news Archives - Page 7 of 10 - Lakewood Informer

Concerns and Comments for Whippoorwill Dr

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on July 4, 2024.

Guest Submission from Toni Riggio, sent to City of Lakewood Planning, Engineering, Traffic and Ward 1 members

This letter is in response to the Subdivision Notification Letter received by mail by the City of Lakewood on 5/3/24. There is a multi-family development that is proposed at 1515 Whippoorwill Dr (Ward 1) with the Ingress/Egress at Youngfield St, 15h Pl and Youngfield Dr and I am writing in opposition to that access point based on the following reasons:

Concerns and Comments for Case# FI23-0016 and S23-0025/1515 Whippoorwill Dr

Proposed Ingress/Egress is where 3 streets come together

1- Youngfield Street: is an increasingly busy corridor. Traveling South requires a full stop at the blind curve to see oncoming traffic before turning onto 15^th Pl. Traveling North has low visibility as you turn right onto 15^th Pl.

2- 15^th Place: Per Aldridge Transportation Consultants recent memo in etrakit, is “a steep 10% grade” uphill as you turn in. This street is a no outlet/ not a thru street that serves 13 homes.

3- Youngfield Drive: is currently a narrow dirt road, not a through street with limited width to expand to the required 36’ for Mixed Use zoning. Lakewood has made an exception for 28’ which makes the entirety of the Road a fire lane per Metro West Fire Dept.

The neighbors have proposed the Ingress/Egress to be at Colfax Ave for a myriad of safety issues and concerns which are highlighted in this document. The ongoing meetings the neighbors and Applewood Valley Assoc have had with both the developer and the City of Lakewood to have access at Colfax Ave have yielded little results to date. This plot of land was originally zoned Residential (R-1A) and in 2012 rezoned to Mixed Use Suburban, because it backs Colfax Ave. We were given a few reasons why the entrance and exit can’t be on W. Colfax; however, the 2014 plans from the City of Lakewood mandated the access to the site to be at W. Colfax Ave, for the same developer and site. In 2023 the City of Lakewood allowed a Multi-family Residential unit to have access from W. Colfax. This site is across the street from this proposed Williams Point site. Further, based on the CDOT referral, it appears that CDOT is not opposed to the development to be accessed through W. Colfax Avenue as they note in their referral “No access is being proposed on Colfax. If access to Colfax is proposed in the future, the City of Lakewood is the Issuing Authority, so the discussion for access will need to begin with Lakewood.”

This 1.6-acre plot has challenging topography, is crammed with utilities; electric, gas, water, sewer and communications. It has been owned by the current Developer for over 20 yrs. It wasn’t until they received a 9% tax credit from CHFA that they were able to get green lit for max density housing. The CHFA funding was approved based on half-truths of being adjacent to a bus stop and community outreach and acceptance, both which were requirements. None of the immediate 13 homeowners to the proposed project were ever notified prior to this grant. Also, the bus stop, while adjacent to the property, has no direct access from the development without walking/biking .8 miles down a 10% grade on W. 15th Pl, without sidewalks or street lights, out to Youngfield St up to W Colfax Ave which has high traffic, steep grades and no sidewalk, creating safety, ADA concerns and other complexities. Further, employment opportunities, schools and parks are between 1 to 1.5 miles away There is a proposed retaining wall and infrastructure to hold up Colfax Ave which will prevent direct access to and from the public transportation from the proposed development site. (Note: Per CHFA requirements the access to public transportation needs to be within a half mile.)

A traffic study by Aldridge Transportation Consultants, estimates a daily 300+ car trips entering and exiting. The proposed project will have (44) 1- 3-bedroom units with 70 parking spaces. This will result in overflow parking on the fire lane and existing neighborhood, where little enforcement will be available or take even place. The Aldridge traffic study does not take into account the addition of Lutheran Hospital employing 2200 people and many other high-density housing going in nearby. Also, traffic is re-routed to Youngfield St whenever there is an accident on the parallel I-70 highway. This creates bumper to bumper traffic on Youngfield St. each time. The most recent memo from Aldridge fails to address traffic approaching 15th Pl travelling South on Youngfield St and turning left onto 15th Pl.

We are extremely concerned about emergency access back to our neighborhood, as we have had two fires within 10yrs. We are in a special high wind district, which was recently cited by Metro West Fire Dept to be the leading cause of dry brush fires, that is no longer seasonal, but year round.

The existing neighborhood was built in the 50’s. The 2 roads 15^th Pl a cul-de-sac and Whippoorwill Dr. a dead end. In most sections, the widths are 21-22’ no curb and gutter and drainage ditches on both sides and each with roadside mail delivery and trash pickup. This is where overflow parking will occur but is not adequate to receive the additional cars and would make it very difficult for emergency or fire crews to reach the existing neighborhood.

The neighbors in this area have witnessed pedestrians falling in the street while walking out of Youndfield Dr onto 15^th Pl steep grade next to Youngfield St in winter conditions. There have been a multitude of cars getting stuck and/or sliding down 15^th Pl to Youngfield St with snow and ice conditions. This has also included delivery/mail trucks, City of Lakewood snow plows getting stuck in the ditches at the intersection of 15^th Pl and Youngfield St When approaching entrance to 15^th Pl in the snow, you need momentum and speed to get up the 10% grade requiring 4-wheel drive vehicles to be successful. While having this grade may not be uncommon in our mountainous State, this is a contentious intersection with the convergence of these three streets. 2 with steep grades, 1 an increasingly busy street with questionable visibility in both directions.

We have documented the above stated events with videos and photos over the recent 2 years, some but not all are attached here, which have been shared and or provided to City Planning/ Engineers/Commission, City Council members, Developer, AVA, and many residents. I would add that as a resident of this neighborhood for 30 years, I have witnessed these occurrences many times over each and every year, including a head-on-collision at the Youngfield St curve a decade ago. These incidents and accidents will only rise with the addition of this Subdivision development.

Reference Lakewood Title 16.3.1, 16.3.2 Subdivision Standards, 16.3.8 1-4 Street and transportation patterns and connectivity and 16.3.9, this Subdivision does not meet the City’s own Ordinances unless many exceptions, variances or different interpretations are made.

While this only represents a partial detail of concerns, my hope is you will strongly consider these life, safety and ADA issues and concerns brought forth in regards to the Access point for this Subdivision Plat going forward and require the Ingress/Egress to be at Colfax Ave.

Safety First!

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Toni Riggio

Applewood Heights Resident

Photos and Videos below to account for the issues brought to your attention regarding the Subdivision Plat Case # FI23-0016/ D23-0025

**15th place demonstrating our narrow roads are not equipped to handle overflow parking and hampering the ability of emergency and other vehicles to access our neighborhood.**

**West Metro Fire Dept responding to a Fire on Whippoorwill Dr. 2yrs ago. Thankfully no cars parked on either side of the street.**

**raffic jam on Youngfield St. and 15th Pl intersection, when traffic is rerouted due to accidents on I-70. A common occurrence.**

**City of Lakewood Snow plow stuck at intersection of Youngfield Dr. and 15th Pl.**

Links to vehicles without 4WD trying and failing to get up the 15th Pl steep grade in the snow. (Copy and paste link to view)

https://photos.app.goo.gl/4ZWqmWaFHNKVU4vd6
https://photos.app.goo.gl/HZnAeWUTkq8UXv4z7

Link to Prime driver unable to come up the 15th Pl grade, parked at the blind curve to deliver packages, forcing cars to go around into oncoming traffic.https://photos.app.goo.gl/o2TRfw9B8UYMkMWm6

Lakewood Agrees to More Expensive Construction to Make Housing More Affordable

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on June 29, 2024.

Lakewood has approved construction of Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) that are up to 1400 square feet large, bigger than the original house in some areas, in an effort to “remove barriers” to affordability. ADUs are sometimes known as “mother-in-law” suites, a separate apartment that can be rented out on your primary residence. Councilor Stewart made the original request to research increasing ADU use in Lakewood, over a year before the motion passed on June 10, 2024. The two main barriers are the concept of single-family zoning (R1 vs R2) and infrastructure costs. By passing these revisions, Lakewood has densified single-family zoning into dual-family zoning, for every property that can fit an additional dwelling unit onto the land. According to research conducted by the Planning Commission, most people say they do not build an ADU after they find out they would need to pay more for additional water and sewer infrastructure. There seems to be a common belief that because there is room on the land, there should be extra room in the pipes, which is not true. Rather than acknowledge that water districts set those infrastructure fees, Planning Commissioner and Chair Kolkmeier suggested doubling the size of an allowable ADU, from 700 sq. ft. to 1400 sq. ft., so that the infrastructure cost would be a lesser percentage. So overall costs would go up in the name of affordability.

Custom-built ADUs are already expensive compared to commercial apartment buildings that are mass produced. However, an economic analysis of construction costs or rental profits was not researched. Among the ADU proponents, including Councilor Stewart and Shahrezaei, there seemed to be an understanding that someone who went to the expense of building an ADU would be happy to rent the unit at- or below-market price, to a family member or friend.

Others, including Councilor Nystrom and Olver, questioned whether these units would be available for investors, therefore not guaranteeing it would be “affordable”. Nystrom said she was in favor of creating more ownership situations, not rental situations. Olver quoted the real estate mantra “Location location location” and said that creating more supply will not lower housing prices in a desirable location such as Lakewood. Olver’s point has been proved because Lakewood has excess supply yet housing costs have not come down.

Councilor David Rein proposed an amendment to make owner-occupancy required. The motion failed on a 5-5 vote, with the ayes being Councilors Rein, Olver, Nystrom, LaBure and Mayor Strom. The nays were Councilors: Shahrezaei, Low, Mayott-Guerrero, and Sinks. (Councilor Cruz absent).

Without this amendment, the ADU and property can be used for two, full-time rental properties, making them attractive to investors.

Planning Commission Chair Kolkmeier explained that even though these revisions might not increase ADU construction, our current ordinance strangles growth and our residential development is in a death spiral but did not offer evidence. He argues the changes are one way to bring back families and possibly schools but he did not explain how if he believes the changes would be largely ineffective. No one offered evidence, just beliefs that some kind of change by someone was necessary.

Even though housing may be more expensive with these changes, the goal of “liberalizing” the code was achieved.

Councilor Sinks pointed out that these revisions seem like a work around to getting a property subdivided. The property could not be subdivided for separate ownership. A property with two houses would be much more expensive to sell.

If these changes are successful in increasing ADUs, the Councilors who voted for ADUs will be responsible for increasing property prices.

The other barrier, infrastructure costs, was discussed at some length during Planning Commission and Council meetings. The infrastructure fees are set by water districts individually and are not under city control. Rather than acknowledging this fact, Planning Commission Chair Kolkmeier and Councilor Roger Low enlisted the help of State Representative Chris DeGruy-Kennedy to change state law, asking to restrict a district’s ability to set infrastructure costs. This would make existing customers responsible for paying for necessary capacity increases to accommodate new building. That proposed legislation, HB24-1463, was largely defeated. No one at the state or city level explained, or even seemed to know, what the infrastructure fee would pay for, despite explanations available from resident water districts (see below).

GMWSD Statement re ADUs_signed Download

Councilor Jacob LaBure picked up the gauntlet of problematic costs by suggesting the creation of a housing fund that the city can use to pay for people’s infrastructure costs. This suggestion was heard before during meetings on Strategic Housing. Lakewood has already subsidized tap fees before through the Community Grant Program.

The State of Colorado also passed new legislation regarding ADUs this year. That bill, HB24-1152, will require that Lakewood remove owner-occupancy provisions. However, as a home-rule city, Lakewood always has the option to challenge state law for the right to local government. As Lakewood attorney Lauren Stanec said, “if the city decided they wanted to comply with the state ADU bill….”, presumably meaning that as a home-rule city, Lakewood always has the option to fight for its right to local government. The city could remove the owner-occupancy provision now. Lakewood did not, and passed all changes as originally proposed by the Planning commission.

Scorecard: Expanding Additional Dwelling Unit Possibilities in all R1 zones

Strom: Aye

Olver: Nay

Mayott-Guerrero: Aye

Stewart: Aye

Rein: Aye

Shahrezaei: Aye

Labure: Aye

Nystrom: Nay

Low: Aye

Cruz: absent

Sinks: Aye

A Look at Proposed Changes to Traffic Control in Lakewood

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on May 21, 2024.

Guest Post from Bill Foshag

Editor’s Note: Lakewood has a survey about changing the speed limit. However, the introductory information is incomplete and misleading. The concept of lowering the speed limit has supporting research from the Lakewood Advisory Commission, as they say, but also information showing it will be ineffective from police and traffic control. The survey does not link to that opposing research. Lakewood Informer is grateful for this resident article to bring you the news that Lakewood is not highlighting.

Lakewood City Council is considering proposals from the Lakewood Advisory Committee to increase safety and reduce traffic speeds throughout the city. The plans include reducing speed limits on residential streets from 30 mph to 25 or 20 mph, and the use of red-light and speed monitoring cameras. While well intentioned, the approach taken and comments made by Council members at a recent meeting seem to question if the recommended solutions will actually be effective.

The actions being considered originate from a request by Council Member (now Mayor) Wendi Strom in August, 2022. The request cites areas of concern in Ward 5, particularly the vicinity of Kendrick’s Lake Elementary school, and the Jewell/Kipling area. The request notes that she has received complaints from Ward 5 residents about speeding traffic in these areas. The Lakewood Advisory Committee (LAC) prepared a report addressing the request, presenting their findings to Council in June, 2023. In their report, the LAC recommends re-striping and repaving to narrow lanes and reduce speeds, use of funding to increase the use of multi-use off-street paths, reducing speed limits city-wide, and installing cameras.

Lakewood’s Public Works department also looked into the matter, and has formulated some solutions of their own, although they have yet to publish a final report. This was taken up again on April 1, 2024 at a City Council Virtual Study Meeting. Although the original request was intended for specific areas within Ward 5, Council is considering implementing the findings on a city-wide basis. Mike Whittaker, a traffic engineer with the Public Works Division, presented comments from the department’s staff discussions and recommendations based on the LAC report.

Lower speed limits do not result in slower driving

There are a couple items that stood out from the Public Works presentation. First, they note that in cities where speeds have been reduced from 30 to 25 mph, or even 30 to 20 mph on residential streets, the average speed drivers actually drive is reduced by only 1 or 2 mph. Drivers choose to exceed the new lower speed limit and continue to drive at or near the speeds they are used to driving. This was noted in a study from Minnesota when some of their residential speed limits were reduced. The City of Boulder saw similar results, but on some streets, driving speeds actually increased. Another concern by Public Works is that lower speed limits might actually irritate some drivers who will respond by driving more aggressively. A third point of concern deals with the use of red-light cameras. When drivers know that a red-light camera might catch them running the light at an intersection, they are likely to err on the side of caution and brake suddenly to avoid a ticket, catching the driver behind off-guard, resulting in a rear-end collision. This subject actually came up a couple times during the meeting and is always an issue wherever red-light cameras are installed.

What are the costs?

Notably absent from the discussion was the mention of any firm costs associated with implementing these plans. For changing speed limits city-wide, new speed limit signs need to be painted and installed to replace all existing signs on residential streets, at some unspecified cost to taxpayers. Red-light and speed control cameras require additional studies of where to install and where to aim the cameras to be effective. The city would be dealing with a contractor who operates the cameras, and that involves a monthly rental cost ($8,500 per month for one unit was cited in the meeting), plus additional costs for installing the cameras, city personnel to monitor them, and costs to administer and collect fines.

A city-wide solution is not the answer

One puzzling thing that comes to mind after listening to the Study Meeting is this. The streets cited as being in most need of control (Alameda, Wadsworth, Colfax, Mississippi, and Jewell were mentioned several times) are not residential streets. The Public Works presentation, and the LAC recommendations, do not have any discussion on how reducing speed limits on residential streets will impact the areas of greatest concern. If I have to drive 20 mph on South Quail Street (a residential street), is that likely to reduce accidents at Alameda and Wadsworth? The obvious answer is no. Many residential streets in Lakewood, and particularly the older streets that are a bit wider, are safe to drive at 30 mph. Instead of replacing all of Lakewood’s “Speed Limit 30” signs and mandating a lower 20 or 25 mph limit, the practical solution is to reduce speed limits in the areas that are most troublesome and increase enforcement efforts in those areas. If that means allowing police officers the opportunity to earn a little overtime pay, those costs would certainly be less than what it would cost to replacing all the residential speed limit signage. One of the Council members remarked the drivers who are most dangerous are the ones egregiously speeding – the ones going 40 and 50 mph on residential streets. Those violators are particularly dangerous and need to be targeted, not the ones going one or two miles an hour over the limit.

Unintended consequences

Another puzzling item that was not fully discussed in the Study Meeting deals with how drivers react to reduced speed limits. If drivers only reduce their speeds by 1 or 2 miles per hour when speed limits are lowered, is there really any benefit to reducing speed limits at all, or are you out to make the residents “criminals”? Do you really notice a difference if you are driving 29 or 30 mph? Probably not. Theoretically, the City could mandate residential street speed limits so low as to reduce the possibility of an accident to near zero, but it really doesn’t make a difference if people are still going to drive 29 mph in what was once a 30 mph zone. By their own admission, the City has told us that people are generally drive the speed they feel is comfortable and safe (within reason) whether the speed limit is 30, or 25, or 20 mph. There is no reason to spend tax payer funds replacing speed limit signage and inconveniencing residents with lower speed limits throughout the city if there is no discernable benefit, particularly if there are problems only in a few specific areas. The best decision here is to keep the residential speed limits at 30 mph and not criminalize our residents by lowering limits to 25 or 20 mph.

Dangerous by design

A possible exception to this are the streets in the Belmar development that are narrow to begin with, have cars parked along both sides, and a number of pedestrians crossing the streets. The sight-lines are such that it is difficult to see what’s around upcoming corners. Streets in this area, to the fault of the developer and the traffic engineers who approved their plans, are poorly thought out and a hazard to automobiles and pedestrians.

One particular method of speed control that should not be used is that of narrowing traffic lanes by use of medians and/or bicycle lanes. An example of this is along 20^th Ave. between Youngfield and Simms, where the bicycle lanes merge into the traffic lanes and the median is widened allowing only one vehicle (either a bicycle or automobile) through at a time. This is particularly dangerous for bicycle riders if a car cannot slow down fast enough to avoid a collision. Essentially, bicyclists should not be used for speed control on our streets. One of the Council members mentioned they felt the bicycle lanes along Garrison between Alameda and 6^th are dangerous. Part of the problem along certain stretches of Garrison may be that the street cannot easily be widened. On heavily travelled streets like Garrison, for the safety of both drivers and bicyclists, there may have to be some future consideration of limiting these areas to motor vehicles.

The proposed use of cameras

The issues of red-light cameras and speed control cameras are different than the discussion of speed limit reduction. The regulations pertaining to traffic control cameras falls under the State of Colorado. Under the constitution of the United States, the person who is guilty of an offence is the one who is charged and the one who has to bear the penalties imposed under the law. With traffic control cameras, the person to whom the vehicle is registered pays the price regardless of who committed the infraction. If your Uncle Bob borrows your pickup truck and runs a red light, you get the ticket, not Uncle Bob. You can possibly get out of paying the Uncle Bob’s fine, but that involves additional time and effort on your part. Colorado’s ordinances can probably be challenged successfully on constitutional grounds, but until then, it’s the law in the State. Stepped up enforcement of our traffic ordinances in the troublesome areas ensures the actual offender is the one receiving the penalty for their offence.

Increased and selective enforcement – the better solution

Stepping up enforcement of traffic laws regarding speeding and red-light running also offers a more effective deterrent to violations. If you get a citation in the mail for running a red light or speeding, there’s not much that offers a deterrent to repeating the offence. You simply go online and pay the fine (a lower fine than if you are issued a ticket by an officer), no points off your license, and no reporting to your insurance company. Receiving a ticket from an officer is much more of a deterrent to speeding or red light running. It takes up more of your time as the officer runs a background check on you and your vehicle, discusses your infraction, writes up the ticket, and sends you on your way. A written ticket will have a higher fine, and will result in points off your license and a report to your insurance company. There is an additional sense of humiliation if you have your children, spouse, or friends in the vehicle with you at the time.

Stepping up enforcement in specific locations and at specific times is very effective in reducing violations while acting as a deterrent to future problems. When people regularly traveling a certain route become aware of increased police presence they will slow down and their driving habits will improve. More often than not, increased enforcement in an area is only needed for a couple of weeks – just long enough for drivers to take note and be more aware. If an area was previously patrolled and has become troublesome again, just step up enforcement in that area for a couple more weeks. The costs of increased enforcement efforts should not be a great concern. If the City believes it has the funding to change all the residential speed limit signage and install, monitor, and administer red-light and speed limit cameras, those funds can easily be spent for some overtime pay for our police officers or hiring a few more full-time officers.

Lakewood Shelter May Be a Magnet

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on May 8, 2024.

The mid-year report on Lakewood’s homeless shelter showed some progress and some new problems. The April 15, 2024, Council Study Session highlighted the 50-person capacity of the new “emergency” cold weather shelter at the location of the new Navigation Center on West Colfax. This was a planned shelter, used on an emergency basis because the building is not ready or approved to act as a shelter. As a new venture, the shelter encountered problems that Lakewood is learning from, such as determining the capacity of the building in-transition. Other problems that will be more difficult to solve are becoming apparent. For example:

Lakewood may in fact be turning into a magnet for homeless due to its shelter
Other cities are not stepping up to help as Lakewood anticipated
Scope creep is already occurring including funds being spent for transportation to facilities and requests for food services.

The success of the shelter was evidenced by the number of people using the program. The Navigation Center can currently support 50 people, and it exceeded that limit several nights. Guests who exceeded capacity were offered vouchers for hotels, paid for by Jefferson County. This has led to some policy changes so that people are not incentivized to wait for a hotel opportunity. Lakewood has started providing transportation services to and from these hotels for the people who want to use a hotel voucher in another city but want to remain in Lakewood. Transportation includes coordinating volunteer efforts and paying Bayaud Enterprises.

City Council Members pointed out that problems would be decreased if other cities made the same switch Lakewood has, with the government taking on the work of what was previously non-profit domain.

“It was never envisioned that Lakewood would be the sole provider of navigation services. So we really need to see that so that Lakewood doesn’t become a magnet for those in need.” Deputy City Manager Ben Goldstein (24 min mark)

Despite not having the current emergency operation under control, City Council is already pushing for more services.

Councilors Mayott-Guerro and Cruz asked for city resources to set up a food network. Staff respond that having food service is difficult without some consistency.

Councilor Shahrezaei advocated for being open more nights. Staff say changing the opening requirements makes it hard for staff to anticipate what is needed and may lead to being open for most of the winter.

According to Deputy City Manager Ben Goldstein, it will be a couple of years until the Navigation Center is fully operational as a shelter. The city is still in the acquisition phase for the shelter property.

“We all want to figure out how to not let people die from weather, right? And that’s such a cool shared value because it’s actually just not that radical, but it was five years ago.” Council Member Mayott-Guerrero on Lakewood’s switch in city philosophy (30 min mark)

The idea of shelters is not radical for an individual or a charitable institution, but it is more so for a government. The Lakewood Informer reported in August, 2023, that local governments hoped someone else would step up to serve, without themselves committing to take responsibility. Previous letters of support to Lakewood made no promises of financial support.

“At this time, Arvada does not have a plan for a navigation center, such as the one in Lakewood. Like other cities in the metropolitan area, we are evaluating a number of ideas that might help address the unhoused population. Arvada intends to observe what happens at the Lakewood navigation center with their implementation.” Arvada email dated December 7, 2023

Council is concerned about reaching the limit of shelter capacity next year. Goldstein says Lakewood cannot open another shelter without becoming an even greater attractant (58 min mark). Many of the area’s unhoused are now counting on the Navigation Center for shelter, as opposed to the local non-profits that fill up. This will especially be a problem when the center is closed for renovations next winter. Retrofits are now expected to go into 2026, rather than being completed in 2025 as expected.

Council Member Low praised the program for saving lives during the cold winter nights. When asked how much the number of deaths decreased, staff responded that they never tracked deaths, and if they did, it would be impossible to tell whether the death was from cold or not.

Life-saving or not, 50 people were provided shelter over about 20 nights. According to the staff memo, this could be a total of over 887 individuals, or the same 50 people multiple times. Another measure of success was the 52 Facebook posts the city made, which received over 150,000 impressions on social media.

Will Lakewood Follow Denver into Lawsuits over Green Remodeling

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on May 7, 2024.

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.

Colorado apartment landlords sue to block Denver, state greenhouse gas cuts that they find crushing

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?

From Institute for Market Transformation

Lakewood Residents Petition to Save Their Parks

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on April 28, 2024.

Guest Post from Save Open Space Lakewood

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.

Longer version: See soslakewood.org

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

Written by Lakewood News from Karen on April 28, 2024.

Guest Post from Save Open Space Lakewood

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.