Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning General Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Livingston planning commissioners accept letters on general plan, housing element; attorney says items must be agendized for action
Summary
At its Sept. 29, 2025 meeting the Livingston City Planning Commission placed three letters into the record about the general plan update, sidewalk safety and the sixth‑cycle housing element; City Attorney Veronica Gray told commissioners they may not take action on those letters until the matters are properly agendized and heard.
At its Sept. 29, 2025 meeting the Livingston City Planning Commission received three pieces of written correspondence about the city—s general plan update, sidewalk and crosswalk safety and the status of the sixth‑cycle housing element. City Attorney Veronica Gray told commissioners the letters were in the public record but that the commission could not act on them until the matters were properly agendized and heard.
The commission recorded that city staff had placed copies of the correspondence in commissioners— packets. The letters noted in the meeting were: an Aug. 18 letter from Kalwan Singh of Livingston concerning sidewalk and crosswalk safety improvements; a September (2025) letter from Fidel Herrera, identified in the meeting as a section chief for housing‑element implementation, inquiring about the city—s adoption status for the sixth‑cycle housing element; and a Sept. 29, 2025 letter from Brianne Vandenberg, executive director of the Merced County Farm Bureau, about the proposed general plan update.
"My understanding is that these letters are put into the record," said Veronica Gray, Livingston city attorney. "If a commissioner has an issue with the statement set in any of the correspondence ... at the hearing of when the issue will be heard, that's when the commissioner can address that. But right now, imagine this as you're building the record for what this issue is for. And once a commission hears it, and it's properly agendized, then we're able to discuss further."
Gray also reminded the commission of the general rule referenced at the start of the meeting that the commission is prohibited by law from taking action on matters that are not on the agenda; comments in the packets, she said, are part of the record for any future hearing where the item is agendized.
There were no public‑comment speakers at the start of the meeting. The commission conducted routine business: it approved the meeting agenda by a 5‑0 roll call and later approved minutes from May 13, 2020 by a 5‑0 vote.
Votes at a glance: Approve agenda as presented — motion by Commissioner Jose Flores; second not specified on the record; roll‑call vote 5‑0 (Jose Flores, Jess Veil Singh, Vice Chair Renee Mendonca, Alternate JT Mann, Alternate Mohinder Khanda). Approve minutes of May 13, 2020 — motion by Commissioner Chance Neill; second by Commissioner Mossett Flores; roll‑call vote 5‑0.
The letters remain in the meeting record and, per Gray—s guidance, any commissioner who wishes to respond or request action on the topics raised in those letters must have the subject placed on a future agenda or raise the matter during the formal hearing when it is scheduled. The commission noted technical difficulties with the consent calendar and did not consider consent items at this meeting.
