Item 4 - Public Comment


Public Meeting Video


Attachment that goes with L. Herkovitz Comment ( 0.25 MB )
How to Connect to provide Public Comment
Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: 
Phone Number for Public Input: 1-253-215-8782
Webinar ID: 924 5294 3958, #, #
Press *9 to Request to Speak, you will be prompted when to speak.
Press *6 to Unmute

Comments & Feedback

This case is closed, online commenting is no longer available.
Online comments closed at 12:00 PM MDT 7/26/21.
I am concerned about how the City is handling the lawsuit filed by CCU in response to the restoration of the definition of “student living units” on April 12, 2021. CCU immediately violated ordinances that have been in effect since 2003 and filed a factually inaccurate document for immediate relief from the City enforcing the zoning code. Court records indicate that there was no objection filed by the City to challenge factually inaccurate assertions made by CCU to the court. Our citizens deserve a sincere and thorough defense of the ordinance which affects ANY College or University in a low density residential zone. Given the common knowledge that the Mayor and staff continue to buy CCU’s specious arguments, perhaps Council should insist that outside counsel be hired to mount an informed and vigorous defense for when the court takes up the merits.
July 26, 2021, 11:24 AM
Robert Baker
6 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment
This is the misinformation contained in the attached unopposed memo in support of motion for Temporary Restraining Order regarding the CCU lawsuit. 1. Claims Defendant has enacted a new zoning classification enforceable only against Plaintiff. This is untrue. The prohibition of university use (including student living units) In low density residential neighborhoods has been an ordinance since 2003. Returning the definition of student living units that was removed in 2012 does not create a new zoning classification. 2. CCU claims there is no other adequate legal remedy available to them yet in 2012 when they wanted to put students on the west side of S. Cody Ct. they went before City Council to change the zoning designation. 3. .The memo groups the property at 220 S. Teller with the properties in dispute. This property is zoned for student housing. 4. Some of the most egregious claims were regarding damages(irreparable injury) that CCU would suffer if this TRO was denied. a)Financial losses. The reality is in the past 4 yrs the only students who lived in the duplex were being provided with FREE temporary summer housing. b) if finances were of such great concern why did CCU leave both sides of the available duplex vacant for 3 of the last 4 yrs. I don’t know if the faculty that resided there for a yr had to pay rent. c) Concern for displacement of students. CCU is the only party to date responsible for displacement of their students when they knowingly placed 6 students in a residence which only permitted 3 as per the housing code. I say knowingly because I personally spoke to student housing and Shannon Dreyfuss about the problem in an effort to avoid disrupting the student’s lives when they had to comply with the city code. d) CCU states they could lose potential students because of a lack of off campus housing. They failed to mention that that they decided not to renew their lease on apartments on Hoyt St. and that they own unused properties to the south and west of their campus that are zoned for student housing. Additionally, during the time when their new dorm was being built they were given permission to use the empty duplex for student housing (2 years). They never did. By not opposing these assertions they have been entered into the court record as fact. If the city attorney is not going to defend our ordinance perhaps an independent council is needed. As a footnote, there is a great outcry about the shortage of student housing. No one seems concerned that CCU bought a block and a half in a family residential neighborhood (15 duplexes or 30 individual units) displacing homeowners and tenants. My neighborhood will have been reduced to 2 duplexes that are not inhabited by CCU staff or students. A neighborhood totally eradicated by an overzealous university. This was the very reason the 2003 ordinance was created. Makes you stop and wonder who is really the victim of discrimination?
July 23, 2021, 8:59 PM
Lenore Herskovitz
6 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment
Lakewood City government is a mockery. The voices of residents, as well as independent-minded Council members, are consistently silenced by "technical difficulties" or "expert" testimony that is contradictory to the will of the voters, or simply, deaf ears. The July 19 Study Session is yet one more example. I, and at least 3 other individuals, were denied our right to speak when our calls to the Zoom meeting were dropped, and no effort was made to re-engage us. There is simply no excuse for this. Below are the comments I wanted to make regarding the annual review of the Wireless Ordinance: Nearly 60% of Americans have one or more chronic illnesses today. I am one of them. Just nine years ago that number was roughly 20%. Why the huge jump? Today's home contains 25 different wireless devices. Thirty years ago these devices did not exit. Chronic disease has been increasing exponentially as wireless devices have come to dominate our lives. Every wireless device irradiates you, your family and your pets. But, even more insidious, is the level of radiofrequency outside our homes; levels that we cannot control. I recently purchased a high-quality RF meter in the hope of reducing the amount of radioactivity inside my home. That was a reality check. The levels in my home are approximately the same as the levels on every street in Lakewood that I have tested - registering between HIGH and EXTREME. Electromagnetic radiation is beaming down on us from space and from radio towers everywhere. I find this very discouraging - and it's going to get much worse when 5G towers are erected throughout our community. The reality is that we don't have to live in a radioactive cloud. Rather than continuing to bow to the wireless industry, city leaders should investigate alternative paths to a connected city. On July 19 Lakewood resident Francis Sincere, representing the Lakewood Broadband Task Force, offered several considerations. Councilors Johnson, Bieda and Springsteen obviously listened - and they suggested additional avenues. All of these suggestions were rebuffed by Council without comment, obviously without independent thought. What Council missed on July 19 is the fact that Fiber Optic Cable to the premises is a commonly accepted alternative to wireless. It is secure, safe and cost-effective (especially with state and federal dollars currently available), and it comes without the detrimental health effects and aesthetic blight of cell towers. People and jurisdictions all over the world are protesting against wireless technology, and especially 5G. The city of Lakewood should start listening - and join the protest. A final, frightening observation: A bee-keeper in Eagle Idaho recently reported that the bees in all of his hives died this spring, after thriving over the winter. Their demise occurred within one month after a cell tower was erected and activated nearby.
July 23, 2021, 1:50 PM
Linnea Hauser
6 / 11 Council Members have viewed this comment
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Your Question has been submitted.