Lakewood passed a new ordinance to reduce new gas stations in order to increase public health, January 13, 2025. Not only will this decrease the number of future gas stations, the ordinance demands the new gas stations provide electric charging stations, one of which must be the latest, fastest technology. This is will substantially increase the cost to construct a new gas station while benefitting a diminishing number of customers who are purchasing electric vehicles. Lakewood also eliminated two zoning codes from permitting gas stations.
If Lakewood’s plans to bring in thousands more residents through affordable housing efforts pay off, everyone in Lakewood can anticipate waiting longer in lines. Gas stations are one of the few businesses that are still thriving in Lakewood.
Rather than re-inventing the wheel, please read the article below for more of the adverse effects of similar legislation in Denver. In another parallel move, Denver passed the same legislation as Lakewood, a week before Lakewood voted (correction 1/15/25 – Denver’s ordinance only passed to committee)
Lakewood’s ordinance is more extreme than Denver’s because of Lakewood’s market manipulation in demanding charging stations, even dictating the type of stations, but otherwise the legislation is similar. The adverse effects were not discussed by Council.
January 13, 2025 By Joshua Sharf, Complete Colorado
Denver city councilors last summer proposed to limit the construction of gasoline stations in in the city, ostensibly in response to a citizen outcry a deluge of new gas stations being built on land that could instead be used for housing.
Actual legislation has now been okayed by the city planning board, and is worse than imagined.
A sweeping ban
The ordinance would enjoin new gas stations from the overwhelming majority of Denver, including near areas where new, higher-density housing is being built. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the proposed legislation is part of the city council’s campaign to make driving in Denver as miserable as possible.
Sponsored by council members Paul Kashmann and Amanda Sawyer, the bill would ban new gas stations within ¼ mile of any existing gas station, within ¼ mile of a light rail station, and within 300 feet of any protected districts, zoned for low-density housing.
A staff study from last May discussed exempting gas stations catty-corner to existing stations, but now there will be no such exemption. There will, however, be an exemption for gas stations that are part of new large-sized grocery stores with over 20,000 square feet of space.
January 13, 2025, Lakewood City Council will vote in a new ordinance regulating metropolitan districts. The Denver Post has done deep investigations into metro districts, exposing them as mechanisms that bury taxpayers in debt with no accountability. Other cities are starting to pay attention and not allowing metro districts. Lakewood, on the other hand, is still supporting developer-sponsored metro districts. Staff has been bringing forward this ordinance since 2021 and backing down against resident pushback in Lakewood and across the state. Now the time has come.
The new ordinance has language attempting to fix some existing problems with metro districts. However, a city ordinance cannot fix the problems that exist within state law. Lakewood is passing the ordinance now to enable the developers of The Bend to apply for metro district status, which is anticipated in February.
Metro districts are critical for developers to make money from bonds without a vote from residents – because there are no residents to vote yet. Research shows this debt does not benefit residents.
“…developers issue a small tranche of debt on the bond market with unfavorable terms (above-market interest) and then buy the debt themselves so future homeowners will end up paying the developer for decades through their property taxes for a completely unnecessary load of bad debt.” -Denver Post
“Metro district financing is the opposite of affordable housing.” – Rooney Valley News
Will Lakewood have a “safe” metro district ordinance? Not if state law prevails. They can only make baby improvements.
“[metro districts] all lead to the same result – taxing residents without representation based upon single party agreements by a developer with a confessed conflict of interest to pay themselves profits by issuing taxes with no accountability for how the money is spent.” – Rooney Valley News
“…debt is often intentionally hidden and getting true control of metro districts can be hard if not impossible.” – Denver Post
For example, one of the improvements Lakewood attempts is to reveal home cost differentials showing that residents will not be over-paying for homes. Except there is no way to audit the costs, get company financials, or hold the developers accountable if they are overcharged.
“The Service Plan shall include a cost estimate of what an individual property within the District would cost an End-user with and without the establishment of the District.“ – proposed ordinance
Once the metro district status is granted, Lakewood has little authority to make sure the developer governs fairly, a point that several Council Members brought up in past meetings. As the quotes above show, metro districts are historically problematic and more expensive for the end-residents. Lakewood hopes it will be different this time.
“This time” includes The Bend development at 6th and Union. As of fall 2024, the developer anticipated applying for metro district status in February. Then they would have the advantages of being a government entity, while being blighted and thereby partially funded by Lakewood.
All opinions in this or any post are the personal opinions of the author
Votes seem cemented due to prior planning with developer
Property not blighted prior to sale
On January 22, 2025, the Lakewood Planning Commission will vote on designating a new development area as an Urban Renewal. This designation will allow the city to fund part of the development. The development in question is called “The Bend” and is located on what used to be the Denver Federal Center, southeast of the 6th and Union intersection. The property includes an ex-Superfund site that has not been remediated. However, the property was not blighted before the property sale, when all buyers could plan for city assistance. Instead, the area was deemed a prime location for commercial activity, according to comprehensive and special studies.
Site boundaries from the Union Blvd Corridor Plan, 2011, pg 2
Once again, Lakewood has contracted a study to prove to the residents that they have no choice except to do what is really a discretionary action. The study by Ricker Cunningham shows that “the survey concluded that nine (9) of the 11 total possible factors [for blight] are present at varying degrees of intensity, but all at levels considered adverse to properties, businesses, and persons living, working, and traveling through the area.”
The study is some research but more justification for what the city apparently wants to do. There is no explanation from anyone about why it wasn’t blighted anytime in the last 30-50 years since the site was decommissioned. An earlier designation would have created a more equal playing field for those bidding on the property, in the name of full disclosure. As it stands, it seems that one developer is getting a special deal.
The study even documents that the Planning Commission meeting is a foregone conclusion:
“… in addition to the public hearing (February 24, 2025), were scheduled, noticed, and conducted. Specifically, the Authority considered the Plan on XXXXXXX at a duly noticed meeting, and the Planning Commission reviewed the same on January 22, 2025, where they determined it to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.“ – Study, pg 8
Jefferson County, City of Lakewood, Jefferson County School District R-1, West Metro Fire Protection District, and Mile High Flood District have already negotiated tax assessment and revenue agreements, prior to the public hearing.
“It is the intention of City Council in adopting this Urban Renewal Plan that the [Lakewood Reinvestment] Authority has available to it any and all powers authorized in the Act and considered necessary and appropriate to implement this Plan. Because powers conferred by the Act include facilitating the completion of improvements for which public money may be expended, the intentions of this Plan are considered to be in the public interest and a necessity, such finding being a matter of legislative determination by City Council with its adoption.” – Study, pg 9
Lakewood May Pay for Site De-Contamination
Is this prime location for commercial activity really an area of blight? Debatable since it is called both prime and deteriorated in city documents but without this blight designation, Lakewood cannot fund the development.
“Union Boulevard has grown over the years and has achieved recognition as a prime location for business” – Union Boulevard Corridor Plan
To qualify for a blight designation, the site has been deemed deteriorated. This property was a federal military site that contains a toxic landfill. The study says the city may pay for old infrastructure and decontamination. Is the city signing up to pay for environmental remediation? Or is that only useful for designation purposes. So far no one has suggested actually decontaminating the site. Instead, the proposal is silent with respect to current plans but in the past the intention was to build over the hard parts.
In the quote below, the bold is the blight condition, and the suggested city contribution follows.
“Deterioration of site or other improvements – removal of trash, remnant infrastructure, weeds, and contaminants;” – Study, pg 11
Many of the conditions of so-called “blight” mean that the property is undeveloped. For example, to read this report, any property without a water line, or a street without curbs should be blighted.
“Existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or other causes – fire protection equipment, water lines, and storage facilities to ensure adequate flow;” – Study, pg 11
Since these are all conditions of an undeveloped property, and the developer bought the property knowing this and is now asking for the property to be blighted so the city can contribute, the question is: how much did the city promise the developer before purchase?
How much did the developer plan on receiving? Did they ever plan on doing this on their own?
The primary purpose of the plan is to allow the city to spend money
“the first objectives of any and all urban renewal plans is to provide the municipality with a workable program for expending available resources to mitigate and prevent the spread of blight, foster needed rehabilitation of improvements within designated locations, and advance community priorities expressed in adopted policy and planning documents.”- Study, pg 9
Contrary to what may sound like an innocuous renewal area recommendation, this is a major commitment to develop an environmentally sensitive area, with contentious high-density homes in an already congested traffic area.
The plan aims to “advance community priorities,” which is a very subjective statement. The plans refer to designs started in 2008. Think of how much traffic has increased since then. The 2017 traffic study says traffic allowances will be needed and makes several recommendations, see below, which the city will also pay for.
Current plans for the Union corridor are based on the layout of Portland, Oregon to increase density and walkability (see page 30). The new walkability plan completely rewrites the original city plan and block layout of a previous generation. The current plan also claims to be written for the next 50 years but is evidence that 50-year planning is difficult at best. This plan is a complete overhaul and urbanization of the Lakewood people here love.
Do residents want to partner with developers to build 2000 units near an unremediated toxic landfill?
The plan is to “use financial resources available to the [Lakewood Reinvestment] Authority for the express purpose of the same; and to actively promote and partner with private investment and reinvestment interests.” – Study, pg 10
The vote to approve the blight is January 22, 2025 with the Lakewood Planning Commission.
*All opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author
When Lakewood City Council had the opportunity to study the effects of repealing laws like those that govern panhandling in the street, Council voted no. Council Members said they, “can’t imagine telling a voter that we said we’re going to get rid of the consequences to crime.”
What residents heard was “we want our laws to stay.”
What Council meant was literally, “we can’t tell people what we are doing.”
Nobody used false words, but a year later, Lakewood is still not enforcing its own laws and has not acknowledged the effects of removing the consequences.
Since that time, Lakewood has doubled down on permitting window washing by deciding not to put up new signs to deter window washers, while voting to put up new signs to change the speed limit, both of which carry the same traffic risk.
Residents are still voicing concerns and noting the lack of enforcement. A new thread on nextdoor.com appeared January 6, 2025. It disappeared within a day because Lakewood has vocal supporters on nextdoor who get people canceled (A big reason to support independent media!). Before it was removed, the post had over 200 comments, most of which agreed that panhandling and window washing on street medians was dangerous. Residents want Lakewood to do something about it.
Original post:
“Nextdoor post: Every single day, there are groups of men standing on medians by the intersections in Lakewood with their “windshield cleaning tool” going up to cars and touching them after people tell them “no”. All it takes is one of these guys to say someone “hit them” for a taxpaying ciizen to be sued. In addition, when I’ve tried to tell them to not touch my car, they get aggressive and nasty, take pictures of my car and myself, mock me, and group around my car at the stop light with their phones on me. I have called the Lakewood Police Dpt and they say there is only so much they can do. Other cities in the area have laws that people cannot stand on the medians (this is common sense, this is safety). Lakewood needs to do the same. The gentleman said it also has to do with politics, and he suggested I reach out to the city council members. He said the more people that speak up about this, the better chance something will be done. If you agree that this is dangerous and shouldn’t be happening, I urge you to speak up to the city council members. The more voices the better.” – E on Nextdoor.com
Complaints:
Most neighbors said they felt threatened by the activity, especially females. Others felt endangered due to the high risk of accidents. Still more expressed frustration with Lakewood for not taking action the way other cities, like Arvada, are doing.
“The authorities need to get them out of the intersections, and stop harassing the drivers. It’s horrible. It makes Lakewood look like the hood.”
“Kipling and Colfax are awful too. The median is very narrow and when they have little kids in strollers sitting there it’s just unsafe.”
Some people disagreed that window washing was a problem at all. They didn’t seem to argue about its legality or status as a traffic hazard. Rather than addressing those issues, they argued that residents should be more compassionate. To those that feel threatened or endangered, the overwhelming response was to tell people to deal with it. That is, it was your fault for feeling threatened, not the fault of the window washers or the situation.
“I’ve never once seen them get aggressive. I have had them clean my windshield even after having them off. They are just trying to make a living. Isn’t that what we preach? Try to remember that these men came over the Darien Gap. Maybe even get your windows washed once in a while. This world is crazy. We don’t need to make it crazier by getting our panties in a wad. Sorry.”
Misinformation:
More troubling is the amount of misinformation out there. For instance, one resident said this wasn’t a Lakewood issue. She advised people to call the state. During this process she agreed with Lakewood’s strategy of unofficially repealing crimes without resident consent.
Lakewood Informer reached out the CDOT and the Colorado State Patrol and confirmed that Lakewood are indeed the responders to this situation, if they so choose. Lakewood should have time to police all its laws.
“I’d rather have LPD responding to serious crimes, such as assault, rape, shooting, robbery, etc. BTW Colfax, Wadsworth, Kipling, etc., are all state highways. Contact the state.”
One resident said he reached out to Lakewood City Council and was told there was no law against panhandling. Does City Council really not know the laws that have been brought to their attention numerous times?
“I contacted Lakewood City Council including the mayor and I was told there’s no law against panhandling. But these illegals are not panhandling. They try to intimidate people and stand in the road. The City of Lakewood will not do anything. I tried for weeks and didn’t achieve anything. If people would STOP giving these people money they would go away.”
According to another resident, Mayor Wendi Strom specifically called these “crimes of survival” – a concept Council denied defending when refusing to research repealing the law.
“I spoke up about this at city council meeting and Wendy the mayor told me it’s a crime of survival.”
Are Council or staff interpreting Lakewood laws are illegal and so are unofficially repealing them without a proper vote?
Or are they playing word games to say “panhandling is not illegal” while not addressing the fact that there are laws that address the issue?
City Council has refused to research effective policing strategies or to take action to enforce Lakewood laws. They have also not officially repealed any laws. But Lakewood residents seem to have no doubt that Lakewood is not enforcing its laws and they are noticing the detrimental effects.
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.
Cold weather has been an accepted fact of Colorado life for thousands of years. That is, except in Lakewood, where normal winter weather has been declared an emergency for the last two years. The city’s seasonal emergency declaration allows Lakewood to bypass its own procedures and operate a homeless shelter — without a required permit. Did Lakewood lack planning, or did the city plan to use an emergency declaration to purposely operate without official votes? Another emergency declaration will be made, if it hasn’t already been, for 2025, the third year in a row.
“Any time there is forecast to be an extraordinary emergency/extreme weather event involving sustained temperatures at or below twenty (20) degrees Fahrenheit I have determined that a local extreme weather emergency exists requiring and authorizing me to exercise any or all of the emergency powers vested in me as City Manager…”
Extraordinary weather event? Meaning natural Colorado winter weather?
Sustained cold? Like, overnight? How is this extraordinary?
“In Lakewood, the summers are warm, the winters are very cold and snowy, and it is partly cloudy year-round. Over the course of the year, the temperature typically varies from 23°F to 87°F and is rarely below 7°F or above 95°F.” –Weatherspark.com
The weather itself is not the emergency. Rather, Lakewood leadership wanted to start a homeless shelter but did not want to go through the normal process of public hearings to decide on a homeless policy. This public process would be open for community comment but the establishment of homeless shelters is a contentious issue that could lead to unfavorable attention. So, to avoid this prickly issue, it appears that Lakewood City Manager Kathy Hodgson issued an emergency proclamation declaring that normal weather is an emergency, completely bypassing public policy processes, presumably with City Council’s full approval.
With this emergency mechanism in place, Lakewood could immediately start operating a homeless shelter. Interestingly, Lakewood had already applied for state funds, assuring the State that it would get the required permit when necessary. Unfortunately for the citizens, by the time the permit hearing is held (still in future), Lakewood leadership could claim the emergency process has been historically in place for the past few years, with funding appropriated – thus automatically approving the required permits.
A permit is necessary by code to operate a homeless shelter. Lakewood had to write a new law in 2023 to operate a temporary shelter.
The emergency shelter mechanism appears to be a carefully constructed misinformation tactic that abuses the public trust. Most significantly, Lakewood has completely bypassed important public policy discussions which resulted in citizens in cities like Arvada to vehemently oppose proposals for getting into the homelessness industry.
“Our hope is that we can ribbon cut this address as a 24/7 shelter in 2025,” said Chris Conner, Manager Housing and Thriving Communities. He assumes the shelter permit will be approved. Still, there was no mention of public policy debate of homeless response in Lakewood and no response to public criticism of the current shelter.
City Council has made it clear during study sessions that they approve of staff policy. Study sessions have no public comment or votes. The only vote so far has been to approve the fund appropriations. There will also be the anticipated vote from the Planning Commission for a shelter that everyone seems to think is guaranteed.
Lakewood City Manager Kathy Hodgson continues to get annual bonuses and salary increases, while Council approves of finding legal loopholes to make policies materialize without official Council votes. That keeps the policy power within the City Manager’s office and allows those involved to blame others for the lack of proper public process.
Have you noticed that Lakewood City Council has dug in pretty deep on their pretend parkland ordinance crisis and their related commitment to litigation and media manipulation over their job which is legislation to address the issues they created? We hope a more constructive attitude eventually emerges on city council.
In fact, we noticed the other day a Lakewood resident and attorney popped up on TV news with an issue that Lakewood wants 1,300 square feet of parkland dedication to allow her ranch home to be leveled and a new home built.
While this nice lady made some excellent points, the news reporting seemed to implicate the thousands of good citizens of Lakewood who brought forward the fee-in-lieu removal ordinance for causing the problem as if City Council has no authority or responsibility to consider any useful changes to the ordinance they adopted.
I did take the liberty of contacting her architect from their public email address and suggesting that City Council is authorized to address her concerns. I had previously communicated that information to the reporter but apparently some facts are not news.
Have you noticed that Lakewood City Council has dug in pretty deep on their pretend parkland ordinance crisis and their related commitment to litigation and media manipulation over their job which is legislation to address the issues they created? We hope a more constructive attitude eventually emerges on city council.
In fact, we noticed the other day a Lakewood resident and attorney popped up on TV news with an issue that Lakewood wants 1,300 square feet of parkland dedication to allow her ranch home to be leveled and a new home built.
While this nice lady made some excellent points, the news reporting seemed to implicate the thousands of good citizens of Lakewood who brought forward the fee-in-lieu removal ordinance for causing the problem as if City Council has no authority or responsibility to consider any useful changes to the ordinance they adopted.
I did take the liberty of contacting her architect from their public email address and suggesting that City Council is authorized to address her concerns. I had previously communicated that information to the reporter but apparently some facts are not news.
Note: Thank you Andrew Haubner for shining a light on Lakewood in time for people to learn about the special election! The election will be held before March 25, 2025.
Some residents of the municipality of Lakewood are concerned about the possibility of low turnout in an upcoming special election. There are two city council seats, Ward 3 and Ward 4 — two of the largest wards in Lakewood — that are up for grabs this year.
Council member Rich Olver, who was known as a dissenting voice on the council, resigned and moved to Arizona.
Resident Karen Morgan said his voice was needed in the face of a council that typically is in lockstep.
“[There are] little details that Rich would bring up and that was great,” she told CBS Colorado, “and we won’t have that.”
Some of the largest issues in Lakewood persist; crime, homelessness, and housing. In Ward 3, in particular, the continuing fight over property development in Belmar Park will be an important part of the voters’ decision.
This week it came to light that the city of Lakewood is disseminating purposeful and gross misinterpretations of the new parkland dedication ordinance. City officials have made the decision to require land dedication for the replacement of a single family home while blaming it on the recently passed Save Open Space Green Initiative. And, what is even more ridiculous, they have told a landowner they must create an easement, a part of their yard, that would be open to the general public. This is clearly not what the new ordinance states.
1. The parkland dedication ordinance does not require land dedication when an individual is replacing a single family home with another single family home. For decades the parkland dedication ordinance, and resulting formula, has been based on the number of anticipated residents added to the city. Therefore, when replacing a single family home with another single family home, no land dedication is required because there are no residents being added.
2. The parkland dedication ordinance does not require an easement for public access on private property. Even if the city were to erroneously require land dedication, the ordinance clearly states “The land area that may remain in private ownership must be added to the project’s open space requirement…” The open space requirement on a home does not require an easement open to the public.
It would seem that the City is deliberately putting up an unnecessary barrier for a single family home replacement and blaming it on the newly passed ordinance. Yet at the same time, the city is going out of their way to mitigate if not eliminate any barriers that would inhibit large developments of market rate and luxury apartments. Instead of encouraging families to stay, we cater to big money developers and corporations. In the process we displace longtime residents who can’t afford to live here anymore and cause urban sprawl as they go further from Lakewood for a single family home.
The Save Open Space Initiative was not created on false pretenses. There is no covert agenda to stop growth as some have suggested. The reality is we have a finite amount of land. If it is being absorbed by large expensive developments with no required provisions for open space, parkland dedication, trees, or affordable units, we will be creating an unaffordable, unhealthy environment for future generations. This initiative aims to restore the balance of open space and parkland with the creation of the kind of housing that is wanted and needed. Much was lost over the past 12 years when developers all chose to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication.
The Save Open Space Lakewood Green Initiative was passed by the city council who can, and arguably should, direct their staff to follow it appropriately. If necessary, council could very easily amend the ordinance to clarify that adding one unit does not meet the threshold for parkland dedication.
Perhaps if the city supported its residents with the same vehemence shown to developers, we could diminish the divisiveness that dominates our discourse.
