The Lakewood Planning Commission was asked by City Council to investigate ways to expand use of Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) to increase affordable housing in Lakewood.  In a series of increasingly acrimonious meetings, the Commission developed a series of recommendations that have residents concerned the city would turn all R1 zones into R2 zones while having no impact on affordable housing. The main barrier to building ADUs are the high water and sewer tap fees, which the city has no control over. Rather than acknowledging the barrier is out of city control, some Commissioners pushed to “liberalize” the code while arguing with other Commissioners over the basics, such as what “primary residence” means.

The theory behind the original request was that people with large lots could easily add an ADU, such as a mother-in-law suite or garage apartment, to make easy affordable housing. As the Planning Commission quickly found out, ADUs are extremely uncommon. The reason for that is the cost of the water and sewer taps. These fees are set by the respective water and sanitation districts to cover the cost for infrastructure and cannot be changed by Lakewood.

After determining the cause of limited ADU development, the Planning Commission faced a decision:

• Accept the research that the City was not inhibiting ADUs, and therefore there was no significant action they could take, or;
• Ignore the research and  recommend changes to try and bypass the regulations set by water districts.

The Commission chose the later option, interpreting the assignment as a mandate for action no matter what the research revealed. Dialogue from the Commissioners revealed the reason for this stance.

Commissioner Kolkmeier stated: ““We have, without question, an affordability problem, and it’s not just Lakewood. What would be a change for ADUs that would be reasonable that would help the problem that is pretty well documented?”

In fact, Lakewood’s own housing study shows that Lakewood has excess housing for units over $800 a month. Lakewood is currently developing more housing so that within 10 years a glut of housing is expected. The affordability crisis is for extremely-low-income housing, which is a need that an ADU cannot fill.

Commissioner Animosity

As Commissioner Kentner pointed out, another problem with ADUs is that they do not increase the opportunity for home ownership, there are only opportunities for rental units.

Following Kentner advocating for home ownership opportunities, Commissioner Kip Kolkmeier chastised Commissioner Kentner for two minutes in the middle of the November 15 Planning Commission meeting and refused to immediately allow her to clarify her comments, which she says were misinterpreted.

Commissioner Kolkmeier said with some apparent animosity, “This notion that people are concerned about rentals… this is a real problem…. Merely because someone has different economics, it does not make them a bad neighbor. It does not make them someone that you do not want to have more of…. We have a clear majority in this city that understands that we should not choose between renters and owners.”

Kentner did not, in fact, say anything against renters, but rather advocated for ownership opportunities. She also spoke of listening to the people who came for public comment., including the Eiber neighborhood which put out a call to action regarding these changes.

When Kolkmeier did allow Kentner to speak and defend herself, he took the last word in the acrimonious exchange.

---

FACT CHECK: Commissioner Kentner made the claim that under the proposed rules, there could be two Short-Term Rentals (STRs) on a property. Commissioner Kolkmeier claimed that was inaccurate because one unit would have to be a primary residence. Kentner returned that primary residence did not mean owner occupied, therefore when the owner is not at the primary residence, there could be two STRs. Although Kolkmeier did not say Kentner was right, he did agree that removing the owner-occupied provision would be the result of the Planning Commission having the votes.

---

Public comment

Commissioner Kentner also stood up for the number of residents who provided public comment against the proposed zoning code changes during the November 5 meeting. Kenter pointed out that given the low attendance at these meetings, the number of comments received was surprising and should be listened to.

Residents pointed out that there was robust public comment on this issue during the 2012 zoning rewrite and that many of the regulations that the Planning Commission is trying to relax, were intended to keep the impact to neighbors to a minimum.

The proposed regulations regarding height, floor area, and ubiquitous zoning, when taken together, constitute nothing less than a second full-scale structure, which compromises the very purpose of an R-1 zone, effectively replacing it with R-2 zoning. As such, R-1 zoning will become RINO, and altogether irrelevant, which is a violation of the public trust.

Paul Ditson, Lakewoodspeaks.org

Public comment in favor of the changes advocated for any type of increased housing and typically did not address neighborhood suitability or specific changes. No research was presented that ADUs would fill a need that an apartment complex in an area zoned for multi-family would not.

Summary:

Kolkmeier summarized the issue by saying that Lakewood essentially outlaws ADUs and they are necessary for the affordability problem. However, he says, “It may be possible to dramatically liberalize the ability for ADUs… and yet there may not be any more ADUs” due to the cost of tap fees.

The vote passed, with all Commissioners present voting to pass the recommendations to City Council (Kentner and Peters absent).

Recommendations:

• Double the size of an ADU to 1400 sq feet
• Remove “owner-occupied” from ADUs, resulting in the possibility of two STRs operating on the property at least part of the year.
• Reduce parking limitations
• Waivers will now be granted (for setbacks, open space, or other rules governing development)

It remains to be seen if Council will be presented with information on how the true barrier is water tap fees and the proposed code changes are expected to be ineffective.

To find the answers, please go to https://thraemoor2.com/save-belmarpark/

Lakewood residents urged City Council to uphold City rules that developments must fit in with the existing neighborhood. Citing the City’s own Municipal Code, residents helped write a resolution that would enforce both Lakewood’s long-term planning and zoning and the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. The majority of City Council rejected the resolution, citing legal interpretations, while acknowledging the efforts of residents.

---

The meeting started in an unusual fashion, with public comment being moved until after a long budget session. The mayor warned repeatedly that he would enforce decorum and he had police officers standing by if residents continued clapping.

Claims that moving public comment is normal for budget meetings have been proved false (see 2022 and 2021). However, it is normal procedure to have comment close to the relevant agenda item, which in this case was after the budget. This simple move, set the stage for misunderstandings and hard feelings after residents had to wait hours to speak.

---

The issue involves developing private land adjacent to Belmar Park. Due to a zoning change in 2012, the land can be developed as a much higher-density multi-family development than the street was originally intended for.  In combination with Lakewood’s decreased parking requirement (1.5 parking spots per unit), residents expressed worries that this is a perfect storm of congestion (see Lakewood’s parking study where residents cite similar parking problems caused by inadequate parking near Abrusci’s, Manning’s and Colorado Christian University).

In response, Lakewood has said that the development plans are legal.

Although some residents continued to argue that legal doesn’t make it right, others turned to areas where use of City discretion was involved. For example, developers have had the option to pay a fee instead of dedicating land to parks. According to L.M.C. 14.16.010, fees are “…at the discretion of the Community Resources Director (Director).”

“If the Director determines that a land dedication in accordance with this chapter would not serve the public interest, the Director may require payment of a fee in lieu of the dedication”

L.M.C. 14.16.070

L.M.C. 14.16.050 shows that land adjacent to existing parks is eligible for park dedication.

According to Denver7, a Lakewood spokesperson has said that fee-in-lieu “is particularly allowed for developments that are less than 15 acres.” Lakewood codes have examples of land dedication for 10 acres. The option is particularly useful for smaller developments, if the Director found that a land dedication would not serve the public interest.

Legal counsel for the City advised that accepting a land dedication would require rewriting the ordinance. (Note: legal advice being offered during the meeting is also not typical.) No specifics as to what was against ordinance were offered. Legal counsel also advised that City Council could not direct the City Manager in any actions, which the resident resolution proposed. The City has previously published an article that only with a vote of the majority of Council can the City act on Council actions.

---

The mayor did not allow a vote on the motion. Several Council Members briefly rallied around a proclamation of support for the residents. However, the majority of Council did not support any discussion or action by Council in the future on this issue.

In the end, there was 1 hour and 40 minutes of public comment. There was 1 hour and 30 minutes of speeches by City Council explaining their positions on the resolution but no minds appeared to be changed.

---

Related lessons residents learned:

• Lakewood uses a minimum tree replacement method rather than more modern methods.  
• A migratory waterfowl specialist testified that Belmar Park has an higher variety of ducks than anywhere he’s seen.
• Lakewood does not have emergency traffic and/or evacuation planning requirements.
• Per Lakewood’s open-space requirements, no raw land is included or will be purchased for open space. However, sidewalks, the dumpster pick-up area, electrical transformer access areas and various internal areas of the building are being classified as open space as per page 27 of the site plan.
• The fee-in-lieu-of-land option is required to be reviewed by City Council no later than December 2023. It has not yet been scheduled.
• The fee option was started because City Council determined Lakewood already had enough parks.
• The Council Policies and Procedures override City Charter in the matter of making motions, so that a Council Member cannot make a motion without agreement of a majority of Council.

Discussing the recent budget proposal, Lakewood Police Chief Smith went through his policing philosophy to explain changes to the budget. The base of this philosophy was enacted by President Obama, called 21^st Century Policing. At its core, the policy is about building trust in police. Crime is addressed more indirectly, not as the crime itself (i.e. shoplifting) but by addressing the root cause of the crime (i.e. what made a person shoplift).

In Lakewood, there are more conversations about crime than trust in police. Evidence suggests these may be two different conversations. It is now eight years since the Obama-era policy was issued. This author could find zero studies to show crime reduction as a result of these policies. The National Policing Institute issued a 5-year report that showed limited success in select areas, not including crime. For example, police departments that started reporting data via an online dashboard showed some success in increased transparency. This type of dashboard is a national trend; see Tucson, Arizona for an example. Other cities showed increased trust, as defined by positive feeling for, or lack of being threatened by police, after a brief visit. There were not many departments still using the policing report guidelines after five years so the effects were not able to be studied further.

There was one notable outcome in Louisville, Kentucky, which implemented the strategy early and gained accolades from the White House. However, an incident in later years, caused the approval to be rescinded. Follow-up research found that it was not the fault of the White House policy, but rather it was the fault of the police department which did not implement the strategy correctly.

The Louisville study results concluded that the police could not be relied upon to correctly implement the required police reform.  The 5-year report also came to a similar conclusion, finding that improper implementation by the police was the fault, not the policy. 

Lakewood has not had a public conversation about what it will be doing differently than places like Louisville or Tucson that may result in success. How can Lakewood be the first police department to successfully implement these reforms to achieve trust and lower crime?

Under the new Lakewood guidelines, five police officer positions will be transitioned to civilian positions (ex. behavioral health staff). Filling five less police officer positions also decreases the time needed for recruiting, which is an ongoing challenge in today’s environment.

Another Lakewood goal is to have officers spend 33% of their time on proactive policing, i.e. knocking on doors in a friendly way, to increase resident trust. According to Police Chief Smith, these proactive measures will help stop crime before it starts. Following 21^st Century practices, the theory is that “crime reduction will happen through engagement.”

As to the problems already occurring, this approach may be less effective. In problem areas, the Chief suggests saturated, targeted patrols, with police presence acting as a deterrent. Lakewood residents have already noticed the decreased effectiveness of patrols, claiming the police pass by problem areas without stopping.

Police reform measures will be a new policy for Lakewood. Although policy in Lakewood is set by City Council, department heads are allowed broad leeway in operational strategies. By implementing the policy through the budget, a public discussion format was bypassed. A public discussion about police reform would have alerted many residents to the change. As it stands, Council Members will vote on the budget, rather than the important discussion of police policy. (Note: Read here to see how the majority of council turned down multiple requests for public safety discussions.)

---

Lakewood has the opportunity to learn from other cities which have had the same problem and have tried some of these policies. Even without an official study, there is plenty of evidence that this is a complicated subject. For example, in this video from Philadelphia, people discuss the effects these policies have had in other areas (select quotes below).

“People are shooting up on corners [the police] drive right by.” … “People are arrested for buying drugs, they just take you downtown and let you go. Talk to you about rehab and stuff and let you go.”

The next problem cities like Philadelphia and San Diego have is when public perception switches from the city being part of the solution to being part of the problem.

“[the city] enables it. They feed them, they clothe them. They aren’t hitting their rock bottom.”

Unfortunately, this circles right around to the building of trust that Chief Smith is trying to solve.  

---

Guest Post

As told by my friend Kwok ‘Ben’ Louie who now lives in New Mexico and spends time doing Habitat for Humanity builds.  As Ben notes, their backyard in Hong Kong was a botanic garden.  FYI – Back then, they still had biodiversity of wildlife and birds in parks.  Sounds like a tough life growing up by many Americans’ standards.  But obviously a good life.  Now read on –

---

To your question of have I ever been poor.
 
I grew up until the age of 11 or 12 in a one room apartment, my parents, 3 sisters and me.  My parents’ quarters consisted of a bed, two dressers at the corner of the room with a partition wall and a curtain that can be drawn to close off that area.  A square table sat in the middle of the floor which acted as a table for homework for the four of us and a dining table comes meal time. There was no flushing toilet, no heat, let alone air cond.  We had a radio but no TV, washer/dryer was unheard of. Cooking was done on 2 kerosene stoves in a shared kitchen away from the room.  
 
We walked to and from school, often in those incredible tropical downpours.  We so looked forward to our birthdays because on that day, the birthday boy or girl get to have corn flakes (such a novelty then) with real milk.  Because we didn’t have a refrigerator till later on, evaporated milk was the staple.
 
My parents had to struggle to put food on the table, but we had no idea then.  But incredibly, those were the happiest days of our childhood.  Those were the days when my sisters and I built this immense bond that will last and sustain us for the rest of our lives. There were no toys, we invented our own games which were so much more fun and enjoyable than kids have these days.  We lived about a 5 minutes’ walk to the botanical garden and that became our backyard.  Thinking back, we never envied the folks who had plenty. 
Having been poor gives one advantages, it provides a balanced perspective on life, gives you strength to draw on in hard times and an appreciation of what we have and how to use them.
 
My dad saved enough money for my first year of college.  I was dirt poor during my college years.  Worked one and a half full time jobs in summer and part time during school.  I’ve worked side by side with Mexicans picking cucumbers in the field under the blazing sun.  My date was a walk through the campus and then treated my date to a DingDong/Snowball (her choice of course) for a quarter in the Student Union.  I love my college days too.
 
Some of my highlights and I mean highlights to share with you.   

---

Cross post from Colorado Accountability Project

The Sun article below profiles people who are living in an RV because they can’t afford a home.**  As anyone who has read enough of the Sun could probably guess, the profile plays up the struggles of people who live in RV’s and, of course, details the horrible trials they go through.  If the topic is of interest, give it a read.

What I want to touch on with this post is the question of whether or not you’re owed a particular way of life in a particular place.  I would say you’re not, but the tone (and even words sometimes) of articles and people in this state make me wonder if perhaps others think you are.  

Think about all the articles like the ones below that deal in how this or that could solve the housing crisis while allowing people here to live their best lives.  Often, these solutions would also require some form of government intervention or help–either with money, relaxing rules, or suchlike. 

As I sometimes do, I take the questions I have, the things I wonder about, and flip them inside out or turn them around in my head to look from a new angle.  

Read more…

---

Reader Recommended Business: URILUXE Aesthetics

Guest Post from Steve Farthing

Belmar Park West is the 412-unit multifamily project at 777 S Yarrow Street in Lakewood, Colorado on the east property line of Belmar Park at the Irongate office complex. 

This post explains the significant loss of the tree canopy habitat at the Irongate multifamily property site next to Belmar Park.

As per page 7 of the developer’s site plan, 69 large trees requiring replacement will be removed.

It is not possible to replace such large trees with equally large trees.  So thousands of small trees should be planted instead.

Key points:

• Using 3-inch replacement trees, the current caliper inches tree replacement formula removes 84% of the existing tree canopy which is also a habitat zone! 

• At least 2,282 additional 3-inch trees plus the city’s recommended 433 3-inch trees are needed to scientifically replace the 69 large trees that will be removed at Irongate. 

• Lakewood’s zoning ordinance currently only provides 16% of the reasonably equivalent number of 3-inch tree replacements at the Irongate project.

• City Council can amend the zoning ordinance to protect all of Lakewood’s trees.

The vast majority of the existing tree canopy habitat zone at the Irongate west office complex will be lost using Lakewood’s current zoning regulations.

• Scientists have identified that habitat loss is the biggest overall driver of bird declines.
• From <https://abcbirds.org/3-billion-birds/>

• Half of the earth’s 10,000+ bird species are in decline and 1 in 8 faces extinction according to Wired.

• The US and Canada have lost almost 3 billion breeding adult birds since 1970 according to Cornell University.

What can Lakewood do?

Lakewood City Council can fix the inadequate tree replacement formula by changing one word at 17.6.5.9(A) of the zoning ordinance to replace the caliper equivalent method with the basal area method and defining the basal area calculation. 

The basal area calculation is a simple calculation based on the area of a circle (r² x π) that would be done for each tree that is removed.  The developer has already provided the tree Diameters at Breast Height (DBH) measurements needed.

Here is the Proposed Zoning Ordinance Change to 17.6.5.9(A):

• “Trees that are removed following the standards outlined in Section 17.6.5.8.C.4 shall be

replaced at a rate of 100 percent of the total caliper  basal area of trees removed from the site.  Basal area is defined as follows:

Basal Area is the tree radius squared times pi  or r² x π

Tree radius is tree diameter at breast height (DBH) divided by 2.  Pi=3.14

Basal Area Example:

Tree diameter = 12 inches ;  12/2=6 ;  6×6=36 ; 36×3.14=113.04 basal sq in”

The Tree Replacement Calculation Lakewood Uses Today:

The multifamily project will remove 69 large trees with a combined caliper of 1,299 inches.

To simplify, that is an average caliper of 18.8 caliper inches per tree.

‘Caliper’ is a forestry term for the diameter of a tree.  The project developer has already measured the diameter, or caliper, of each tree at breast height (DBH) and meticulously plotted the tree sizes and locations on their site engineering drawings.  Well done on the part of the developer.

Lakewood then sums the caliper inches of each tree to be removed to derive one number representing the total caliper inches of all condemned trees combined.  As long as the total caliper inches of the replacement trees equals the total caliper inches of the removed large trees, Lakewood is happy.

So what’s wrong with using caliper inches to determine tree replacements?

Let’s assume Lakewood runs a pizza parlor and you ordered an 8-inch pizza.  Lakewood could tell you they are out of 8-inch pizzas but can give you two 4-inch pizzas because the caliper of the two 4-inch pizzas is equal to 8 inches.  Is that a good deal?  No.  It is a huge rip off.

An 8-inch pizza has 50.24 square inches of pizza surface area. A 4-inch pizza only has 12.56 square inches.  Two of them only have 25.12 square inches.  So you would be getting half of an 8 inch pizza.  That is also the method Lakewood uses today to calculate the number of replacement trees.

Today, Lakewood ignores the cross-section area of the tree also called the basal area which is similar to the area of a circle or round pizza.

So, if a developer had cut down one 8-inch diameter tree, he would be allowed to plant two 4-inch caliper (diameter) replacement trees which would be half what is needed.

Here’s how Professor Kim Coder of the Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources at the University of Georgia and author of over 500 technical publications and articles and President of the International Society of Arboriculture explains it:

From <https://warnell.uga.edu/directory/people/dr-kim-d-coder>

“The immense scale of values, benefits, and functions from a large tree can require many trees in replacement to reach some semblance of equivalency and value return to the owner and/or society.

Do not accept “pennies for dollars lost” when big trees are removed. Maintaining tree asset values and their appreciation over time is key to great communities.

Another more ecologically accurate means of determining the number of replacement trees with a given size is based upon removal tree cross-sectional area (sometimes referred to as a “basal area”).  Each square inch of removed tree cross-sectional area is replaced by a square inch of a replacement tree cross-sectional area.

Because removed tree trunk size was proportional to its crown, and because a tree crown provides many values, crown replacement as estimated by basal area is appropriate to use in replacing tree values and functions lost.” 

-End quote

So, the average basal area of those 69 removed trees is 278 square inches per tree or a total area of 19,182 basal square inches. (1299 caliper inches/69 trees =18.83 avg diameter/2=9.41 radius x9.41×3.14= 278 sq in x 69 trees = 19,182 total basal sq inches)

In their letter of June 5, 2023, Lakewood Planning will allow either 650 2-inch trees or 433 3-inch trees to replace the 69 removed trees.  Either scenario equals the 1299 caliper inches of the trees being removed.

433 3-inch trees only provide 3,059 sq inches of basal area. (3/2=1.5;1.5×1.5=2.25×3.14=7.065×433=3,059) 

Basal Area of a 3-inch tree = 7.065 sq in

Using 3-inch trees leaves a deficiency of 16,123 sq in of basal area.  (19,182-3,059=16,123 )

At least 2,282 additional 3-inch trees are required to make up that basal area deficiency.

(16,123/7.065=2,282.0948 )

FYI – Basal Area Calculator: https://www.omnicalculator.com/biology/basal-area

What happens if we do nothing?

Planting thousands of small replacement trees seems like a big ask.  But protecting and preserving our environment is much easier to do now than fixing it later.  It may not be possible to fix later. 

Losing biodiversity is more expensive in the future than protecting it now.

The collective choices of city councils can make the difference.

Can we blame developers for habitat loss?

If developers are ethical and do everything that is asked of them by complying with all regulations, it is difficult to blame them.  Developers could be proactive and plant the additional trees as a gift to their kids and grandkids but that is not the norm.

It is up to policymakers to set the rules.

When all the birds are gone, developers will simply say they did everything they were required to do.

It is up to policymakers to set the rules.

---

Reader recommended business: The Wholeness Hut

Cross post from RooneyValleyNews

The Lakewood City Council voted 6 – 3 in favor of the new Developer Reimbursement Agreement.

Yet, the discussion between council members and staff told a story that would give reasonable residents pause to wonder “why”.

[Video inserts from meeting provided]

But the Adam Paul group insisted this was just between developers and there would be no cost whatsoever to the residents of the homes built in these developer “reimbursement areas”.

Read more…

Guest Post from a Resident to Save Belmar Park

There are two upcoming meetings that you are invited and encouraged to please attend. 

Meeting #1 – Community Organizing Meeting Hosted by Regina Hopkins and City Council Member Anita Springsteen –

Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 6:30 PM at Phillips United Methodist Church, 1450 S. Pierce St, Lakewood, CO 80232

Oct 17 Meeting Description: 

We are planning an in-person community planning meeting next Tues. Oct. 17 at 6:30pm at Phillips United Methodist Church at 1450 S Pierce St, Lakewood, CO 80232.  

Please join us and help us plan to introduce a motion to adopt the resolution at next City Council meeting on Oct. 23.

Bonus Action Item: We also need to lobby at least 3 more council members to vote yes on this motion for resolution, sponsored by Ward 3 City Council Member Anita Springsteen.  Let your city council rep know your support.

Please come and we’re excited to brainstorm and keep this momentum going, trying to stop or properly mitigate this development at 777 S Yarrow St from happening!

We CAN do amazing things when we come together for a common cause.

Meeting #2 – Lakewood City Council Regular Meeting

Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:00 pm Council Chambers & Zoom, 480 S Allison Parkway, 80226 View Map

City Council Meeting goal:

As many Save Belmar Park members as possible should attend in support of a resolution to be presented by Ward 3 City Council Representative Anita Springsteen for a vote of city council. 

Councilor Springsteen has submitted an agenda request for the meeting.  More Save Belmar Park members in attendance means more political pressure on city council members to do the right thing. 

The resolution directs that Lakewood City Council requires the proposed development at 777 S Yarrow St adjacent to Belmar Park to include the following mitigations:

1. Large trees cannot be removed.  The building and overall project design must work around the trees.
2. Instead of 542 parking spaces, 2 parking spaces per unit must be provided to reduce the amount of on-street parking and resulting congestion and emergency access restriction.
3. Open space as per the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance must be provided instead of paving over part of Belmar Park for a parking lot.

Council Member Mary Janssen is among city council members who have already expressed support to vote for our 777 S Yarrow St resolution.  Thank You Councilor Janssen!

Councilor Janssen also invites everyone to please support her proposal to reduce Lakewood’s property tax mill levy which will also be on the agenda at the same Oct 23^rd city council meeting.  Councilor Janssen invites everyone to please offer public comment in support of her property tax relief measure. 

---

Media Coverage

In case you have not seen the media coverage of our community action, here are some recent stories:

KMGH Channel 7:   https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/lakewood-residents-rally-against-apartment-project-proposed-near-belmar-park

KDVR Channel 31:  https://kdvr.com/news/local/save-belmar-park-lakewood-residents-protest-proposed-apartment-build/

Jeffco Transcript:  https://coloradocommunitymedia.com/2023/10/13/lakewood-residents-protest-belmar-park-development-council-to-discuss-further-oct-23/