council will hold the first of 2 Special Meetings regarding the Annual Review of the City Manager, Kathy Hodgson. Residents are not privy to the standards or metrics that are used to evaluate the job performance of our most powerful and most highly compensated city officials. At one time, the City of Lakewood Community Survey was issued every 2 to 3 years which included approval ratings for the city’s performance. In 2010, when Kathy Hodgson took office this approval rating was 67%. By 2022, this had dropped to 38%. Since then, this survey has not circulated. Until 2022 these survey results were included in the evaluation process (See Lakewood Informer news report from 2022). On Dec. 19, 2022, the City Council met to amend the City Manager’s 2014 Employment Agreement and establish the 2022 Employment Agreement. This was supposed to be discussed on Dec. 5 in an Executive session but 4 Councillors (Able, Springsteen, Olver, and Janssen) opposed the session because they felt they had not been provided enough information in advance of the meeting.

Screenshot of the Dec 19, 2022 City Council meeting
Screenshot of the Dec 19, 2022 City Council meeting video


At the Dec. 19 meeting there was confusion about whether the representatives were voting solely on the amendments or on the new contract because the packet that was presented only included a staff memo and the resolution containing the proposed amendments. There was no redlined version showing what had been removed from the 2014 contract or any copy of what the new contract would be in its entirety. One thing that had been eliminated was any use of the community survey results when determining the City Manager’s compensation. Only City Council would make that determination moving forward. In spite of the fact that no complete copy of the 2022 contract was provided, the majority of council members voted to pass it. Those voting in favor included our present mayor then Councilor Strom, Mayor Pro Tem  (then Councilor) Shahrezaei, and Councilor Mayott-Guerrero. Those opposed were the same 4 who voted against the Dec. 5 executive session which forced the public hearing on the 19th. As a result, the determination regarding the City Manager’s review and compensation rests in the hands of our elected council members. How often do these individuals hold the City Manager accountable? Is there really any oversight when department heads fail to comply with city codes or ordinances? For example, when the previous Director of Community Resources failed to evaluate fees-in-lieu on an annual basis from 2018 to 2023 as required by ordinance, were there any consequences? The City Manager appoints this and other directorial positions and is responsible for supervising them. Recently, it was discovered that perhaps the Chief of Sustainability and Community Development and his staff had not been following the 2018 Parkland Dedication ordinance, which can be seen in a letter dated October 23, 2024 on page 2 of this document under Item 11 Parkland Dedication, the developer, who had not yet been issued a building permit, was being charged the old fee of $254,545 an acre as opposed to the $432,727 fee that went into effect on June 1, 2024.

Are ordinances mere suggestions rather than laws to be followed under this City Manager? Is discretion to reinterpret the law acceptable now? Who, if anyone, is providing oversight and accountability from department heads, or do mistakes just get scapegoated or buried altogether?

After years of complaints, meetings are still posted on the wrong site. There still is no consolidated, easily accessible City Directory to identify employees by department and their city contact information. At the annual planning session, councilors have requested better communication between themselves and staff. The City Manager was supposed to provide in-person quarterly updates on goals set at the retreat. Instead, there are updates on the city dashboard in addition to a workshop that was held in person (with no recording available to the public who couldn’t attend). For years, City Council has seemed willing to overlook these shortfalls.

If you wish to share your views about the City Manager’s performance feel free to contact: CityCouncilMembers@Lakewood.org
You can also contact your individual councilors through the link provided (https://www.lakewood.org/Government/City-Council/City-Council-Members)


Demolition photo at 777 S Yarrow

From savebelmarpark.com

Update 3/19/25: Permits were straightened out (very quickly) and demolition on track

Greetings Supporters of Save Belmar Park,

This is an update on the attempted demolition of the Irongate Campus we told you about yesterday.

The top image is 777 S Yarrow Street in Lakewood, CO after 24 hours of illegal demolition.

We now know that Kairoi Residential had moved forward with the attempted illegal demolition without obtaining proper permits.

Kairoi Residential attempted to illegally demolish the Irongate Office Campus at 777 S Yarrow Street.

Local activists intervened and the city ultimately had to shut down the illegal project.

So please consider this.

If you happen to be in the construction business, obtaining permits is standard operating procedure.  At least for any business that intends to obey the law.

Even if you want an electrician to install a circuit in a residence, you need a permit.

The idea a company that has been involved in the construction industry in Colorado and other states for many years does not know how to properly permit the demolition phase of a project raises some questions.

Especially considering that their own civil engineers at Kimley-Horn prepared a large document titled: “EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REPORT” that included great detail on the topic: “SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES”

The first listed responsibility in the Kimly-Horn document is:

“The city does not authorize any work to be performed until the City Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control Permit has been issued.”

Did Kairoi bother to obtain a grading permit?  NO.

Did they plan to intentionally proceed with this illegal major demolition project?

Given these facts, it seems quite possible that their bad behavior was intentional.

But it also could be that they are so incompetent, they really do not know what they are doing in the first place including not knowing about the permitting process?

Because the Planning Department certainly seems that incompetent.  The Planning Department even proclaims today on their website that:

“Demolition of the existing building has begun under a demolition permit issued by the city.”

Obviously, either the City Of Lakewood has no clue about properly permitting a project or they conspired with the developer to intentionally approve an illegal demolition project.

Which is it?

And we live in a city that is more likely to arrest citizens for clapping at a city council meeting than they are to slap a fine on Kairoi.

And a city where they city attorney tells city council they cannot discuss a proposed ordinance because they are only ‘administrative officers’ and are not even allowed to talk about it.

Basically, a city with more clowns than the circus.  To be diplomatic about it.

Why would any well-run city want such a rag tag developer doing anything within the city limits?

Stay tuned and thanks for listening,

Steve

View original email here


Screenshot from Terumo explaining Ethylene oxide use

Terumo Not Liable

The Colorado Sun reports that Terumo will not be held liable for cancer since the company always met federal regulations.

From the Sun: “Terumo Blood and Cell Technologies of Lakewood was found not negligent Friday by a Jefferson County jury for alleged releases of toxic ethylene oxide into surrounding neighborhoods from its sterilization process, after four women sued the company for liability in their cancer cases. 

The plaintiffs, part of a large group of negligence and liability cases against Terumo and other companies who use ethylene oxide, claimed the Lakewood plant should have done more to stop chemical emissions into neighborhoods. They sought damages in state district court over their extensive medical costs, as well as physical impairment and disfigurement. “

Read the full article..


Screenshot from Terumo explaining Ethylene oxide use
Screenshot from Terumo explaining Ethylene oxide use

A pair of articles in the Denver Post show that Colorado residents are catching onto the fact that “affordable housing” isn’t the universal panacea that is being promised. New housing is not affordable, unless it’s government-backed, while higher densities are killing the very reason that people enjoyed their city in the first place.


Pro-development progressives in Boulder won’t solve the housing crisis

“Building a lot more housing won’t reduce prices because there’s an unlimited supply of people nationwide who’ll pay whatever it takes to live here. Boulder is a unique blend of access to culture and nature in a small city. There are plenty of people who want to move here and have the means to do so.”

This sentiment also applies to Lakewood, revealing the lie to all the promises that more housing will solve problems.


Denser housing vs. the ’burbs

“While Colorado lawmakers require upzoning and offer incentives in their push for denser housing concentrated at Regional Transportation District bus and train hubs, thousands of metro Denver residents like the Wellners are migrating to suburbs. They give multiple reasons for their moves: affordability, elbow room, quietness, safety and parks — things that transit-oriented development (TOD) often lacks.”

Many people moved to Lakewood for exactly this reason – wanting elbow room and safety. But Lakewood aspires to become more like urban Denver, in the name of affordability. Meanwhile, there are plenty of people who will pay “whatever it takes to live here.”

Lakewood is planning on changing the zoning code to increase density even more. The Planning Director is already out talking about the change. It was baked into the results of the latest comprehensive plan, whether residents wanted it or not. Those people who do not want increased densification have until the new code is adopted to object.


Demolition photo at 777 S Yarrow

From savebelmarpark.com

Greetings Supporters of Save Belmar Park,

The Kairoi Belmar project is moving forward with no active citizen objections.  Will this rogue demolition mess be a wake-up call?

The top image is 777 S Yarrow Street in Lakewood, CO after 24 hours of demolition.

Construction photo
Photo from savebelmarpark.com

The Demolition Permit was approved on March 12 by Lakewood so the city is fully aware of what is happening.

However, the contractor has not installed any erosion control devices, silt fence, etc. as required by the Kimley-Horn specifications shown in the second image above.

They began demolition on March 13 in violation of their own established Sequence Of Construction Activities as specified by Kimley-Horn engineers.  

We assume this is OK with the city manager and city council because the city would have approved everything at the REQUIRED MEETING before demolition begins as stated on page 11 of the Erosion and Sediment Control Report :

Read the full Savebelmarpark email from the source


Radiant Painting and Lighting https://paintwithradiant.com/

Another Lakewood misinformation campaign bites the dust.

For years Lakewood has been pushing high-density growth in the name of “affordable housing”. They market this narrative to schoolteachers and civil servants. See Lakewood’s recent resolution using these exact words. However, a development presentation to the Lakewood Planning Commission introduced a new term that exposes the lie: Workforce housing

Workforce Housing

The consultant Lakewood hired to evaluate blight and Lakewood’s Comprehensive Plan pointed out that there was NO PLAN for increasing workforce housing in Lakewood.

The emphasis on “affordable housing”, despite what Lakewood says, is different from workforce housing. No matter how poorly teachers and civil servants get paid, they get paid more than anyone living on the streets.

Affordable housing in Lakewood will mean a government-run program, similar to what used to be called Section 8. That is not the same as an answer to inflated housing prices for low- to median-income levels.

Think about government-run affordable housing like a scholarship system for school. A person may need the financial assistance, and may not be able to go to college without it, but there are others who need it more and not enough to go around.

For decades, the people most in need are those with extremely low income. Not low. Not middle-low. Not teachers and civil servants. Extremely low income.


Ann Ricker, of Ricker Cunningham, is Lakewood’s blight consultant. She pointed out there was a gap in the Comprehensive Plan. She said the plan talked about affordable housing, and it talked about single-family housing, but she said there was the missing middle. She suggested removing “single-family” and just using the term “housing”.

Using the general term “housing” would allow more high-density, market rate apartments to be built in an effort to flood the market and lower prices. Lakewood is already proceeding with this plan. There is no guarantee the low-priced condos or townhomes will be built anywhere.

The term “workforce housing” is a more accurate description of how the public perceives the promises from Lakewood. This was an important acknowledgment that “workforce housing” is different than “affordable housing”. The public should be aware of the word games going on, similar to “illegal alien” versus “migrant”.

Watch Ann Ricker discuss the Comprehensive Plan here:


From Frank Lehnerz, Free State Colorado

“If the government tries to wage war against the laws of the market by price control, it undermines the working of the market mechanism and leads to conditions which, from the point of view of the government itself, are less desirable than the previous state of affairs it intended to alter.”

— Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action (1949)

History has repeatedly shown that price controls—whether on food, housing, or other essentials—create virtually no consumer benefits and only price distortions. By capping what producers or retailers can charge, these controls reduce supply, reduce product or service quality, discourage investment for new, improved, or cheaper products and services, and create market signal distortions.


Lakewood requires such high sustainability standards that they are almost impossible for large developments to meet. The standards are meant to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions.  For those developments, Lakewood accepts a fee in lieu of sustainability amenities. Lakewood is currently arguing that parkland dedication is illegal or amoral because it asks too much from developers. But Lakewood makes the same sort of demands to further its sustainability agenda. In both cases, the desire is to have development offset the environmental cost of development. The question is at what point is there so much development that the city says money is an acceptable substitute for direct environmental offsets.

Note that these city mandates will continue despite any possible changes to federal funding for climate change initiatives.

Achievable Goals or Ideology

Lowering emissions is expensive so most people have not done it or have only done it by using rebates and subsidies. Achieving net zero emissions is even more expensive and is sometimes not achievable. For example, the city of Lakewood admits its new maintenance facility will not meet LEED standards let alone be net zero. Lakewood has set its own standards and requires that new buildings meet those standards by earning sustainability points.

“net zero standards require reducing emissions to more than 90% and then only offsetting [with purchased carbon credits] the remaining 10% or less to fall in line with 1.5 °C targets.” –Wikipedia

For large developments, the city admits it is almost impossible to achieve enough points. Therefore, developers are forced to pay a fee so that Lakewood can fund other sustainability projects. This is similar to other carbon credit purchasing schemes but in this case, it is authorized, administered, and required by Lakewood.  There is currently no discussion that Lakewood will require credits or fees from existing residents. Lakewood City Council was scheduled to discuss new ways to generate revenue, as well as how to spend the revenue generated from existing fees, at the February planning retreat. The planning retreat has historically been an in-person only meeting where staff takes direction from Council on items that do not require an official vote. No recording is available online for review.

“For some [developments] that the [sustainability] targets are just too high to meet, they pitch in so that the city can spend that money to further achieve our goals.” Travis Parker, Director of Sustainability and Community Development during staff sustainability update (min 1:17:52).

Increasing UNAFFORDABLE Housing

Since 2019 Lakewood has demanded buildings meet climate sustainability goals. This was estimated to add 2-3% to building costs but actual costs have not been collected or analyzed. Building costs are passed on to the consumer, which makes Lakewood even more expensive to live and work in than in the surrounding areas.

The additional sustainability measures will add 1-10% to building costs for things like EV charging stations. Would you like all new apartments to have a few charging stations at an increased overall cost for everyone or would you like some buildings to not have those amenities at a lower cost?

Lakewood’s demands have resulted in a reduction in emissions to meet a target of 20% less than 2007 levels. With the new demands of 2022, some large construction projects cannot meet Lakewood’s demands, resulting in the project paying a fee to Lakewood that will be used for other climate goals. Lakewood city staff acknowledged that it was almost impossible for large projects to meet demands, making the fee-in-lieu necessary.

Money Making Machine

Lakewood has already generated $221,000 from various sustainability fees. They anticipate generating over $250,000 per year on these fees. Lakewood made over $600,000 on the statewide plastic bag mandate. One could say Lakewood is getting into the business of selling emission offsets.

For more information on what Lakewood’s sustainability measures have achieved so far, watch the full video update at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYbpkr1Gm24&t=150s

Consequences

The extra expense of building in Lakewood limits the possibility of new businesses coming into Lakewood. Even sustainability businesses, whose goals align with Lakewood’s, find it difficult to make a profit when required to meet high sustainability standards.  Councilor Rein specifically remarked that he would like Lakewood to attract new businesses that would develop sustainability technologies.  At the same time, businesses nationwide are rethinking their sustainability goals amidst high demands such as Lakewood’s.

The enhanced development fee was first approved in 2019. Now the city is asking for more and some projects are not even possible to achieve what Lakewood wants. All projects must meet a base emission efficiency level. After meeting that base level, projects are eligible to pay a fee because even Lakewood staff admit it is not possible to achieve what they are asking for.

“Fee-in-lieu is for those super large projects that have really large point totals that may not even be able to find enough points in the [standards] list to meet their point total, they still have to achieve at least 50 [base level efficiency] and they can achieve the rest as well or they can pay a fee in lieu for some of those higher points.” – Travis Parker, sustainability update (min 1:34), emphasis added

What do the fees go towards? They could go towards every basic city service besides police. Per Councilor Sophia Mayott-Guerrero, these fees could be used for sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, park maintenance, road maintenance, climate impact and water impact. Councilors asked about tree preservation and housing. Public art was part of the original goal. Tree canopy health. Food access. Household wages. Even subscriptions to city communications and trips to the rec center count towards “sustainability goals”. Other people have to fight to earn business advantages like that.

The dates below are from the staff presentation, detailing future meetings where Lakewood will be implementing more robust sustainability measures for Lakewood.

Upcoming dates Lakewood will be implementing more sustainability measures

City Council Members Jacob Labure and Paula Nystrom asked for equal representation on the Budget and Audit Board, January 27, 2025. They were denied. Only three wards will be represented on the Board.

The Budget and Audit Board is vitally important for accountability. Many policies and programs that staff originate are never disclosed to the public. They only show up in funding requests. And as evidenced by the 2024 vote to de-TABOR, city staff is not often turned down.

Councilor LaBure was involved in the last rewrite of the Budget Board. LaBure fought hard to get each ward representation on the Board, saying it was common practice to not only have five Councilors on the Board but to allow any Council Member to come and make comments.

Now the current Board doesn’t even allow comments.

Councilors Shahrezaei and Mayott-Guerrero both said that allowing that many Councilors, as worked for years, would now be unmanageable. Shahrezaei pointed out that at one point, a single councilor made 37 questions to staff and that amount of work was too hard.

There is no general rule for how many questions the paid city staff should answer as part of being publicly accountable for a multi-million-dollar budget.

In 2024, when Mayor Strom downsized committee sizes, then-Councilor Rich Olver was upset to be removed. Strom explained that she thought she was doing him a favor because he often didn’t have time. Olver was not present at the meeting for the initial appointments to protest. But his argument resonated with Councilor Dave Rein who supported increasing representation.

Councilor Low also supported the proposal saying, “Budget is one of the most important things we do. Ward 3 should have representation.”

2025 Council Members on the Budget Board are:

  • Jeslin Shahrezaei, Ward 1
  • Isabel Cruz, Ward 2
  • Dave Rein, Ward 4

Scorecard: Allow Equal Representation

Strom: Nay

Shahrezaei: Nay

Sinks: Nay

Mayott-Guerrero: Nay

Cruz: Nay

Low: Aye

Rein: Aye

LaBure: Aye

Nystrom: Aye


  • 1
  • 2
  • 7

Lakewood Informer


Resident generated news for Lakewood, Colorado.

Subscribe


© 2022 Lakewood Informer | All Rights Reserved
Designed by Mile High Web Designs