From Save Belmar Park, Inc., – a Colorado non-profit
What happened at the May 7th Lakewood Planning Commission hearing was deeply disappointing—though sadly, not unexpected. After several speakers delivered well-researched, thoughtful, and heartfelt presentations, the audience erupted in applause. The public’s support for protecting Belmar Park was undeniable.
So how does a small group of City officials override the will of the residents?
Despite an overwhelming outpouring of public opposition—including emails, social media comments, and a nearly 10-to-1 ratio of anti-this-development comments on Lakewood Speaks—the Commission still voted 5–0 in favor of the 411-unit Kairoi apartment building. And they did so even after being presented with a powerful, evidence-based case showing that the proposed development directly contradicts Lakewood’s own zoning code, comprehensive plan, and parks master plan.
This vote was a slap in the face to the community. It disregarded common sense, environmental preservation, and the very planning documents the city is supposed to uphold. The proposed zero-lot-line, six-story building is incompatible with the surrounding two-story Belmar Commons townhomes, overwhelms local infrastructure, and threatens the ecological balance of Belmar Park.
The city has rolled out the red carpet for billionaire developers—again—ignoring the public and prioritizing profit over people, parks, and trees. Dozens of mature, century-old trees will be clearcut. Wildlife will be displaced. Belmar Park’s peace and beauty will be irreversibly damaged (if we don’t stop them).
But, we have NOT given up—and we’re not stopping now!
Our next step is filing a lawsuit under a 106A appeal, which will go before a Jefferson County district court rather than more city insiders. We believe we still have a strong chance at a different outcome—despite the city’s push to bulldoze trees—because the proposed development blatantly contradicts Lakewood’s own zoning laws, comprehensive plan, and parks master plan, giving us solid legal ground to challenge it in court.
This is our last real chance to stop this destructive project, and we’re counting on supporters like you to help us make it happen. Legal fees are significant, and this is a fight the community should not have to fund—but we must because the City of Lakewood refuses to listen.
Please stand with us—again. If this park means something to you, dig deep—and give as generously as possible (then smile knowing you’re helping to save something irreplaceable). Every dollar helps us hold the line against this destructive plan. Then share our campaign and spread the word. We’re fighting for what’s right: environmental integrity, community character, and the future of Belmar Park.
At long last the date for the Lakewood Planning Commission to hear the review of the major site plan of 777 S. Yarrow St has been set. MARK YOUR CALENDARS FOR MAY 7. We will need everyone available to pack council chambers. You can:
Sign up to STAND UP and SPEAK! If only a few people speak, it will look like there is more support for the project!
Comment on the lack of buffer between the development and the park that fee-in-lieu made possible!
Comment on the environmental degradation due to noise from construction and the potential for bird window strikes.
Comment that 65 mature trees will be cut down
Comment on the traffic and parking during festivals and concerts that will become worse with 412 additional apartments
OR Donate your time to a speaker who would need more than 3 minutes
It would be beneficial to tie your comments to a section of the zoning code. For example,
Article 17.2.7.2: Review Criteria states that:
Recommendations and decisions regarding site plan applications shall be based on the following criteria:
A. Major site plans shall comply with standards outlined in Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 of this Zoning Ordinance.
B. The Director shall evaluate how well the proposed modifications contribute to the overall performance of the site and how well the proposed changes meet the standards in Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 of this Zoning Ordinance.
Let’s see how well these standards are met:
under Article 17.3.1.1: Purpose and Intent
This Article describes each zone district established within the City of Lakewood. The purpose of the various districts is to:
A. Ensure compatibility of land uses
Is this requirement met with a 5-6 story apt complex directly adjacent to the lake?
Article 17.3.4.1: Purpose and Intent
The mixed-use (M) zone districts are specifically intended to:
C. Maintain the integrity and viability of the adjacent residential neighborhoods
Is this requirement met with a 5-6 story apt complex adjacent to the 1 and 2-story townhomes at Belmar Commons?
Article 17.4.1.3: Determination of Use
B., the Director shall consider, among other relevant factors, traffic generation, density of population, and hours of operation of the proposed use as compared to:
3. The goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan states “Through the site plan review process and design guidelines, ensure that new multifamily, mixed-use, and commercial developments adjacent to single-family neighborhoods are compatible by incorporating appropriate design, scale, height transition, and connectivity to seamlessly integrate with the neighborhood.”
Is this requirement met with the 5-6 story apt complex?
Page 196 of the Comprehensive Plan reads
Lakewood Sustains
Guiding Principle
Lakewood will be a leader in sustainability principles, practices, and education. Lakewood is committed to the well-being and health of its citizens and environment. The city will reduce its impact on natural systems
It is the goal of sustainability to achieve balance between the economy, the natural environment, and social values; however, human society depends on the environment first and foremost in order to achieve social and economic sustainability. In other words, without a healthy environment, a community would be unable to achieve economic success and social well-being.
Are we promoting sustainability and a healthy environment by cutting down 65 trees and degrading the environment?Declining bird populations will now have to endure noise pollution from construction, window strikes from 6 stories of apartment units, and reduced habitat from tree removal.
Article 17.4.1.4 : City Owned Open-Space and Parks
City-owned land which is used or held for open-space or park purposes shall not be permitted to be used for any purpose other than open-space or park purposes.
Is the developer staging equipment and/or regrading part of the park adjacent to the site?
Article 17.6.5.8, 17.7.7.7: Existing Tree Preservation
A. Existing trees with trunks greater than 8-inch caliper, measured 1 foot above grade, within a development shall be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible and will help satisfy the landscaping requirements of this Section. Such trees shall be considered “protected” trees within the meaning of this Section. Streets, buildings, and lot layouts shall be designed to minimize the disturbance to protected trees.
B. The Director shall determine through consultation with the City Forester when it is not feasible to preserve and retain protected tree(s) or to transplant them to another on site location. If it is determined that it is not feasible to preserve or transplant protected tree(s), the applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to this section. Replacement trees shall be used to satisfy the tree planting standards of this Section.
Has this requirement been met? Was the site plan designed to preserve mature trees? Not if the plan is to remove 65 mature trees.
Article 17.13.1.1: Purpose and Intent
This Article establishes standards for sustainable development in the City of Lakewood. The purpose of these standards is to ensure that development implements the goals articulated in the community’s adopted plans for resilient and efficient development that is adaptable to infrastructure changes in the face of climate change, minimizes its impact on limited resources, contributes to communitywide greenhouse gas emissions targets, and becomes a positive asset within the community.
Does extensive tree removal and consequent habitat removal satisfy sustainability standards?
Use one or more of these articles in the zoning code to frame your concerns about the 777 S. Yarrow St development.
Belmar Park is NOT an amenity for 777 S. Yarrow St!
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.
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.
Lakewood has a sustainability agenda to push electrification in order to decrease fossil fuel emissions. Electrification means changing your gas appliance to an electric one. Xcel is asking for an extra $5 billion to upgrade infrastructure that is needed for this change. Xcel will fund this by charging all customers more on top of an ever-increasing bill. A recent podcast from PowerGab called “Heat Pump Surprise”, pondered whether our elected officials know the total cost of their agenda. This was a good question so LakewoodInformer news asked Lakewood City Council if they knew the total cost for Lakewood residents. We got two responses and zero answers. All Lakewood residents are paying for electrification efforts through these additional fees. It’s not just the cost of a new appliance.
“Xcel Energy, seeking to meet an increasing demand for electric vehicles, rooftop solar arrays and heat pumps and general growth in electricity use, is proposing a $5 billion plan to improve the links between the grid and homes and businesses.” – Colorado Sun
The possible new fee is a result of the Fenberg Rider, passed by Colorado legislators in 2024. This fee will improve only one leg of an overloaded distribution center. Electrification is one of, if not the most, expensive ways to decarbonize energy.
“Whether or not you actually convert to a heat pump you’re still gonna pay for this…. It’s even more perverse than that because what the PUC actually did was tack on a fee for existing natural gas customers to pay to subsidize folks to switch” – PowerGab
Does Lakewood know how much it will cost to switch to electric appliances?
Only two out of eleven Council Members responded to an emailed question. Neither answer included total costs. All Councilors affirmed their commitment to sustainability as a worthy goal. Sustainability, including any electrification, is a city priority.
Councilor Sophia Mayott-Guerrero provided a swift response, saying she previously worked in climate justice and clean energy policy. She points out the “current rate structures that Xcel uses is actually very beneficial to most customers as more electric appliances come online. As you know, heat pumps are most used in the night, and are also statistically more likely in homes where at least one person is home in the day, meaning continued use (on average) in the none-surge pricing hours. This all results in something often referred to as “flattening the curve”.
Flattening the curve does not stop the overall line increasing. The experts at PowerGab estimate (min 12) that the total necessary infrastructure upgrades total about to $695 billion for the necessary 82 gigawatts of power. The question remains, are climate justice warriors aware of the total cost?
Councilor Paula Nystrom says, “The concern is air quality, not just the cost… we [Lakewood] have deadlines to meet.” She says that it’s important to think of the global problem and how people suffer with air quality while trying to enjoy the summer outside. She did not know of any specific fees or sources of funding, but did say that there was enough tax credits and grants that residents wanting to switch to electric appliances could do so at about half the sticker cost.
Is $695 billion in new statewide spending possible? And is it worth it to achieve decarbonization goals?
Lakewood Council, Sustainability Committee and staff have been running a recurring false narrative that electrification is cheap because it uses “free money” like tax credits or subsidies when the reality is that everyone pays to make this money available. Lakewood will require that new buildings have electric heat pumps versus gas furnaces, relying on the fact that residents will believe the free money narrative over the total cost narrative. This change is likely to happen in spring of 2025.
Lakewood will also spend more on city buildings to meet these sustainability goals through increased taxpayer funding.
“This means you writing a check with a comma in it to pay your utility bill every single month. So $1,000 plus monthly utility bills.” – Amy Cooke, PowerGab
This informal survey of Lakewood City Council seems to prove PowerGab’s theory that legislators championing electrification have not added all these numbers up.
“This is a regressive tax. If you want to hurt poor people, you drive up the cost of keeping lights on… Affordable housing won’t matter. We are literally bankrupting the state.” Amy Cooke, PowerGab, min 7:30 mark)
“We need to account for the fact that increased load does have a cost,” Senate President Steve Fenberg, a Boulder Democrat and cosponsor of the bill, told a Senate Finance Committee hearing. “There are investments that need to be made.” – Colorado Sun
The Council responses also shows that only two out of eleven Councilors were willing to explain their beliefs in the face of a competing cost narrative. All beliefs are worth consideration, and their answers showed true respect for all their constituents. Thank you!
The CDPHE Air Pollution Control Division is actively working with Terumo BCT to further reduce ethylene oxide emissions. A draft permit modification for Terumo BCT to install and operate additional devices to reduce ethylene oxide emissions from the facility is now available on the division’s website.
Terumo BCT currently uses a device known as a “dry scrubber” to reduce ethylene oxide emissions. The proposed permit modifications would allow Terumo to use a new control device called a “thermal catalytic oxidizer abatement plant” as its primary emissions control. The dry scrubber would then serve as a backup control.
The draft permit is open for public comment from January 7, 2025 – February 6, 2025. Division staff will review all public comments received and use relevant comments to inform the permit updates. The permit is available on the division’s air permit public notices web page. That web page has details and tips for submitting effective public comments.
Terumo BCT has indicated new control equipment could be fully operational in early 2025. Once the equipment is fully operational, Terumo BCT would have to test ethylene oxide emissions to ensure it meets the permit requirements. These tests would use U.S. EPA-approved methods to evaluate emissions reductions.
More air quality monitoring around Terumo BCT
The air division conducts its own air quality monitoring around Terumo BCT and will continue doing so after the new equipment is in place. The division will make this data available to the public on its website once it has undergone quality control assurance and review. The division will use this information to inform its ongoing work protecting clean air in Colorado’s communities.
New regulations and proposals that apply to Terumo’s emissions of ethylene oxide
Ethylene oxide proposed as priority air toxic in Colorado
From January 16-17, 2025, the Air Quality Control Commission will hold a rulemaking hearing on a proposal to identify up to five priority air toxics in Colorado. Ethylene oxide is one of the five priority air toxics proposed for commission consideration. After the commission determines priority air toxics, Colorado will then work to establish health-based standards for each one through a separate rulemaking later in 2025.
This is one of the requirements under Colorado’s Public Protections from Toxic Air Contaminants Act. The division developed the draft proposal with input from monitoring and modeling data, the public, and a technical working group of scientific experts. The division may propose adding more priority air toxics in the future.
You can register to offer a verbal public comment or listen to the January 2025 rulemaking hearing. A registration link to listen or offer verbal public comment is available on the commission’s website.
In less than a year, the $0.10 fee from shopping bag sales have generated $692,000 for Lakewood so far. That revenue was only 60% of the $0.10 fee. The remaining 40% stayed with the stores, which means local stores made about $461,333 from plastic bags fees. Lakewood revenue from bag fees will be used to support multiple sustainability projects in 2025, including an Organic Waste Pilot Program as well as a project focused on Multi-Family Waste Diversion Resources.
The plastic bag fee is a state law even though “plastic bags result in about half the emissions of alternative bags,” a fact known since at least 2014.
The Organic Waste Pilot Program would include a variety of test programs aimed at increasing participation in both backyard composting and community collection hub programs for food waste.
The Multi-Family Waste Diversion project would develop toolkits, educational resources, and provide technical expertise to property owners and managers of multi-family buildings with the goal of supporting the establishment of recycling and potentially organic waste collection service.
These seem to be expensive education projects but new projects could still develop. Lakewood anticipates generating over $250,000 every year from this fee.
Most of Lakewood City Council is concerned that Lakewood will not reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Although Lakewood has been increasing climate change regulations and spending for over a decade, it’s not enough and the city will be increasing both spending and regulation in 2025.
Are these goals achievable and which programs are most effective?
Lakewood is still developing its model to predict emission reduction. It is almost impossible to attribute which programs result in the best emission reductions because every result is intertwined not only with other programs but with the existing climate, which by definition is changing.
Lakewood has more sustainability goals than surrounding cities. Lakewood is named “one of 119 cities across the globe providing leadership in environmental action and transparency by the Carbon Disclosure Project”, showing Lakewood is more aggressive than most of the world. The city is currently working on a new climate vulnerability study, a new sustainability plan, updating zoning codes and building codes for increased required sustainability measures. Votes on the new codes are scheduled for spring.
Full-time sustainability staff has increased from 2, in 2014, to 12 in 2025. Dozens more part-time staff are employed throughout all city departments. According to Sustainability and Community Development Director, Travis Parker, about 30% of the new comprehensive plan focuses on sustainability.
The key to City Council goals was to secure more funding. Council Member Jeslin Shahrezaei points out that cities like Fort Collins and Denver have a dedicated sustainability budget. She says grants for one project at a time is not a long-term solution. She believes residents want more funding to go to sustainability efforts. According to Shahrezaei, Lakewood played a pivotal role in securing a regional $200M grant because it has the tracking numbers for emissions and workforce.
Council will talk about new revenue generating possibilities at the annual retreat workshop.
Council Member Paula Nystrom asked for a new program and budget for residential greenhouse gas emission reduction for the upcoming revised budget.
Lakewood has not asked residents to support the climate change fight directly with their pocketbooks before. Staffing initiatives often start as “free money” from other sources and continued past the grant’s expiration date without a public discussion. More direct taxing and funding suggestions represent a significant new direction for Lakewood, especially on the scale of new programs at millions of dollars a year.
Councilor Glenda Sinks was concerned about being able to track sustainability spending through the budget. This was a good question without a good answer. According to Director Parker, Lakewood is not showing much in the budget yet because it is in the “enviable place of having more money available than we have plans for yet but that won’t be the case for long.” There was no answer as to where the money is shown in the current budget.
Councilor Roger Low echoes the need for clear spending and goal tracking in the budget. He would like to see more progress on SolarApp implementation.
Council Member Sophia Mayott-Guerrero floated a new idea to expand the greenhouse gas fee and have a larger spending pool to be used for things like sidewalks, bike lanes, lighting, park maintenance, road maintenance, climate impact and water impact. All of these could be viewed as “sustainability” measures.
Several Councilors, including Cruz and Shahrezaei, were interested in making sure that money was distributed equitably. They want to make sure that low-income areas were first in line for assistance, as was intended through the federal program that Lakewood receives funding from.
Councilor Jacob LaBure would like to be a national leader in sustainability efforts. LaBure points out that much of the federal money may be lessening under a new administration. As a result, he suggests Lakewood do more internally. For instance, Lakewood may require garbage and waste contractors to only use contractors with EV vehicles. Mayor Strom echoes the benefits of buying or contracting EV vehicles companies. Councilor LaBure would like to mandate new buildings, especially city buildings, be LEED certified through the building code. Director Travis Parker says some buildings could already meet LEED standards but do not want to pay the quarter million dollars to get certified.
Councilor Rein would like to see more specificity in the sustainability plan in order to get Lakewood on track for less emissions. He is interested in the city getting a LEED certification. City staff say big new projects under city control, like the new maintenance facility, may not be able to get LEED certification but will be sustainable on some level. Rein asked staff if the current budget has enough funding to improve sidewalk connectivity and make the city more walkable in order to cut down on vehicle traffic. Staff answered there was not enough funding.
Lakewood City Council Member Paula Nystrom and Jacob LaBure proposed banning gas fireplaces on October, 14, 2024. On the heels of two other proposals that night for increased sustainability measures, most Councilors urged for a deeper discussion of the topic at the council’s annual retreat. Councilor Rebekah Stewart was the only other “yes” vote on moving this ban forward. This discussion will be included again later in the zoning update tentatively scheduled for May, 2025
The city is already moving forward to fund electrification efforts, which include eliminating all gas appliances. As recommended by Lakewood’s Sustainability Committee, funding incentives would be provided for residents to voluntarily change their appliances, after which, mandates would be needed for everyone else. When asked whether Council is advocating for electrification, then-Councilor Wendi Strom responded that Lakewood was just in the research phase.
According to the 2025 budget Q&A, Lakewood has moved beyond research without a Council policy vote and without further public discussion. Lakewood will be a part of five different programs to remove gas appliances in residential homes starting in 2025.
The theory is that since grants are “free money”, no one could object and furthermore, the city’s Sustainability Plan calls for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions 20% below 2007 levels by 2025 so no public discussion is needed. As Councilors LaBure and Nystrom point out, Lakewood is behind its goals. To assist in reaching those goals, all gas appliances will have to be replaced with arguably more expensive and less efficient electric appliances.
The goal does not address how to power the new electric infrastructure given the grid cannot handle the current load. It also does not address the legal problems caused by similar demands to the commercial property world. There is no word on how to reverse or stop Lakewood’s policy of encouraging high-density growth, which led to more people with more gas appliances over the past decade.
Funding programs according to budget Q&A:
Starting in 2025, Lakewood will use funds through DRCOG from the EPA Climate Pollution Reduction grant. Lakewood will “offer financial incentives for residential efficiency and electrification projects (heat pumps, electric cooktops, etc) and invests in more local workforce development. The program focuses on supporting low-income and disadvantaged communities and will reduce 149 million tons of carbon emissions by 2050. The funds have to be spent over the next 5 years.”
Xcel Energy’s Clean Heat Plan (still needs to be approved by the Public Utilities Commission) will direct $440 million to electrification and efficiency measures and reduce natural gas use. Designed to support hundreds of thousands of households starting in 2025.
Colorado Energy Office is expected to launch a $140 million Home Energy Rebate Program for low to moderate income households and building owners in early 2025 from the Department of Energy. This is part of the Inflation Reduction Act. The funds will be used for home electrification and appliance rebates and efficiency measures.
Colorado Energy Office received $20 million to support efficiency and electrification improvements for buildings larger than 50,000 SF. Expected in 2025.
Xcel also has a Transportation Electrification Plan and Demand-side Management plan that is expected to be adopted later this year and offer financial incentives starting in 2025. Total funding for that program is unknown at this time.
The Planning Commission presented evidence of health and environmental harm from fueling stations and car washes. No evidence from the other side was presented. With only one side represented, it is no surprise that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended to restrict gas stations in Lakewood, while at the same time increasing electric charging stations. Council comments generally reinforced that view and city staff will be drafting new ordinances to implement these recommendations.
The Planning Commission discussed the issue at three public meetings. In the presentation, this sounds like all sides were heard. However, inviting comment or being open to comment is not the same as researching or actually hearing the other side.
No industry representatives made comment or presentation and no information was brought forth to represent their side. Only one person made comment on LakewoodSpeaks to support the market economy. This led to a one-sided, forgone set of recommendations from the Planning Commission.
An example from the presentation of what the Planning Commission found to be a compelling argument:
“Within 10 years 80% of all fueling stations will be unprofitable (due to the switch to EV cars), leaving stranded assets that will need environmental remediation” – cited by Planning Commissioner Kip Kolkmeier
Does Lakewood have a profit standard for businesses to open? No.
Does Lakewood bear any responsibility for environmental costs if remediation is needed? No.
Is EV car use on track to eliminate gas cars? No, not without government force.
None of that was mentioned.
Planning Commission recommends eliminating gas stations in all mixed use zoning, which they claim are designed for pedestrian, cycling and mass transit use. This statement does not align with ordinance but is a move the city seems to encourage, whether explicitly stated or not. Most public policy discussions that encourage walkability do not explicitly say cars will be eliminated (*Originally worded to be sound harsher)
Purpose of Mixed-Use Zone: “Provide a well-designed site circulation system with a strongly defined pedestrian and vehicular network, good connections to adjacent land uses and efficient connections to transit stops.” Per Lakewood Zoning Ordinance, Article 7.
Planning Commission also recommends increasing electric charging stations, for which there is no business case for proven profitability or need. This argument also proves the misleading nature of “mixed use zoning is for pedestrian, cycles and mass transit.”
Lakewood may consider requiring charging stations as a prerequisite to approving future gas stations. This move will introduce additional market distortions with affects that were not studied at all. Gas stations already have the option to add any charging stations they feel have market demand.
Lakewood staff will be drafting new ordinances to implement these recommendations, while conducting further research.
Lakewood Following Denver
Once again, Lakewood is following in Denver’s footsteps. See some of the other side of the argument from Joshua Sharf, Complete Colorado:
“Never mind your guns, some Denver City Councilmembers are coming for your gas stations.
The Denver Post reports that, concerned by an alleged “sudden proliferation of gas stations,” Councilmembers Amanda Sawyer and Paul Kashmann, among others, have decided that gas stations – apparently uniquely among Denver’s many retail businesses – are taking too much space away from other priorities such as housing. In response to this deadly threat to housing density, they are close to proposing a zoning change precluding new gas stations from being built inside a quarter-mile buffer zone around existing stations.”
The City of Lakewood is looking for a consultant to write new zoning codes to:
densify existing neighborhoods,
improve equity, and
remove parking restrictions.
Current efforts to density have caused Lakewood to develop problems with traffic, stormwater drainage, parking and more. Existing developments have not been designed for high-density.
The city has not offered any solutions to these problems. In fact, parking is such a problem that Lakewood is studying requiring parking permits for residents – paid for by residents – rather than mandating increased parking in development plans. This proposal will intensify that problem and increase the amount of resident-funded parking permits throughout Lakewood.
Lakewood appears intent on exacerbating existing problems by allowing more densification to solve another problem… affordable housing.
It must be noted that parking, traffic and stormwater management are key functions of the city government, whereas housing is traditionally regarded as a market-based function.
There are two citizen-led initiatives in Lakewood news demonstrating that current densification is not in line with the city’s existing ordinance to maintain the existing characteristics of existing neighborhoods: a new development near Belmar Park and on Whippoorwill near Youngfield.
City ordinances are a series of laws that rule Lakewood’s development. However, Lakewood staff can interpret these rules through the lens of the city’s Comprehensive Plan.
The existing Comprehensive Plan states (pg 3-12):
“The City will continue to support the diverse image and character of the community by maintaining the existing characteristics of neighborhoods with existing single-family residential zoning; creating appropriate transitions betweencommercial, multi-family, and mixed-use development and single-family zoned areas; and encouraging contextually appropriate infill and redevelopment projects.”
For the last several years, Lakewood has de-emphasized the existing characteristics of neighborhoods and transition zones in favor of other factors, which has caused conflict with resident groups, such as those mentioned above.
Lakewood is currently developing a new Comprehensive Plan to show the direction of the city for the next fifteen years. The densification proposal coming out before the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is finalized shows that Lakewood anticipates knowing what the results will be, regardless of any input the community provides.
The proposal reads: “The Contractor will identify goals, recommendations, and implementation strategies, to ensure the new code is consistent with the 2040 [Comprehensive] Plan.“
Since this proposal calls strictly for plans to densify, it appears that the Comprehensive Plan may have to be adjusted to match densification, rather than vice versa.
The Planning Commission will serve as the community input for this project.
