• 1 59 acres on Denver Federal Center’s

    0.00 of 0 votes

    Background - 59 acres on Denver Federal Center’s NW corner were contaminated with toxins for 85 years (starting in World War II when it was a munitions factory). For nearly a century, it was a landfill for disposal of all sorts of toxins. Due to poor record-keeping, no one knows what was buried there.  About a decade ago, the government determined the site was contaminated and did a partial cleanup by removing the topsoil layer and replacing it with new clean soil to form a “cap” to seal in the toxins below.  The government claims it is safe so long as the “cap” isn’t penetrated. The new owner (a Texas developer) promises to be careful but best intentions aside, we can’t guarantee that constructing 2,000+ apartments (in buildings up to 180 feet high) will not disturb the contaminants. Although the developer promises to dig “safe” corridors for water, sewer, and utility pipelines, those trenches and high-rise foundations will penetrate the cap and disturb the wastes stored below.  The majority of GMWSD board directors are afraid there may be leaks during construction that might contaminate the groundwater. If the water table is compromised, toxins might leach into neighborhoods downhill from the DFC.  Other than the developer’s profit motive, there is no urgency to start digging. However there is reason to take the time necessary to do the right thing. If we rush ahead, there is a chance of making mistakes and endangering public safety.  Despite proponents’ claims that GMWSD is “required” to provide developers with any service they request, this proposal may create a new legal precedent with serious consequences. GMWSD has never had to provide service on land that is environmentally compromised and potentially dangerous.  The political establishment wants to help the developer by declaring the site “blighted” so it can qualify for tax incentives. To qualify for urban renewal benefits, the owner will claim the site is unsanitary/unsafe, conditions exist that endanger life, there is environmental contamination, and there are health, safety, or welfare factors that require high levels of municipal services.  The developer also wants to create a metro district, which would allow it to qualify for bond money to finance its project and the power to tax future residents.  While there are hired guns who claim it might be possible to mitigate the dangers, everyone acknowledges we don’t know what will be discovered once bulldozers start moving dirt. Due to all the unknowns, any development will be taking a chance, and GMWSD doesn’t want to enable a LOVE CANAL-type environmental disaster.  If it is adequately tested and figured out, then the project might take place. But if we are hasty and jump without looking, in the future GMWSD might end up in costly litigation when the courts try to figure out who all will be required to help pay for the damages.     One suggester noted there was a similar story on Next-door several years ago when the City was first considering buying the site:   Having been general counsel for multiple environmental remediation firms over the years, I resorted to obtaining and reviewing a copy of the Phase I environmental assessment for this property, a former munitions manufacturing site in WWII. As legal advisor to a firm integrally involved in the decommissioning of the Rocky Flats Superfund site, I appreciate the potential limits of such assessments and this one was no different. In spite of the City spending over $500,000 for this study, the firm characterizing the property was not able to provide City Council with any guarantee that there were not more, or unknown, contaminants:  “…the limited nature of [the firms] scope of work precluded the firm from providing any warranty or guarantee regarding the presence or absence of possible Hazardous Material that could potentially affect the Study Area…”  Sites such as Rocky Flats and the DFC, operated by the Federal government for many years under a cloak of secrecy, have a greater likelihood for historical record keeping that is problematic. Consequently, such facilities often have historical information gaps that make property assessment more difficult, and potentially less precise. This was certainly the case at Rocky Flats, where contaminants were randomly found in areas not previously thought to contain them, in spite of the exhaustive nature of the site characterization.   Although the Fed Center is certainly not another Rocky Flats, both were subject to conducting secret activities on behalf of the Defense Department in furtherance of crucial war/military efforts. However, it is pertinent to note the Federal government characterized as a "superfund site" certain portions of the Fed Center due to its prior munitions  manufacturing practices. The feds then remediated this small portion of the property which they characterized as fully remediated and capped. However, that particular portion of the property is de minimis as a percentage of the entire acreage of the property owned by the developer in this case. Above you can see the problems created for the initial Phase I environmental analysis due to the size  and previous use of this property.    As a long-time resident of Lakewood, a taxpayer and voter, it is my personal opinion that those parties whom we elect to function as our representatives  do not have a mandate from the voters to unilaterally undertake risky developments such as this one being proposed without first having engaged in exhaustive due diligence on behalf of their constituents and for the benefit of their administrative agencies. Based upon the foregoing, I urge the Green Mountain water board to NOT just "give the developer what it wants" with regard to this particular, and environmentally unique, property.    Exhaustive analysis AND proactive planning with regard to the nature and circumstance of any services in this regard should go a long way in mitigating the inherent risks associated with Fed Center development.

  •

    1 incomplete site plan for development of contaminated DFC site

    5.00 of 1 votes

    From the Lakewood Informer dated March 14, 2025 The Bend development incomplete site plan. What will Lincoln Property Company (LPC) do with the toxic landfill on The Bend development at 4th and Union? No one knows. One part of the property has development plans, including the area SOUTH of 4th Ave. This area is supposedly free of contamination and can be developed by following safety rules. The area NORTH of 4th Ave is where no development can occur because it wasn’t fully remediated, only covered with dirt. There has been no plan filed for this land so the site plan is incomplete. The city needs the plan for the entire parcel of land to design adequate resources and to reassure residents the area is safe. But if anyone knows the full site plans, Lakewood Informer can’t find them. Lakewood Informer filed an open records request for the site plan. Instead of supplying the document, the city said to get it online. To be fair, knowing where to find the documents yourself is a valuable tool for any government website, which always seems convoluted. The Urban Renewal application materials were posted for the meeting back in January. However, there was no site plan included.  (Thank you to the city staff who handle requests) Going to the eTRAKiT development site revealed no permits or projects for that parcel ID. There is obviously a site plan, pre-development application, development application, or whatever is applicable according to Lakewood property development steps. Lakewood and LPC have been working on this site for years. And perhaps there is a good reason why I can’t get the material myself online. But regardless, I do not have that information to share. Public statements from LPC confirm that they will decide what to do with that land later. They have acknowledged that there is no plan for land right now, even as a concept. How can the city approve a site plan that doesn’t include the entire site? How can the city let homes be developed across the street, literally, from an acknowledged environmental hazard site, without getting some kind of plan for that land? Aside from the safety factor to the people living there, the city needs a full site plan to develop adequate infrastructure. This site is anticipated to include almost 2,000 homes, which will impact traffic, water, fire and police resources. Are the resources currently being planned enough for the entire parcel? Or only half? Why not disclose the plans for the entire site?

  •

    0 Proposed state law is deceptive attempt to control water district tap fees

    5.00 of 1 votes

    HB25-1211: Deception to Legislate Litigation WRITTEN BY LAKEWOOD NEWS FROM KAREN ON MARCH 17, 2025. HB25-1211 is a deceptive bill concerning local government’s ability to set fees and it is passing the Colorado House on a party line vote. The most likely outcome of HB25-1211 is a profusion of concrete jungle developments with increased water usage and decreased ability for water districts to pay for costly infrastructure. But what IS NOT written in this bill is even worse because the bill contradicts existing law that is currently in litigation. HB25-1211 is using legislation to go beyond 100 years of case law to side AGAINST local governments in pending and future litigation. At first read, the bill’s title and language read as if the main point is to conserve water by tying lower infrastructure fees to conservation measures. This is deceptive and misleading. Infrastructure has certain fixed costs no matter how much you use it. To make this relatable, think about the appliances in your homes as your water infrastructure. It doesn’t matter if you promise to only use the dishwasher once a week or flush the toilet once a day. You still have to buy the whole appliance to make it work. You can’t buy half the appliance because you promise not to use it often. But that’s exactly the argument HB25-1211 makes. It asks water districts to let people pay less for their infrastructure because they promise to use it less. No matter how you count it, 100 high-density apartments will use A LOT more water than a couple houses, even with yards. No water conservation is happening, none, only water and cost shifting. However, the false talking point about water conservation is just a smokescreen for a larger agenda. The proposed bill stipulates that water districts have “a duty to serve”. The bare bones “duty to serve” provision, HB25-1211 contradicts the district’s ability to make decisions for the good of the whole district based on the current provisions like feasibility (see below). “In addition, if the board finds it infeasible, impracticable, or undesirable for the good of the entire district to extend water or sewer lines and facilities to any part of such district, the board may designate by resolution such area not to be served with water or sanitation service, but such area designated not to be served shall be at least ten acres in extent.” C.R.S. 32-1-1006 (1)(b) Bill sponsors like Representative Rebekah Stewart refused to make the bill conform with current law by accepting amendments to read “a duty to serve INSIDE YOUR DISTRICT”. Without those important distinguished words, “INSIDE YOUR DISTRICT”, special districts could be forced to serve people and developments outside their boundaries, which is not currently true. As a former member of Lakewood City Council, Rep. Stewart has been sponsoring this bill because of one case in Lakewood that she disagrees with. By attempting to change state law on these litigation matters, Rep. Stewart appears to be making a tacit admission that the case she’s familiar with was legally upholding service plan boundaries. This “duty to serve” provision has got districts so upset that one anonymous district said they can’t fight it because even talking through the possibilities may inspire new ideas to compel service that could bankrupt their district. So far, HB25-1211 is mostly a party-line issue.  Exceptions like Rep. Tammy Story (D) offered amendments to strip the duty to serve provision. Most Democrats, the party for the environment and sustainability, are supporting this bill that will turn suburban oases into concrete jungles. They have not realized that this bill encourages taking water out of the environment and putting it into high-density apartment infrastructure which will increase the heat profile and decrease the tree canopy. The bill sponsors have also sold this false argument to conservation groups like Conservation Colorado and Western Resource Advocates. It’s unclear whether these groups and other legislators realize that water pricing generally increases with volume used, which is where the real conservation comes from. There are other problems with the bill. Such as the focus on small government special districts instead of the largest water providers which are municipalities, private and public companies. It gives special privileges to developer metro districts. And it shifts costs from one user to another rather than promoting equality. The sponsors only have a few local examples that they based the bill on and all of them are based on significant false facts. From beginning to end, this bill is deceptive and disruptive to the ability of water districts to provide the infrastructure people need in their daily lives.  Disclosure: The author is a Director of the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District and while the district officially opposes HB25-1211, all opinions expressed are my own.