Uncategorized

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.

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

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 6th 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

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:

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: 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.

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 21st 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 21st 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: 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. 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): 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. 

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: 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. 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): 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.