Note: The following is just a brief summary of the discussion at the October 7, 2008 Hearing on the 2025 General Plan Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report.
A short presentation was made by PMC, the consultants in charge of putting together the General Plan Update and Environmental Impact Report
According to presentation by PMC the General Plan and Environmental Impact Report were based on certain basic assumptions such as:
o 20 year buildout population could be estimated as 102,958
o This population projection is not goal, its only the maximum amount of people that could be comfortably supported by the area covered by the plan
After the presentation, Mayor Samra opened the Comment portion of the meeting. Each speaker was allowed only 3 minutes in which to voice any and all concerns.
Frank Borges: Attorney representing Mike Gallo pointed out how much has happened since the city began working on the General Plan Update about 5 years ago. He stated the Council should Reevaluate the land use needs for next 25 years and extend the public comment period. He had been Working 6 weeks just to go through the amount of information contained in all the documentation and has also been Studying project alternatives, looking at which of the alternatives Can lesson or reduse the impacts to the environment. Since Gallo a is major landowner and native to Livingston, he is concerned about quality of life and sustainability of any plan adopted. Mr. Borges stated that he was willing to work with staff to come up with the amount of land really necessary to meet the needs of the community and reminded the Council that the conditions that existed in 2005 and not the same as those in 2008.
Richard Harriman: Attorney speaking on behalf of the Arkelian family Joined Mr. Borges request to extend the Public Comment period. He stated that the staff report is unclear as to whether or not tonight’s meeting will be the final opportunity for comment before the plan’s adoption. He stated that the EIR contained several significant fatal defects and that there were mandatory elements missing. He told the council the EIR needed to be Sent back to staff; the defects Remedied, and the EIR recirculated.He stated that a comment by the California PUC was not included and responded to. Mr. Harriman proposed that the council adopt the Land Use Alternative 4 with some modifications and stated this alternative would allow the City to be better in compliance with SB235 (implementing policies and procedures for reducing green house gasses)
Mr. Harriman asked the Council to continue public hearing and take No action until City and county staff could meet to meet and resolve potential conflicts such as:
· Lack of Agricultural Offsets
· Road classifications that conflict with County Road Designation
· General inconsistencies with the County’s General Plan
Gerri Martin: A resident of the county stated that there was better alternative than the one the city was pursuing. She said that although it is true that Cities that makes mistakes are those that don’t plan, adopting a General Plan with a Sphere of influence so large was as irresponsible as having no plan at all. MCAG was projecting only a 20 year population of 18,600 and the City would be asking LAFCO to accept a 50 year boundary as a 20 year boundary.
Mike Torres: pointed out that there had been 9 workshops and he had been to all of them. People come before the Planning Commission and spoke about their concerns. This plan impacts the City, County, and he just can’t understand why the council hasn’t listened to these comments. The council should go back and revise this plan. Council members keep telling us you can change it later on, Why not change it now
Polly Martin Related how it if often said “If Livingston doesn’t develop that land the county will”, but that this statement is a fallacy. The strongest protection against “leapfrog development” was removed at the request of Ranchwood homes because its proposed development would not meet the original, more stringent, requirements. The old guidelines were that new residential shall be (35 %) contiguous to current development, But the new guidelines in the revised Genera Plan/EIR say that Annexation should not occur unless a proposed development is at least (20 %) contiguous. According to PMC, it is the intent that “should and shall” mean “mandatory” and can be used interchangeably. However, Words have meaning: should and shall are different words with different meanings.
She also pointed out that Over 40 comment are listed with only the response: “Comment is noted for the decision makers”
Collette Alvernaz asked for the population figure for the entire plan and received the reply from PMC 102,958 if maximum housing densities were used. Mrs. Alvernez said that the IER referenced information contained in the Master Plans, but the figures in these Master Plans were inconsistent with the figures in the EIR.
Judy Blevins comment on the small amount of time allowed for comments on such an important issue. 3 minutes is an absolute and that cutting people to 3 minutes is very confrontational, given the importance of Hearing and what folks want to say about it. Council members talk about how important is to work for the people of Livingston, then tell them “You have three minutes then you have to sit yourself down”
Mayor Samra responded by telling Mrs. Blevins “It was the Citizens who said it should be limited to three minutes. Just to let you know”
As Mrs. Blevins walked back to her seat, she said “I move that Public Comments be 5 minutes” A voice in the audience responded “All in favor say AY” with several members of the audience answering “AY”
Council Deliberation took place as follows
Council Person Vierra: We Need to hold it off for at least a couple more weeks: until the next meeting. We need time to take in the comments made this evening and consider the comments made by the County
Council Person Espinosa: PMC commented that we can change at any time. The citizens can change it if they want to. Just because the projected growth in the plan is a certain number doesn’t mean it will reach that number. Council can change it…..what ever the citizens want the council can do it later. Its not in concrete
Council Person Soria: It’s just a plan. It’s not set in stone.
Council Person Ingrahm: Stated he agrees with statements made by the public and the County representatives and asks for workshop between the City and the County to resolve differences. Given the changes in the economy, it is important to reevaluate which option would be the best option for the citizens today. The housing market is in a slump now and he strongly encourages looking at Alternative 4. The city would still have the business frontage and would be in better compliance with CEQA and (other state laws). LAFCO will require a workshop with the county. Since this is such an important document, the council must be certain they are doing the right thing for the citizens, not just doing what other cities do.
Mayor Samera: Said that his request would be (with the other council persons’ agreement) to contact the county tomorrow to see what needs to be discussed. City staff should Bring this back in a report. Use whatever resources or personnel needed to make sure it gets done.
The mayor then made a motion to continue the Public Hearing to the Oct 21st Council meeting. (Motion seconded and carried)
Attorney Harriman asked for a clarification: would the Public Hearing be reopened on the 21st of October?. The response from was an affirmative
Now……..A Few Words of Commentary
Two of the phrases that have been repeated often throughout this long drawn out process have been:
1. These growth projections are just estimates, they are not a goal
2. It’s just a plan, We can always change it later
But some people can’t help but wonder,………. if these population growth figures are not a goal, than why does the Environmental Impact Report state that the option favored by the city is only one way to meet the City’s Growth Objectives? If the population figures are really only estimates, and not a goal, why would the City even think of trying to adopt “Statements of Overriding Considerations?”
As to the General Plan being “just a plan” that can be amended later, at least one Planning Commissioner noted that this statement is a fallacy. If this General Plan were to be adopted, Planning Commissioners would be bound to use it “as is” until (if ever) Amendments were adopted by the Council. There is concern that, since it seems to take so long for this Council to decide anything anyway, counting on them to get an Amendment done in a timely matter would be an exercise in futility.
As to the “should=shall” controversy…………….. Words do indeed do have meaning.
This is the infamous “should=shall” comment response statement as made by PMC.
“The intent of the 2025 GPU is that “should” is mandatory, not discretionary, and the terms “should” and “shall” are therefore used interchangeably in the document without any difference in meaning intended between these two words:
Could someone get these people a Webster’s Dictionary….Please?
When I read the “should” = “shall” statement, it reminded me of something I had read as a child in Alice Through the Looking Glass. In the story, Humpty Dumpty has a conversation with Alice that goes like this
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,'” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t – till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!'”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,'” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.
“They’ve a temper, some of them – particularly verbs, they’re the proudest – adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs – however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!” (Quote from Wikipedia, the Online Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty#In_Through_the_Looking_Glass)
It seems PMC has also decided that words can mean just what they choose them to mean…,,,,
(Sometimes methinks we would have better success at catching a bandersnatch than getting this General Plan/EIR fixed. It’s enough to make one wax poetic)
Wishful thinking
Drew a big Plan
Then the “Building Boom” broke
And the “stuff” hit the fan
They’ve dillied and dallied
And still haven’t fixed it
They’d better get busy
Or a Judge could just “nix” it
(Maybe now’s the time to rethink just who should be in charge of the next General Plan Update before we end up throwing more money “down a rabbit hole”.)
Such Impenetrability!
That’s what I say…………….
Thegardeningsnail's Weblog (because not every critter is hiding under a rock...) 
5 thoughts on “From the City Council Meeting October 7, 2008”