Guest post from Joan from Lakewood

So the progressive Leadership of Lakewood maintained its position after the November 7 election. Congratulations Mayor Strom. But there is a crack in the smooth surface in Lakewood. An unknown politically naive man with no name recognition or political history came in second with 30 percent of the vote. This was dismissed by the winning party as an awful MAGA uprise and not to be considered. But I contend it is the symptom of the growing anger of the citizens of Lakewood over policies that have ignored public input (see the Save Belmar Park people)

But consider this, Arvada has recently rejected the monies from the county to open a negotiation center in the city. And is not developing policies and programs that will attract the unhoused into their community. Meanwhile Lakewood takes 7 million of Jefferson County funds (funds from the Federal Infrastructure Act) to open a recovery/navigation center

And makes itself more welcoming to unhoused individuals by opening and celebrating new programs. 

Editor’s note: It is unconfirmed if County/Federal money will be filtered through Lakewood or go directly to RecoveryWorks.

On November 29, there was a church/community meeting to roll out a “Safe to Park” program in the parking lot of Phillips United Methodist church at 1450 S Pierce St, This program will allow people living in their cars to have permission to park in 4 spaces on the church parking lot.  This program is designed to work with the services of Lakewood and there is an MOU that was referred to by the church leadership.(This is similar to a program operated by Lakewood United Methodist Church) My main concern was the cars (no RVs or trailers) are required to spend 4 nights a week in their parking spaces. But must leave between 8am to 6pm and there is no access to running water. Where will they go during the day? And When I asked where would these people would shower, the church leadership stated they are working out an arrangement with the Lakewood Link Recreation center. 

This policy was developed by a church homeless committee that passed its approval by a 4 to 3 vote. It is being put in place without a congregational vote. The reasoning is that the homeless are already here so we must do something. 

I think the most profound statement during this meeting was from a young father with two young children that stated that he was worried that this would lure more people to come into the neighborhood and park and sleep in their cars on public streets around Lasley Park. 

The next night, November 30, I attended an open house of the navigation center, located at 8000 West Colfax Avenue (Allison St and Colfax). This building is being developed in partnership with Recovery Works (a rent to own program) and will house 100 beds for those in need of housing. There were several government officials there and it was a general celebration of the opening of this the First Navigation Center in Lakewood. The mission would be supported by government services. There would be the DMV coming in once a month to help people get driver’s licenses. And medical services.  As well as job counseling.

But I came to realize that this was more than a celebration. It actually was a fundraiser for Recovery Works. There was a long speech of how great this is but it is going to take money.  Lots of money. And because the legislature in 2022 passed a bill (that allows 25 percent of private donations to homeless non profits to be used for a tax credit and one could donate up to $100,000 which would create a tax credit of $25,000 which could be used over a 5 year period. 

This explained the crowd of lawyers and retired members of the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. And the trays of Sushi. 

And when asked to vote on the new name for the Center with the West Colfax Community Navigation Center being one of the suggestions. I wrote on a sticky “The Lakewood Lure”

By Barbara Millman

During two upcoming Lakewood City Council meetings Save Belmar Park supporters will continue to testify against multibillion dollar developer Kairoi Residential that has planned and pushed through with the full cooperation of the City of Lakewood a gigantic 412 unit, 5 story luxury apartment building sharing the eastern boundary of the city’s treasured  Belmar Park.

Gigantic: It has a footprint of two football fields, is 5 stories high, most with 83 apartments on each floor.

Secretive: The Lakewood City Council only notified a small neighborhood HOA, Belmar Commons, about the planned development a year ago.

The two month pause declared by Karoi to meet with the community concludes December 20. Kairoi has not responded to SBP’s inquiry about a meeting date.  Bits and pieces have come through to SBP only after Kairoi talked to City officials.  

Smoke and mirrors?

The latest “bit” is that Kairoi, in collaboration with the City, last week defined the terms of the community meeting they had pledged to hold.  They will limit attendance to a very few residents of Belmar Commons where the primary, legitimate concern is safety on S. Yarrow Street.  This will not reflect the many different reasons for concern expressed by park users SBP has talked to regarding the mammoth Kairoi building.

Kairoi has hired attorney Carolynne White of the prestigious and powerful Brownstein firm to represent them.  Records show she contributed to the campaign of outgoing Lakewood mayor Adam Paul.   The Brownstein firm has been hired by Lakewood on numerous occasions. 
SBP has used the expertise of its core group to double down on Kairoi, which is a multibillion dollar company based in San Antonio with offices in Denver and elsewhere in the U.S.  The grassroots group includes a therapist, lawyer, teacher, city planner, sociologist, media relations specialist, wildlife conservationist and former geologist for Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

Belmar Park is unique.  An unofficial bird and wildlife sanctuary, it is home to 200 plus species of birds as well as turtles, beaver, fish, foxes, and more.  It has miles of walking and bicycle trails and open range horseback riding.  Many hundreds of park goers have expressed concern over the impact of the building on the park’s environment, including the removal of 69 mature trees, which will further contribute to climate change and also the destruction of already diminishing habitat for birds at a time when a third of the bird population has already been lost.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service notes, “The best way to avoid habitat impacts is to avoid placing development and energy projects in or near important bird habitat.”

To stay informed or become involved, write [email protected].

To donate for legal and associated fees to help protect the park, go to:  

https://www.gofundme.com/f/save-belmar-park/donate

---

The following is a transcription of public comment from the November 27 City Council meeting. It provides an update on a case the city fully expected to lose. The City, and the people, won first in trial court, and now again in the Court of Appeals. Congratulations and thank you!

By Lenore Herskovitz

---

I don’t know how many of you presently sitting on City Council are aware of a lawsuit filed in 2021 by Colorado Christian University against the City of Lakewood regarding an ordinance pertaining to Student Living Units. Two years ago some of the new Council members expressed an interest in learning about this but never followed up.

I am bringing this up because last Wednesday the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled on this lawsuit.

They affirmed the District Court decision in favor of the City (and the Intervenors who stood up for their neighborhood) and permits the City to prohibit certain uses (in this case Student Living Units) in their zoning.

CCU was claiming discrimination and violation of their constitutional rights. Both the District and Appellate Court disagreed. The timing of this ruling is serendipitous occurring the day before Thanksgiving. Also tonight marks Councilors LaBure’s return to the dais. He was a sitting Councilor in April, 2021 and voted with the majority of the Council to reinstate with modifications the Student Living Unit definition that had been removed without notification from the 2012 revised Lakewood Municipal Code.

Although this was an issue that directly affected the neighborhood surrounding CCU, it should be of interest to everyone because of the way the City handled it. This is part of a pattern of procedures and behaviors that tend to favor big money interests over those of city residents. CCU has been attempting to use properties in low density neighborhoods for student housing for two decades. In 2003 concerned citizens convinced their representatives to pass legislation which prohibited university uses such as student living units in R-1, R-2 zones. However, in 2012, the LMC was revised without redlining changes, so it was not noted till years later that the Student Living Unit definition had been removed.

Before this rewrite began various straw buyers and later the University itself started buying up all the duplexes on Cedar and the west side of S. Cody Ct. The neighborhood was unaware of this until it was too late to prevent the school from applying for and receiving a zoning change which allowed them to incorporate these homes into the CCU campus. The neighborhood’s goal was to block further university incursions but the school continued to buy up homes on the east side of S. Cody Ct. At present, they own all but one duplex on the street. Although the ordinance prohibiting university use was in existence before CCU began their takeover of S. Cody Ct. in 2017 school representatives decided to remove their regular tenants and replace them with their students.

This set off a fire storm among residents. Community members frequently appeared before Council to voice their concerns. For two years quarterly forums were held with CCU , residents and city representatives in an attempt to resolve the problems of traffic congestion, safety, parking, encroachment, etc.

Not once did the University give us an answer about their future plans for our neighborhood.

After the reinstatement of the Student Living Unit definition in April 2021, CCU decided to test the ordinance by placing six students in the duplex next-door to me. This house had been sitting vacant for two years and had never housed students since CCU took ownership of the property. Because too many unrelated people were living in this duplex,

I spent one month attempting to work with the University to resolve the issue without filing a formal complaint with the city.

School representatives felt they weren’t doing anything wrong, so they never adhered to the code. I then filed a complaint with Code Enforcement who referred me to the City’s Planning Director Travis Parker. That was an odd turn of events. This led to a conference call between myself, Mr. Parker and Robert Baker (then president of the MidLakewood Civic Association). Through the conversation, we learned that CCU had filed a lawsuit in response to the City’s cease and desist order.

We were told that the city staff had decided to allow CCU to continue housing students in the disputed duplexes until a court ruling was reached. Basically, the city was ignoring their own ordinance and acting as if CCU had already won the case.

Early on the city decided there would be no mention of the lawsuit, even when inquiries were made during public comment. Former Councilor Able had difficulty getting information from the city attorney about the status of filings. As a result of this stonewalling, Mr. Baker and myself did some independent research. Through a free consultation with a lawyer, we were able to obtain several of the initial pleadings. This included a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order filed by CCU to allow students to remain in the disputed properties. This was unopposed by the city.

This motion contained misrepresentation of facts to support their request, yet it was unchallenged by the City’s legal team. The dilemma was how to get the Judge to know the truth.

A friend remembered a case in which the neighborhood filed a Motion to Intervene. The rest is history.

Two ordinary citizens, without legal representation, filed Motions to Intervene.

We were granted intervenor status and moving forward we had to be notified about every pleading and every hearing. We were now parties to the lawsuit and were no longer kept in the dark.

It is fitting that I share this story with a room full of concerned citizens who are facing their own challenges with this city. Although as intervenors we were on the same side as the City, we entered the case because we feared the Lakewood legal representatives were doing an inadequate job of defending our neighborhood. We were facing a powerful and wealthy university who was used to getting what they wanted, often with the help of the City.

For 10 years our city staff and attorneys told us that our ordinance was unconstitutional and would not stand up to a legal challenge.

You were told at the last council meeting that former Councilor Springsteen’s resolution was illegal. That wasn’t true but it provided justification for Council’s position that there was nothing they could do.

To appease the Belmar advocates, the developer agreed to an in person meeting with community members and a two month pause. Well, six weeks will have expired before the unrequested meeting takes place. I wonder how much will be accomplished with a gathering of a select few community members, the developer and perhaps city staff and Councilors. What is the expected outcome? According to Matt Post, the city planner for this project, this meeting will not be recorded although notes will be taken. Who will be assigned this task and what biases will come into play when deciding what is significant?

Communication between our representatives, the staff and residents is insufficient. The constituents are denied accountability for the decisions made by department heads, including Kit Newland, Director of Community Resources and Travis Parker, Planning Director. For example, who decided it was in the public’s best interest to accept a fee in lieu instead of designated open space? Why were no explanations offered? There is no operational system of checks and balances, no oversight, no transparency.

The council sits back acting helpless. Why don’t you represent the people instead of regurgitating staff’s messaging. Please explain why staff consistently ignores the standards they create in their own comprehensive plan and you as council members don’t question it?

I have such great respect for the people who attend these council meetings -who educate themselves and speak passionately about their concerns. Often they are categorized as the “loud” people or sometimes “disruptors”, but they care enough to show up in spite of the frustrations that await them in these Chambers. They persevere.

I leave you with a Margaret Meade quote that some may already know:

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Margaret Meade

---

Read below for the full Opinion for the Court of Appeals

Crime prevention is a leading concern in Lakewood and yet there was at least triple the amount of public discussion over bike and pedestrian infrastructure than there was over crime. Why? As resident-generated news, the Lakewood Informer tries to find out, starting with an examination of the new police philosophy that residents heard about for the first time in a budgeting meeting.

Do you trust in the police? Is lack of trust the root of all crime? Can we have effective crime prevention by increased trust initiatives? Who do you need trust? to do what? when? Who do police need to trust? It turns out, all those questions are on the table once residents start thinking about it so we should start thinking about what we, as a community, want to see.

Guest panelists: Zane Gordon, Anita Springsteen, Alex Plotkin

Discussion Topics:

– Is there a link between trust and crime?

– Does the City council reject what citizens think? (approx minute 6)

– Does improving trust address the root problem?

– Is lack of transparency the root problem? (approx minute 4)

– Should police handle mental health and/or drug related issues?

– Should the handling of mental health/drug related issues be integrated into police work?

– Or should mental health/drug issues be handled by a separate professional?

– Is transparency an important part of trust?

– Does transparency build trust?

– Is there a leadership deficiency at City Council? (which is causing police related issues)

– Council vs Police? Is there or should there be a “co-operative” connection; or should the Police be totally independent from the City Council? (like City of Morrison’s ex=-police chief.)

– Are Lakewood police ignoring Victim Rights in favor of perpetrator/offender’s rights?

– Conclusion: there is no correlation between trust and reduced crime.

---

Highlighted Quotes:

(Links included to hear that part of the conversation)

Plotkin: I am worried that people are looking at the pretties and not looking at the core issues like what is causing the lack of trust and what is causing the increase in crime.

Springsteen: At its core its a good idea to have more interaction between police and citizens. What I have seen in four years on Council is that there’s a complete rejection of interaction with the public.

Gordon: I like the idea of community engagement… but these are one on one relationships that take a long time to build… how to systemize this.

Springsteen: A lot of people don’t feel safe with the crime itself, and a lot of people don’t feel safe with the police themselves. … I feel like mental health has not been addressed … I’ve been pushing the STAR program.

Plotkin: Should the police be handling the mental health situations … maybe there should be separate departments but closely coordinated.

Springsteen: Having witnessed the police in action, if the Police Chief would have been willing to talk to me about my experience, I think I could have shed light a lot of light on what’s going wrong. Springsteen shares personal experiences with police.

Gordon: You have broken trust as the victim, as opposed to someone worried about excess force being used… it’s important to recognize there are two different conversations. Gordon shares personal experiences with police. Closure is what’s needed.

Springsteen: The City and County have a failure to follow-up with victims and don’t inform them. Springsteen shares her personal experience with use of excessive force.

Plotkin: The theme seems to be that we need a team of people to respond. A culture needs to be addressed, how are we going to present ourselves to the public …. and actually have public input not just a dashboard.

Springsteen: The frustrating thing with being on Council was trying to have this public conversation and being met with a brick wall. The Council itself was not willing to talk.

Gordon: The jury is out on using social workers in these situations. It’s been tried since the 1920’s. There’s the STAR program and CAHOOTS. These programs work and lots of examples of where it’s crashed and burned, so it’s a fragile system.

Plotkin: When the city sees that you will not be placated, you become persona non grata. There is no good input process to truly talk to the community. You will not just have trust automatically.

Springsteen: Transparency is such an important part of trust. The City seems to hide things, even if they don’t have to. How do we get to the root of the problem when we can’t have the conversation?

Gordon: Sounds like there is a leadership deficiency at the city level, percolating down to multiple departments, not just police. Sounds like there is no foundation to build trust with the police.

Plotkin: That’s what I meant by culture. You have to foster a culture where people feel empowered to ask questions and get answers.

Gordon: There’s a difference between leadership and a boss. What is the stoppage that the powers to be are not allowing true leaderhip to take root. Trust in police and justice served cannot happen without solid foundation.

Springsteen: I like to hear that [the police chief] wants to try something new. But I question what kind of pushback he will get from the force and up the ranks. We’ve had stagnant city leadership for 13 years.

Plotkin: Morrison Chief Mumma showed true leadership by addressing resident concerns, which didn’t always align with what Council wanted.

Springsteen: We are facing some challenges that we haven’t had in the past. Homeless are spending the night in the park now. Car windows are broken out. People can’t ride bikes in the park because of the homeless. These are hard to address.

Gordon: We never really discusssed trust reducing crime. No one really thought there was a correlation.

---

Everyone had a different definition of trust or different issue to address. This will be a continuing conversation.

The following is a brief synopsis of some projects highlighted in Lakewood, Colorado’s 2024 budget discussions, including some apparent policies and assumptions residents may not know about.

Mill levy:

Council Member Janssen motioned for a reduction in the mill levy, a unique local government solution which would counteract some of the increase in Jefferson County property valuations. The Council majority agreed with city plans for the “windfall” of increased funds and argued that an individual resident’s return was not worth enough to consider. A counter-proposal for lesser reduction eventually passed that proponents lauded as revenue neutral. However, the revenue analysis was new information for Council and residents presented at the meeting. The result was misunderstandings in what revenue neutral meant; in this case, it meant budget neutral, or enough revenue to cover increased spending. Revenue still increased over the limit set in charter (see section 12.12).

There was also some debate regarding the accuracy of the projected revenues. Lakewood’s budget reflected an 11% increase in property valuations, although the actual increase was anticipated to be about double that. The city did not adjust that number so the revenue to the city may be greater than the budget reflected at the time of budget and mil levy certification.

The Finance Department reported that Lakewood is no longer following City Charter but rather they are following TABOR in relation to revenue caps. If true, this presents an opportunity for Lakewood to clean up existing conflicts.

RTD Bridge:

Council Member Olver highlighted an $800,000 line item to repair the lights for the RTD signature bridge crossing over 6^th Avenue. The lights were originally an RTD responsibility. The majority of Council argued that people enjoyed the lights and that as the signature bridge, the City should complete RTD’s project. The financial officer said that keeping the budget line item could act as a placeholder if city staff were to delay the project or bring it back to the Council for approval. No motion was made to bring it to a later meeting for discussion, however the item did stay in the budget. (Note: another bridge, with similar budget and also in ward 4, will not be repaired for park users, despite 290 people signing a petition.)

Separated Bike Lanes:

$900,000 is budgeted for separated bike lanes. City Council has not discussed or approved this specific initiative before. Previous efforts to engage Council were ignored. During the budget meeting, the Council majority made references to approving what staff was planning, even without bringing it to public attention. Although there were arguments for/against the perceived benefits of the lanes, overall the argument was whether it was worth separated bikes lanes that don’t form a continuous path. Alternatives include focusing on connectivity, an alternative that city staff did not agree with. Separated bike lanes are not specifically mentioned in the 2018 Master Plan, however connectivity is. No discussion occurred about separate funding for this transportation system that is used by <1% of people as a daily mode of transportation. The 2018 Master Plan connectivity priorities appear abandoned and no updates are available on the status of the plan’s goals.

Dry Gulch:

Dry Gulch Improvements are a new project to address development that predates Lakewood. As the Public Works Director reports, the vast majority of $25 million will go towards this is ambitious project that is akin to the Army Corps of Engineers holding back the Mississippi. Dry Gulch was built on land that was already cleared and easy to develop because it was along the level land of the floodplain. Just like building on the Mississippi, or neighborhoods that were built on landslides, in the past those kinds of hazardous decisions were left to individual risk and responsibility. However, enough time has passed that owners have forgotten the decision to build in a natural hazard zone and they focus instead on the ability of government to raise money.

No economic business case was presented as to what returns the city anticipates as a result to these improvements, but there are some obvious reasons for the project, such as flooding “harms the local economy.” Like the separated bike lanes, this project is being treated more as a right than a business plan by the city, i.e. a giveaway rather than an investment.  

This analysis is particularly important in light of the City Councilor arguments that a mil levy decrease is not “equitable” because only the people who have to pay property tax would benefit from a decrease. Many of the projects the City is involved with are not equitable, meaning that the certain segments of Lakewood will enjoy more benefits than others.

Sidewalks:

$5 million is budgeted for sidewalk improvements or creation. Some neighborhoods in Lakewood were developed with sidewalks in place. The cost of those sidewalks were included in the price of the home. Other neighborhoods were not developed with sidewalks, often at lesser cost to the home price. Today, residents only see the disparity that some neighborhoods have sidewalks while others don’t. Lakewood has adopted a city initiative to increase the number and connectivity of Lakewood, essentially having one neighborhood subsize another neighborhood’s sidewalks, while hopefully increasing the value of the neighborhood and city. (Note: see developer reimbursement agreements for more recent discussions on initial infrastructure costs). New sidewalk creation will triple over the next two years, at a two-year cost of $7 million from Capital Improvement Funds and an addition $2.8 million from TABOR funds.

Sustainability:

The biggest news for sustainability was $660,00 for charging stations to accommodate Lakewood’s change to an electric vehicle fleet. The number of charging stations will continue to increase and be available to the public. Lakewood is pursuing an aggressive sustainability agenda with individual projects being adopted through staff initiative rather than Council vote.

The Planning Department will also be adding two sustainability staff members and a Homeless Services Coordinator.

Parks:

Park spending came with an emphasis on how TABOR funds will be used to expand parks.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Without details, the Director gave notice that Parks will also start looking at condensing or efficiency operations that may include closing open space/parks/pools, public safety and recreation centers. (see September 18 meeting, 1hr 19 min). This will be an item for residents to watch closely. Closing centers has not been part of the public discussion yet, so it is not clear if this is a necessary item or will possibly be a future TABOR discussion.

An interesting sidenote: during the Belmar Park development discussions, residents found out that previous City Councils determined that Lakewood had enough parks and therefore provided options for developers to pay a fee instead of dedicating park land. TABOR funds were used to purchase 128.8 acres of new parkland, showing an average of $61,731/acre were spent. That price is about half of what Lakewood was charging developers in lieu of dedicating land. The parks process shows an opportunity for City Council to clean up conflicting ordinances; if Lakewood doesn’t need new parks, as per ordinance, then new purchases could be allowed only with increased justification.

Homeless:

Lakewood will develop a permanent extreme weather shelter. Definitions for “extreme” are already being blurred, with Council Member Franks asking about using for more days. This entire item is controversial, not only because of the undiscussed notion of enabling or protecting people, but because Lakewood will be converting existing buildings for use as a shelter, none of which were intended for this use. City Council had to approve a special suspension of the building codes they just passed or else the shelter would not be possible. This project highlights the expense of the new building codes and shows they aren’t really necessary.

Lakewood will also be the recipient of funds that will go to RecoveryWorks for them to build a new navigation center in Lakewood that has permanent and temporary resources for the homeless. Residents can get an idea of what sort of policies that project will entail by looking at current support policies. Lakewood has not had the public discussion of whether to offer supportive services more like Colorado Springs or more like Denver.

The City has budgeted $100,000 for encampment cleanup.

Maintenance Campus:

A new maintenance campus will cost $7 million over the next two years. This project will require land acquisition.

Discretionary Spending

Governments spend money on things their residents need or have a right to. For example, an administration building. Residents may argue on how fancy the building is, but no one argues that a building is necessary.

In contrast, many of the project detailed above are discretionary. For example, Lakewood already has the parks, but now is spending on improvements. Department heads highlighted the projects accomplished with TABOR funds. Lakewood does not break out discretionary spending per se, but this could be a useful distinction in future.

New projects were chosen based on city staff’s best guess as to what residents would like to see. All projects could be valuable additions to the city if they were accomplished as part of a long-term strategy. For example, does Lakewood plan on connecting to the surrounding areas with bike lanes in order to attract the bike community to live and work here? Or is the city trying to have a few picture-worthy lanes to virtue signal (which may attract the same people without increasing usability).

The Budget and Audit Board, made of three Council Members and three Lakewood residents. The meetings are not video-recorded and the sound in the room has not been updated. Unlike other meetings, residents have to CORA these audio-recordings.

---

Reader Recommended Business: Cafe Ole

My eyes have been opened to how many times city officials said there was robust public engagement to justify projects and spending. As someone who has organized public input, and just this week saw a massive outpouring of public engagement on the Belmar Park development, I wondered how the city defined ‘robust engagement’.

It turns out, resident engagement numbers are not much different from City engagement numbers.

Why this should matter to you?  Because resident-backed projects are not considered for approval even when they clearly have support.

Let’s look at the example of Wright Street Park, which was lauded for its public engagement. According to the city, “Outreach for these meetings included a postcard to any resident residing within 1,000 feet of the park and door to door engagement with the nearby apartment complex managers. We [Lakewood] also share all of our projects on Lakewood city channels including the Friday Report, Lakewood 8, social media, our e-newsletters and Nextdoor.”

The survey for Wright St included about 210 respondents. There is no record of how many came to an in-person meeting but about 50 watched the video and 23 submitted ideas so 200 is a good estimate.

Lakewood residents have whipped up the support of 100s of people, even without money to spend or dedicated staff. However, they don’t get the same results. Why does Lakewood’s engagement process take priority and resident engagement doesn’t?

How many times have residents heard, “We [the city] hear you but we also have to listen to other residents who are not here.”

Well, now you know that when the city wants to hear the answer, 200 people is enough.

Residents that have organized hundreds of people have already had their eyes opened. Without the benefit of paid staff and resources that the city has, they’ve reached the same levels of engagement the city applauds. Why then are residents so frequently dissatisfied?

However, thinking it through, even the engagement for Wright St didn’t matter. The city didn’t listen to people, it USED them. The city:

• DID NOT ASK “would residents rather have Wright Street Park developed or other projects residents have been asking for that the city neglected?”
• DID NOT ADD “We are using resident TABOR funds for this project because the city achieved other goals… would residents like the money back now or should the city keep spending?”  
• DID NOT EVEN ASK “This park has been enjoyed as is for decades so should it stay that way or should the city commit to increased future maintenance costs?”

By responding to such a survey, residents have already agreed to the underlying premise that the city is right to develop this project and that’s all they really wanted – approval of the idea. That approval was then quoted at a budget meeting as if residents had been asked for fund approval or project approval. They were not.

Does the city even recognize that their “engagement” is often lobbying in disguise? They think, “Yay! How can we spend your money here?” while residents over there are begging for restoration of services and being absolutely ignored. But by going through this engagement process, every department head can come to a budget meeting and show the shiny new project they spent TABOR funds on, a silent request for more, leaving unsaid all the old projects they ignored.

So, in a way, the numbers never matter because the city will not ask unbiased and non-leading questions.  

When the City cites ‘robust engagement’ to have their projects approved, were the residents truly engaged or just sought out for approval? No wonder resident-initiated engagement doesn’t get results.

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

Guest Post from a Resident to Save Belmar Park

This email is to clarify various aspects of City Council meetings including possible misunderstanding regarding agenda setting:

1. There is no mandatory Order of Business for Lakewood City Council meetings.  Addendum 1 of the Policy and Procedures Manual offers an ‘Example Regular Meeting Agenda’ but there is apparently no policy that states a required Order of Business or even a default Order of Business.  Even if there is a required Order of Business stated elsewhere, under Robert’s Rules, it could still be changed as explained below. 

Lakewood City Council Policy 05.08 requires compliance with Robert’s Rules of Order.  

Therefore, Robert’s Rules determines the agenda setting process.  Regarding agenda setting, Robert’s Rules state:

“For a proposed agenda to become the official agenda for a meeting, it must be adopted by the assembly at the outset of the meeting.

At the time that an agenda is presented for adoption, it is in order for any member to move to amend the proposed agenda by adding any item that the member desires to add, or by proposing any other change.

It is wrong to assume, as many do, that the president “sets the agenda.” It is common for the president to prepare a proposed agenda, but that becomes binding only if it is adopted by the full assembly, perhaps after amendments as just described. [RONR (12^th ed.) 41:62; see also pp. 16–17 of RONR In Brief.]”  END QUOTE  https://robertsrules.com/frequently-asked-questions/

That process from Robert’s Rules should be followed and the Parliamentarian of the meeting should support that.  If the Parliamentarian does not support Robert’s Rules on the matter, then his/her interpretation and whatever alternate authority is relied upon should be requested to be reflected in the meeting minutes.

2. The City Council Policy and Procedures Manual page 26 describes an agenda setting procedure in Policy 05.7 Agenda Setting that among other features “informs staff’s work assignments and council agenda items” and is “under direction of the council”.  The authority for this policy is cited as the “adoption of the Policy and Procedures Manual” which is, of course, adopted by City Council.  So as per the Policy, agenda setting is clearly under the control of city council and council adheres to Robert’s Rules.  The policy only ‘informs’, does not control the agenda or have any language that precludes an elected city council member from introducing new business or new agenda items.

This is to remind that Article 7.1 of the Lakewood City Charter states: “The City Council shall act by ordinance, resolution, or motion.”

3. City Charter Article 3.3: POWERS AND DUTIES. The City Manager shall be responsible to the City

Council for the proper administration of all affairs of the City placed in the City Manager’s charge.

That Title 2.06.060(B) of the Lakewood Municipal Code states:

The City Manager shall have the following additional functions and duties:

B. To be responsible to the City Council for the administration of all departments of the city, save and except those departments confided to the supervision of other city officers by law or ordinance; and to cooperate with and supervise the administrative functions of such departments to the extent requested or delegated by the city officers having primary responsibility for the operation of such departments;

POLICY 05.9 MOTIONS Page 29 – “Any council member may make or second a motion to approve, amend, table or continue any matter before the council.”  So if the meeting is open for new or ‘General’ business, a member can arguably make a motion to introduce a resolution that another member could second.

Motions and seconds shall be made in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order/Parliamentary Procedure.

POLICY 05.14 Page 34 Passage or adoption of resolutions (and motions) shall require an affirmative vote of a majority of

Council members present and voting.

Code of Conduct:  At City Council Meetings, City Council Members shall: Avoid interrupting Council members who have the floor and withhold questions until the speaker yields the floor.   

For example, the presiding officer should not interrupt a council member even for the noble purpose of denying a motion that has not yet been fully stated by the member who has the floor. 

---

Reader recommended business: Angela Chirila

Lakewood Mayoral Candidates were invited to join a forum and let us get to know them. Don Burkhart and Cathy Kentner accepted that invitation.

Watch the video, in two parts:

Mayoral Forum, Part 1: Moderator Questions

Mayoral Forum, Part 2: Public Questions

Profound thanks to all our candidates for giving us a choice and a special thanks to Cathy Kentner and Don Burkhart for supporting the little people in this informal forum.

---

Part 1

Minute 5:20 – People are voting for a mayor to help them solve problems. We’ve seen residents come in overwhelming numbers to talk about problems but City Council has to jump through hoops to get anything on the agenda before they can even talk about it. Do you think there’s a better way for Council to take action or get things on the agenda?

Minute 9:30 – Lakewood hired a new Police Chief this year who is implementing the “21^st Century Policing” methods developed under President Obama. One immediate affect is this year’s plan to reduce police officers and convert those positions to civilian community resource positions. Do you believe this will be effective in Lakewood?

Minute 14:38 – Lakewood is building a new homeless shelter on Colfax for long-term and short-term supportive needs of the unhoused. If you were able to choose, would you provide supportive resources with or without contingencies? By contingencies I mean any kind of “if you do this, then you get that”, such as medical care, work hours, etc.

Minute 20:00 – Sustainability is the number 2 priority for the city. The latest proposal from city staff is benchmarking policies that lead to eliminating gas powered systems in favor of electricity. The goal is to cutdown on greenhouse emissions but according to this graphic, the proposed standards are to the left of Boulder and California.  Are we on the right track?

Minute 27:00 – Lakewood recently opted-in to Proposition 123, which will provide state funds for affordable housing. As this graph shows, according to the City’s report for Strategic Housing, Lakewood needs housing that costs under $875/month more than anything else. So in a needs-based model, Lakewood would serve this population first, which is equivalent to someone making under $31,000 annually, while someone making over $31,000 would not benefit, because that’s not the biggest need. Do you believe these Prop 123 funds should all go to this lowest income group or would you distribute them based on another model? Or bigger picture, do you think there should be any model for spending money and should that discussion be public?

Minute 36:00 – 36:30 Ultimately the City Manager is in charge of solving all these problems, not City Council nor the Mayor. Resident satisfaction is going down yet the City Manager got a bonus this year. How will you enforce accountability?

Part 2 – Randomly selected questions to fill the remaining time

Over twenty questions were submitted by residents, which were answered randomly to fill the remaining 15 minutes.

Minute 00:39 – What is the City of Lakewood going to do to rejuvenate the Colfax corridor? Our current Colfax looks like the old East Colfax. Back in the day, Lakewood was the envy of nearby communities. Clearly, that’s no longer the case. I would like to have each candidate explain how they will help bring Lakewood back to the beautiful city it once was.

Two crime questions were submitted but candidates did not have anything further to add since that was discussed.

Minute 7:30 – There is a narrative that claims that Lakewood needs more affordable housing to get more jobs. Yet a number a communities with significantly more expensive housing, such as Boulder and Golden, have far better economic development progress. How do you explain this?

Minute 12:10 – As Mayor, will you take the pledge to help Monarch butterflies and other pollinators? https://www.nwf.org/mayorsmonarchportal/Signatories

---

Thank you again to our candidates and to the viewers who are doing the hard work to stay informed and make good decisions.

---

Reader recommended business: The Wholeness Hut