Approval of Action Meeting Minutes from the May 24, 2016, Planning Commission Special Meeting.

Meeting Date: December 13, 2016

Note from TheGardeningSnail. This post was created by running a PDF Image File through a program that converts Image to Text. My apologies for any Textual Gremlins that may have crept in during the process.

MINUTES

LIVINGSTON PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING

MAY 24, 2016

A Special meeting of the Livingston Planning Commission was held in the City Council Chambers on May 24, 2016. The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Chair Ranjeet Jhutti.

ROLL CALL

Commissioners Present: Chair Ranjeet Jhutti, Commissioner Adanan Bath, Commissioner, Francisco Mendoza-Gonzalez, Commissioner Warren Urnberg (late) and Alternate Commissioner Bob Wallis.

Commissioners Absent: Vice-Chair Mario Mendoza

Staff Present: Contract City Planner Randy Hatch, and Sr. Administrative Analyst Filomena Arredondo.

Others Present: Housing Element Consultant Chelsey Payne, Doug Wells, Katherine Schell­ Rodriguez, Jean Okuye, Colette Alvernaz, Luis Enrique Flores, and others.

Commissioner Warren Urnberg arrived at 7:07 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chair Jhutti open the public comment period at 7:08 p.m.

Colette Alvernaz, P.O. Box 255, Livingston

• We are in an election year and there are many frustrations that are going on with the voters. The general public is frustrated with the government body of the United States. The Planning Commission is a governing body. What they do, what they say, and how they vote will have a huge impact on the quality of life for the City of Livingston. It might seem like Livingston is small and it does not matter if a document is correct or not. They may think, "We’ll fix it later," but the documents they look at are governing documents and putting it off and doing a shoddy job and hiding the truth deeply affects the future of our children and our lives.

It is not something to take lightly and the trust that has been given to them by the public is a sacred trust and when you are an official, you hold a valuable position. She asked the Planning Commission to look at the documents clearly and thoroughly. Take time to read them and try to understand the documents. Ask the hard questions. It matters! The Planning Commission is very important to the City of Livingston.

Doug Wells, 16508 West River Road, Livingston, CA

• He has been coming to City meetings since the early 1980’s. He was born and raised in Livingston. Then he moved away and went to college, worked elsewhere in the forest service, and then came back as a farmer. He feels the City Council is not very friendly to the rural people. They get treated like second class citizens. When they come to City meetings to give their input, they are ignored.

He asked that the Planning Commission to go to the source when they get a document in front of them and it states where the information is located. Time and time again consultants and management use outdated documents to make a point to support what they want. He has gone to many meeting where neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council ask questions concerning these documents. They have to ask questions. If they don’t, who will? He thinks the Planning Commission and City Council should contain one member residing in the Country.

Chair Jhutti stated the Planning Commission does their best to represent the entire community, and they welcome all comments and questions from the public.

Katherine Schell-Rodriguez, P.O. Box 163, Livingston

• The City has been sued twice by activist groups over water and water quality issues. First, for going over the maximum contaminant level for arsenic, which was eventually settled, and now there is an ongoing lawsuit by another activist group wanting to know how much water Foster Farms is using in order to determine if Foster Farms is really conserving water as planned.

She is thinking forward to when the Feds finally come up with the maximum contaminant level for TCP. It is already on the record that Livingston wells have some of the highest TCP concentrations in the State. Now, just because this regulation might be a year or two away or just because the State might give us a little wiggle room to get filtration on it, it is not necessarily going to stop an activist group from launching a lawsuit as soon as they are aware water levels are above the maximum contaminant level. It did not stop the lawsuit over the arsenic levels.

Once it is known that we are not meeting the maximum contaminant levels for TCP, we could be open for another lawsuit. Given the fact that Foster Farms is under the radar for a variety of issues, she can see this becoming national news, so she asks that the City be on the lookout. We can’t be complacent and think that just because the State might give us some extra time, other groups will also give us extra time. Don’t be surprised if the City is sued in the near future.

Chair Jhutti closed the public comment period at 7:20 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING

Recommendation to City Council Concerning the 2016 -2024 Livingston Housing Element including its Environmental Documentation and its adoption by the City Council.

Contract City Planner Randy Hatch presented the staff report for the consideration of the Housing Element Update for the time period 2016-2024. The City has had various study sessions and public hearings to introduce this topic and the ongoing work that has been done to tier this housing element and in that effort, the City hired the services of Mitierharnish, housing consultant. Staff has been working with Chelsey Payne, Project Manager for the consulting team assigned to this project.

Consultant Chelsey Payne, Mintierharnish, presented a PowerPoint presentation giving a brief overview and update of what they have done since the last review of the housing element:

• Housing Element Overview

• Housing Element Contents – Sections and Housing Plan

o Regional Housing Needs Allocation – State of California requires every jurisdiction to accommodate its fair share. Livingston’s portion is 1,023 new housing units from 2014- 2023 broken down into income categories ranging from extremely low income households to above moderate income households.

o Location of Potential Housing Sites Inventory in the City.

o Development and Remaining Housing Need 2014-2023. Livingston has sufficient capacity to meet its RHNA. There is a surplus of +21 units in the lower income housing and +380 in the above moderate/moderate income housing units.

• Revisions to Comments on Public Review Draft

o The public review draft was released in February 2016 and changes were made based on comments received.

Comparison of development impact fees (added Table 3-8).

Clarified that there are no sites in the 200-year floodplain within the City limits. Revisions made to the water and sewer section based on discussion with City Engineer.

Added Program 21 to allow residential care facilities for more than 15 people within the City through a follow up zoning implementation.

Consultant Payne stated that Planning Consultants have also been working with the State Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the certification process.

• March 4, 2016: Submitted revised draft Housing Element to HCD.

• March 21, 2016: Phone call conversation with HCD to receive comments.

• April 19, 2016: Submitted revisions to HCD.

• April 20, 2016: City received conditional approval from HCD.

City Planner Hatch stated this Housing Element Update is an effort he wanted to recognize as an achievement because it is not a given that HCD would find an Element to be in compliance with State law. There were a series of comments and questions that the City had to address. Due to the fact that the City’s earlier housing element was a good housing element and also because the team preparing this document was conscientious to follow the same law and do all of the analysis and used the best available information, they were able to update it instead of starting new.

Consultant Payne stated that based on the review by the State, they made some additional revisions to address HCD questions and comments. She gave an overview of the changes made.

• Additional information on capacity for emergency shelters in the DTC and P-F zones.

• Updated analysis of affordability of the mobile home park and updated sites inventory to count mobile as moderate-income to above moderate-income households.

• Acknowledgement of SB 1087, priority water and sewer service for projects that include affordable housing units.

• Added more information supporting lot splits.

• Added specific objectives for each implementation program.

• Modified Program 17 to remove CUP requirement for development of 25 units or more in the R-3 zone to facilitate affordable housing.

• Included a list of stakeholders in the Appendix.

Discussion followed regarding acknowledgement of SB 1087, which is State law that requires water and sewer service providers to provide priority service to projects that include affordable housing units.

Consultant Payne went over the project schedule and current status.

• Following the Planning Commission adoption hearing, the next step is to go to the City Council tentatively on July 5, 2016, for the final adoption hearing.

• Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council certification of the Negative Declaration and approval of the 2016-2024 Housing Element Update.

Chair Jhutti asked how lots are considered when lining up RHNA numbers. If someone owns a lot, but they do not intent to develop it, that inf01mation cannot be captured.

Consultant Payne explained the capacity is based on vacant lands that are zoned for residential, not on the property owner’s intent. The City cannot compel anyone to develop a property, but it can put the zoning in place to make the opportunity available.

City Planner Hatch said cities don’t build housing. The private and the non-profit sector build housing. Cities can facilitate or frustrate those sectors in developing housing, so the whole purpose of the housing element law is to prevent cities from frustrating the private and non-profit sector from building housing and to encourage certain types of housing that are needed by a community through the process of zoning the property, having the density, and other ways to encourage housing to be developed.

Many cities throughout the State of California have frustrated the development of housing to be affordable for a variety of income groups, so that is why the fair share numbers were promulgated by the State and now every City or entity in the State has its fair share obligation to make possible housing available to a full range of income groups in the city or county.

Commissioner Mendoza-Gonzalez asked if it is possible to qualify downtown commercial sites as potential residential properties if the City is tight on meeting its RHNA numbers.

Consultant Payne said they did look at some parcels in the downtown that allowed mixed use (either commercial or residential) and they were counted in the housing element, but there were not a lot of opportunities mostly because the parcels are very small and the State is very restrictive on the parcel size. She added they did not need to rezone any land or look at any expansions to meet the housing needs as they were able to show that there was enough capacity within the current City limits.

Commissioner Mendoza-Gonzalez asked if any comments were received :from developers or builders about the housing element.

Ms. Payne replied the only comments received were from a non-profit affordable housing developer, Self Help Housing. Self Help had some recommendations for sites that the City might consider for rezone. The Housing Consultant did looked at those parcels; however, none of them were necessarily feasible. They were school district owned or were planned for expansion of schools. The representative from Self Help also commented on the City’s Conditional Use permit process which is part of the reason they recommend that the City take another look at that Conditional Use Permit requirement under R-3 zone sites.

Discussion followed.

Chair Jhutti opened for public comment at 7:55 p.m. Katherine Schell-Rodriguez, P.O. Box 163, Livingston

• Asked if the amount of water the City has matters when it comes to building.

• She remembers long time ago that land was zoned specifically for mobile home parks and then somehow that zoning got changed to R-1. She asked what would be the impact if sometime in the future the mobile home park is discontinued as a mobile home park and converts to residential housing.

• Asked about procedures for granting priority of water and sewer services to proposed developments that include affordable housing units. If we only have a certain amount of water and a certain amount of sewer capacity, and we have a nice big commercial project and then we have an affordable housing development and the City has to decide who gets the hook ups first. If the City give the hook ups to the commercial project, how will the State regard such an action?

Chair Jhutti said it has been recommended that City adopt procedures to grant priority of water and sewer services to developments that include affordable housing units. If we don’t follow that, we wouldn’t be in compliance with HCD.

City Planner Hatch explained the implementation of this Housing Element would be, in fact, to create a resolution or ordinance implementing that priority and that would have some type of guidance on the City Council that they would follow. He added that a City Council that adopts an ordinance giving priority to affordable housing in the provision of water and sewer is also

subject to be amended by subsequent City Councils. A City Council cannot bind themselves in the future or bind another City Council, so the possibility does exist that a subsequent or the same City Council would later take an action that would amend what they have previously adopted. That being said, the City is required to prepare an annual report on housing element implementations and action and submit it to the State.

In response to the Monte Cristo Mobile Home Park, if the owner wishes to discontinue that use, he would have to go before the City Council. There are many cities throughout the State that have dealt with this situation and it becomes a highly charged issue because often times mobile home parks provide key affordable housing for residents in a community.

In regards to water availability, the water situation is being analyzed continuously. Staff is required to look at water availability from the perspective of what is the current situation and what is the expected future situation. The City Engineer and the Public Works Director are tasked to look at water availability and they are governed by professional standards and State regulations. Due to the drought situation, our water has deteriorated, but the City is dealing with that with new wells and treatment of existing wells.

Discussion followed.

Colette Alvernaz, P.O. Box 255, Livingston

• She went before the City Council in February and she asked for some documents and one of her questions was about the master plans that were being used and at that time she was told there were modified master plans, but when she asked for a copy of the modified master plans, she never received them. On May 13th, she went to City Hall and requested them again through a written request for records. On May 23rd, she was informed the modified master plans do not exist. She also asked for a copy of the water study. On May 23rd, she received an e-mail from the City of Livingston saying there was no water study; it was the City Engineer that provided the information. She also asked about the 1999 General Plan and the master plans that went with the general plan and at that point in time, staff wasn’t even sure the master plans existed. It turns out that the master plans that were located were dated 1992, but if you look at the master plans, they reference the 1988 general plan.

• There have been many changes to our water conditions since 1992. It is not an accurate statement anymore and if you look at your environmental impact report, it says no impact all the way through. This is so erroneous; it’s incredible; it’s an insult. She knows what is like to go out to the field and pray for water every day.

You have a city of 13,700 people. You need to provide them water. She doesn’t know where our expert Engineer is getting their water information about water availability. She can bring in farmers with stories of wells going dry and having to get re­ drilled. They say that MID is replenishing the surface water with flood irrigating, but there was no water last year from MID. It wasn’t being replenished.

• Our negative declaration is so antiquated it is not effectual. It says that housing does not interfere with prime agricultural land because the City has no agricultural land zone. Well that is true. The City does not zone agricultural and that is one of the things the court found against the City of Livingston under the 2025 General Plan. The court said that is not valid. The City has to create a zoning to the historical use of the land.

• Under Green House Gas Emissions, it says that in 2006, under AB32 it was legislative for greenhouse gas, but the 1999 General Plan and EIR covers that off in the negative declaration. How can the 1999 and EIR cover a legislation that came across in 2006? There was a cut and paste approach all the way through the general plan. The same paragraph over and over again. There is no discussion of impacts for the green house emissions in our negative declaration.

• Your domestic waste water treatment plant (DWWTP) where the cement plant is located and where the City keeps digging out and trying to expand the facility violating CEQA law, it says under the DWWTP that is a mitigated negative declaration. Go back a couple of years. It says that land is to be kept agriculture. The City sold that dirt which is a mineral resource, yet the negative declaration says there is no mineral resource. That is where the dirt came from for the Sultana overchange. Several hundred thousands of dollars mining that dirt without CEQA permits. She called the City several times and told them they can’t do this and the City came back saying, "We are not expanding the facility, we are just digging a hole, a super deep hole without any plan adjacent to the Merced River. Well, that is a sensitive habitat.

• Regarding the Fire Department -In the 1999 General Plan, it says that the City will have one fire station for every 10,000 residents. We are at 13,700 residents. Where is your second fire department? The City is already 137% over capacity for its fire station. Adding more homes will have a potentially significant impact on the already over taxed fire department. Tone out in your general plan is 6 minutes. Your emergency evacuation route on B Street and Winton Parkway is impacted. There is not even a 1992 circulation traffic pattern. You are supposed to be operating your traffic at LOS C. What is the traffic at peak times and during harvest, especially when E&J

Gallo are in their crush season? Someone will die. People will get injured. This isn’t a laughing matters. You have two schools out there. Students walk.

• Asked what the comment period for the Housing Element is.

Chair Jhutti replied it is not today. It extends further and it is going to the City Council and she will have more opportunity to submit comments.

He thanked Ms. Alvernaz for her comments. They are very comprehensive. Sometimes too much to capture at one time. He reminded everyone there is a time limit for the public comment and wants the public to be mindful of that.

Ms. Alvernaz said she wrote all her comments and will submit those in writing, but she has some questions that she would like answered:

• What are the 7 mandated general plan elements?

• Do the impact fees pay for themselves?

• What is the 30 day review period for the housing element? She didn’t receive it until May 1gth and she still has not received some of the documents that she needs to talk about for the negative declaration.

• They say the reasons why there are no environmental impact is because of rezoning, well that is not true. There are so many environmental impacts that haven’t been addressed. It is not just because of rezoning.

• This is a very important document. The court set aside master plans are on the City website, but why aren’t the Master Plans that go with the 1999 General Plan on the City website?

• What is the expiration date on master plans?

Chair Jhutti mentioned that we are all on this together. We are all public citizens. We want to live in a sustainable matter. Certainly agriculture is very important. That is where our food comes from and it is very prime land. From his perspective, the Planning Commission does hear this and does want to take the right steps going forward.

Consultant Payne addressed Ms. Alvernaz’ questions. She explained what the 7 general plan elements are.

State law requires your general plan to address 7 specific topics -housing, land use, circulation, open space, conservation, safety and noise. Your general plan addresses all of these topics required by State law. It is not referring to the master plans.

Do the impact fees pay for themselves? The housing element is not an impact fee study, so that is not a question that she has the answer to. She is only working on the housing element.

City Planner Hatch said it is a political decision by the elected body whether or not the City has impact fees that cover the full cost of new development.

Same with frequency of master plans. A Master Plan is not a required document. It is a document that cities do to inform them and upon which they make projections and recommendations to do the business of municipal activities. Those are all local decisions. The same goes with how frequent a general plan is to be prepared. As noted in Consultant Payne’s comments, the housing element is the only document that has a specified schedule in the general plan ambient and so cities can and do have general plans of a variety of different lengths in terms of when they were adopted and so the fact that the City is using a 1999 general plan poses no illegalities from a State point of view. How frequently the general plan is updated is a political issue. That rests with the local legislative body.

The issues mentioned with water, a municipal well is different than an agricultural well and there is a whole vast of rules and regulations that pertain to that. The City hires engineers to comply with those rules and regulations. They are the experts and the City listens to their expert opinion. The City Planner is not an expert on water, so he, too, looks at the City’s designated experts for water and sewer capacity and compliance with State laws. That is a matter of debate before the City Council.

Regarding the question on the review period, Consultant Payne said the review period on the CEQA document is through June 1, 2016. On the housing element, there is no specific set review period. They will be accepting comments right up to the City Council hearing tentatively scheduled for July 5th, but the earlier they get comments in, the earlier they will be able to respond to those comments before the July 5th hearing. The City will take any comments into account until the Housing Element is adopted.

Chair Jhutti asked for clarification on the master plans not being necessary.

City Planner said master plans are not required by State law or legislation. Cities do them as a good management practice because they want to have a thorough and systematic review if there is critical infrastructure, such as swer, water, traffic, drainage, etc. Cities prepare those so they can manage those functions within their city. Iftheir City has them, they are often used as input for other documents such as general plans, but they are not a required part of a General Plan or a Housing Element.

Cities sometimes adopt their general plan and then prepare master plans as an implementation measure and other times they prepare master plans as a background information to inform on the development of a general plan and sometimes they do alternate studies, not master plans.

Chair Jhutti asked, for clarification, if it’s possible that the master plans that went with the 1999 general plan may never have existed.

City Planner Hatch replied that staff did a lot of research and found that there were some plans that were prepared that appeared to be used as inputs into some general plan efforts and some plans that appeared to be freestanding. So we have some of both and there are some master plans that don’t exist or cannot be located.

Chair Jhutti said we live in a time of age where we should strive for effective management of that especially using digital tools like computers and files, so he hopes that going forward, we are archiving our documents appropriately to prevent this from happening in the future.

Luis E. Flores, 707 Almondwood Drive, Livingston

• His first question has to do with data sources. He was looking up some of the Department of Finance (DOF) Figures. DOF just released a more updated population projection on May 1, 2016. The figures for Livingston are off and the figures for Merced City are off. For Livingston, January 1, 2015 estimates figures are 13,735 and the projection is 13,744.

• His other question is about disability housing. On page 3-26, it states that the City of Livingston is in the process of adopting a reasonable accommodation ordinance for people with disabilities. This is as of January 2016, but if you look at the goals, it is being suggested to remove this goal (Goal 4.19). He is wondering why we are eliminating that goal if we are still in the process of developing an ordinance for people with disabilities. He thinks it’s a little bit premature. The goal reference is on page 5-8 and the statement about the City being in the process of adopting a reasonable accommodation ordinance is on page 3-26.

• Question about the number of vacant residential acres. These figures don’t seem to match Table 4-3 on page 4-8.

• There is a statement on 4-12 that the quality of groundwater is good and the following statement says there are contaminants in it.

• Asked for clarification, on page 4-13 where the engineer says there is enough water for 150 housing units. Ifthe City’s target is 1023 dwelling units and we have enough water for 150 units, how do we meet the target?

• On page 5-3: Goal 5 on of Goal I: Housing and Economic Diversity. Is there any value of converting premature agricultural land?

• In terms of the goals, who monitors the achievement of the goals?

City Planner Hatch said the State asks each city to produce an annual housing report. City planners would prepare that report as an attempt to monitor and answer these questions and submit to the City Council for their review and approval and then it is sent to the State.

• When he was on the Planning Commission, a skate park was considered. He asked if the potential skate park was included in terms of calculating projections.

City Planner Hatch replied it was not.

Consultant Payne responded to Mr. Flores’ questions.

The first comment about the data sources. The Department of Finance did just release the 2016 population numbers about two weeks ago, but they are not continually updating the document as new data is available and the numbers were not that much different, so she would recommend going with the 2015 numbers.

The question about reasonable accommodation housing for people with disabilities, the City did just adopt a reasonable accommodation ordinance, so there is an ordinance already in place and she can update that in the housing element document. The City also adopted zoning code amendments for transitional and supportive housing and she will also update that to acknowledge that has been done.

On the acres not matching up, that is a good catch. The table got updated and the numbers were missed, but the numbers are very close. They will look at that. The tables were continuously changing.

Regarding the question about the City Engineer’s estimate of water for housing units, they know that even with the new plan, there is not enough to meet the RHNA numbers and the State saw that and acknowledged it as well. There is a program in the housing element that says the City will do what it can to facilitate the infrastructure, but the State does acknowledge that is a constraint for housing. The State just wants the City to do everything they can to provide that water.

City Planner Hatch said they did indicate in this version that when Well 17 is completed and is online in the fall, it will increase the capacity to an estimated 600 to 800 housing units versus our RHNA which is more than that, and so there is a potential gap here over the full 8 year period.

Chair Jhutti said he would suggest the City Engineer provide some verification that there is data backing that up to add transparency.

There was a comment about guidelines. City may choose to adopt its own guidelines or continue with LAFCo guidelines. There hasn’t been a more recent housing survey or study than the 2007 housing survey. That is something the City may want to consider going after some grant funding to do that in the future.

The medium home prices not matching up, she thinks it is just a matter of the geography being different, but those were reported straight from the data source. However, the number for Livingston did match.

Regarding if the skatepark was considered in calculating the development acreage. City Planner Hatch said it is his understanding tha tit would be in parkland. It was not in land designated for potential housing, so that is not an issue here. The question of whether or not the development of the park is subject to State impact fees, he doesn’t know.

Doug Wells, 16908 W. River Road

• Asked for the definition of low income housing.

Consultant Payne said it is based on the area median income for Merced County. Low income is 80% of the area median income.

• He is a farmer. His well is no different than a City well. City Engineer should have a good handle on water requirements in the State of California. Ifyou pull the water table down too far, you can never bring it back to where it was. There is a ground water sustainability that just came up. As a farmer, he is afraid they shut his pump. He has trees, he needs water. We better be concerned about water. We better recognize it as a significant impact and address it. Right now the City of Livingston says they have water, but if they lose a well or two, how much reserve do they have? His well is 55 feet right now. Inhis property towards Stevinson, his well is 27 feet.

• He asked about the 100-year flood plain in our Sphere of Influence. Sewer ponds are not percolating. There are houses that have sewer problems. When there is a major rainy event, sewage comes out from the house. Ifwe add more houses, it will be more of a problem for the sewer plant.

• We are using information from documents used back in 1988. Ifyou take information that is flawed and use it in a current document, you create garbage. Ifyou borrow from the past, make sure it is pertinent to the future.

Consultant Payne said if the water is not there, the housing will not be built. The Housing Element and the State acknowledge that constraint on water. They are just looking at the sites that are currently zoned for residential in the City limits. When they reviewed this section, they asked the City Engineer to provide the most available information.

City Planner Hatch said he has not found any annual reports prepared by previous planners. Some cities do it and others don’t, but he feels they are important and should be a priority because they help you deal with infrastructure and growth changes. Sometimes things are not done the way they should be, but that is why public comment is possible they can make corrections.

Chair Jhutti closed Public Comment. 9:15 p.m.

Motion by Commissioner Mendoza-Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Urnberg, to adopt Resolution 2016-02, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Livingston Recommending to the City Council the Approval of a Negative Declaration and Adoption of the 2016-2024 Housing Element Update. Motion carried 5-0, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Chair Jhutti, Commissioners Bath, Medoza-Gonzalez and Urnberg, and Alternate Commissioner Wallis

NOES:

ABSENT:

REPORTS

None

Vice-Chair Mendoza

Planning Commission Alternate Commissioner Wallis

• Asked when the annual report is due to City Council.

Consultant Payne said reports are due to State by April 1st_

• Thanked Ms. Alvernaz for her comments.

Chair Jhutti

• We should strive towards using technology to help us.

City Planner Hatch said that is evaluated through the budget process. Staff has requested various information systems, but that takes resources and it is also a Council decision.

City Staff

City Planner Hatch

Nothing to report.

Sr. Administrative Analyst Arredondo

Nothing to report. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:25 p.m. APPROVED: December 13, 2016

Chair, RANJEET JHUTTI Secretary of the Planning Commission, RANDY HATCH

The written meeting minutes reflect a summary of specific actions taken by the Planning Commission. They do not necessarily reflect all of the comments or dialogue leading up to the action. All meetings are digitally recorded and are an official record of the meeting’s proceedings. Digitally recorded verbatim minutes are available upon request and may be obtained at Livingston City Hall.