Atwater City Council
August 10, 2026

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B4-14
pavement. The Municipal Code provides for a minimum right‐of‐way width of 60 feet for a subdivision. The Municipal Code also allows for private streets to deviate from the City standards, provided that future maintenance of the streets is assured by the developer. Streetlights and fire hydrants are required at regular intervals within the city to ensure an acceptable level of public health and safety.

The extension of necessary utilities is also a requirement for all development in Atwater. The City provides and operates water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater drainage services. Electricity, gas, communications, and garbage services are provided by outside entities. The City has adequate capacity to provide water and sewer service to future housing development, and only needs to extend service lines to development areas. The improvement requirements imposed by those agencies are outside the purview of the City. However, the City does require approval from those agencies prior to the approval of any subdivision map. Utility companies that provide service to the City may require that between 6 and 10 feet of the area outside of the right‐of‐way be reserved as a utility easement for the placement of service lines.

Conclusion
On- and off-site improvement standards for the City of Atwater are typical of small cities and comparable to surrounding jurisdictions. The City does not consider the requirements and associated cumulative development costs of on- and off-site improvement to be greater than necessary. Although improvements contribute to the overall cost of housing projects, developers have not expressed them to be a constraint to development. However, the City will monitor such impacts in the future. Street improvements that provide sidewalks increase accessibility for persons with mobility impairments. The provision of street improvements is not a constraint to the development of housing as these requirements are necessary to achieve health and safety requirements.

Recommended Action
While on- and off-site improvement standards are not a constraint to housing development, the City will implement Housing Program 7 through which the City will provide opportunities to assist affordable housing development on a case-by-case basis.

B4.3.3 Provision of a Variety of Housing Types
Housing Element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate sites that are zoned to encourage the development of a variety of housing types available to all economic segments of the population. People and households of different ages, types, incomes, and lifestyles have a variety of housing needs and preferences that evolve over time and in response to changing life circumstances. This includes single-family homes, multi-family housing, accessory dwelling units, mobile homes, agricultural employee housing, homeless shelters, and transitional housing, among others. Table B4-7 summarizes the housing types permitted and conditionally permitted in the City of Atwater.

City of Atwater
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B4-15
Table B4-7 Residential Use Matrix
Residential Use A-R R-E 1 R-12 R-1-M R-2 R-3 R-M P-D R-T M Single-Family (1 per lot) P P P P
Single-Family (2 per lot) P
Single-Family (Multiple) P P
Duplex P P P
Multi-family P P
Manufactured Housing C C P C P
Mobile home (1 per lot) P
Mobile home park C C
Transitional Housing P P P P P P
Supportive Housing P P P P P P
Living Quarters for Others3 A
Community Care Facilities C A
Second Unit A C
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P
Patio Homes C
Mixed Use C
Emergency Shelter P
Nursing or Convalescent homes C
P= permitted use; A= accessory use; C= conditional use
1 This section includes R-E, R-1-10, R-1-8, R-1-6, under low density residential zones. 2 This section includes R-1-5, R-1-4, R-1-4, under medium-density single-family residential zones. 3 Chapter 17.16.030.E outlines this use as “living quarters for relatives, friends, or persons regularly employed on the premises, but not rented or otherwise conducted as a business, provided that no kitchen facilities are installed.” Source: Atwater Zoning Code, Adopted 1984
B4.3.3.1 Manufactured Housing
State law mandates that manufactured homes must be permitted in the same manner and in the same zones where conventional single-family structures are permitted (Government Code Section 65852.3). Manufactured housing is permitted in the R-M (Mobile Home Parks) and R-1-M (SingleFamily Residential-Mobile Home Zone) zones. They are also categorized as accessory dwelling units, meaning that conditional use of manufactured housing is permitted in R-E, R-1, and R-3 zones. Most of the City’s stock of manufactured housing is in mobile home parks. Although this housing type is allowed in the R-1-M zone, there is no land designated for the R-1-M zone.

Conclusion
Very few residential zones permit the construction of manufactured homes, which poses a constraint for the development of housing.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B4-16
Recommended Action
The City will implement Program 6 to revise the Zoning Code to allow manufactured homes in all zones where single-family housing is permitted, subject only to the same requirements of conventional single-family housing.

B4.3.3.2 Accessory Dwelling Units
In recent years, several bills have added requirements for local governments related to accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulation. Updates to state law in 2016 and 2017 included changes pertaining to the allowed size of ADUs, permitting ADUs by-right in at least some areas of a jurisdiction, and reduced parking requirements related to ADUs. More recent bills reduce the maximum allowable time to review and approve ADU applications to 60 days and remove lot size and replacement parking space requirements. AB 68 allows an ADU and a junior ADU (JADU) to be built on a singlefamily lot, if certain conditions are met. The State has also removed owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs, created a tiered permit fee structure for ADUs based on their size and location, and prohibits fees on units of less than 750 square feet. In addition, AB 671 requires the Housing Element to include plans to incentivize and encourage affordable ADU rentals.

In 2022, two laws were passed that affect ADU law. Both went into effect in 2023. SB 897 increases the existing height limit for attached and detached ADUs that meet certain conditions. AB 2221 clarifies existing ADU law to close procedural and permitting loopholes for approving ADUs, including the requirement for approving or denying applications within 60 days of application submittal and providing a full set of comments and remedies to applicants with denied applications.

Additionally, AB 2221 adds front setbacks to the list of local development standards that local governments cannot impose if they would preclude construction of an attached or detached ADU of at least 800 square feet, that is at least 16 feet in height and that has at least four-foot side and rear yard setbacks.

On January 1, 2025, three new laws pertaining to ADUs went into effect. These laws were signed by the Governor in September 2024. AB 2533 addresses unpermitted ADUs and JADUs, SB 1211 includes replacement parking requirements and how many ADUs are permitted on multifamily properties, and SB 1077 directs the California Coastal Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development to develop guidance regarding ADUs and JADUs in coastal areas.

ADUs and JADUs are permitted by-right in the R-E, R-1, and R-3 zones. ADUs and JADUs are permitted as a converted unit in an existing space or a limited detached unit to each lot. Singlefamily lots permit one ADU and multi-family lots allow for one or more converted ADUs and two limited detached ADUs. Nonconforming ADUs may be permitted with a conditional use permit.

These units are subject to development standards and conditions outlined in Section 17.28.010 of the City’s Zoning Code and included below:

A. An ADU or JADU shall be either created in a residential or mixed-use zone with a building permit or in a single-family or multi-family zone with an ADU permit. a. Height. A detached ADU created on a lot with a single-family or multi-family unit may not exceed 16 feet. It may be up to 18 feet in height if it is created on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family or multi-family dwelling unit that is located one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop or transit corridor. The ADU may be up to 20 feet in height to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with that of the primary dwelling unit. A detached ADU created on a lot with a multi-family unit with more than one story above grade may not exceed 18 feet in height.

City of Atwater
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B4-17
b. An ADU that is attached to a primary dwelling may not exceed 25 feet in height or the height limitation imposed by the underlying zone that applies to the primary dwelling, whichever is lower.

B. Fire Sprinklers. The ADU shall require sprinklers if the primary residence requires them. The construction of an ADU may not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing primary dwelling.

C. Rental Term. No ADU or JADU may be rented for a term that is shorter than 30 days. This prohibition applies regardless of when the ADU or JADU was created.

D. No Separate Conveyance. An ADU or JADU may be rented, but except as otherwise provided in Government Code Section 65852.26, no ADU or JADU may be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the lot and the primary dwelling (in the case of a single-family lot) or from the lot and all of the dwellings (in the case of a multi-family lot).

E. Septic System. If the ADU or JADU will connect to an on-site wastewater-treatment system, the owner must include with the application a percolation test completed within the last five years or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years.

F. Owner Occupancy. All ADUs and JADUs permitted after January 1, 2025, are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement. A natural person with legal or equitable title to the property must reside on the property for ADUs and the primary dwelling or JADU for JADUs. a. An ADU that is permitted after January 1, 2020, but before January 1, 2025, is not subject to any owner-occupancy requirement.
b. This requirement does not apply to a JADU if the property is entirely owned by another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

G. Deed Restriction. A deed restriction must be recorded against the title of the property in the County Recorder’s office and a copy filed with the Community Development Department before a building permit is issued for an ADU/JADU. This restriction must run with the land and bind all future owners. The City outlines these provisions below:
a. Except as otherwise provided in Government Code section 65852.26, the ADU or JADU may not be sold separately from the primary dwelling.
b. The ADU or JADU is restricted to the approved size and to other attributes allowed by this section.
c. The deed restriction runs with the land and may be enforced against future property owners.
d. The deed restriction may be removed if the owner eliminates the ADU or JADU, as evidenced by, for example, removal of the kitchen facilities. To do so, an owner may make a written request to the Director, providing evidence that the ADU or JADU has in fact been eliminated. The Director may then determine whether the evidence supports the claim that the ADU or JADU has been eliminated. Appeal may be taken from the Director's determination consistent with other provisions of the Zoning Code. If the ADU or JADU is not entirely physically removed but is only eliminated by virtue of having a necessary component of an ADU or JADU removed, the remaining structure and improvements must otherwise comply with applicable provisions of this Code.

H. The deed restriction is enforceable by the director or his or her designee for the benefit of the City. Failure of the property owner to comply with the deed restriction may result in legal action against the property owner, and the City is authorized to obtain any remedy available to it at

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B4-18
law or equity, including, but not limited to, obtaining an injunction enjoining the use of the ADU or JADU in violation of the recorded restrictions or abatement of the illegal unit. Income Reporting. In order to facilitate the City's obligation to identify adequate sites for housing in accordance with Government Code sections 65583.1 and 65852.2, the following requirements must be satisfied:
a. The applicant must provide the City with an estimate of the projected annualized rent that will be charged for the ADU or JADU when filing a building-permit application. b. Within 90 days after each yearly anniversary of the issuance of the building permit, the owner must report the actual rent charged for the ADU or JADU during the prior year. If the City does not receive the report within the 90-day period, the owner is in violation of this Code, and the City may send the owner a notice of violation and allow the owner another 30 days to submit the report. If the owner fails to submit the report within the 30-day period, the City may enforce this provision in accordance with applicable law.

I. Building & Safety.
a. The ADU/JADU units must comply with all local building code requirements. b. There must not be a change of group occupancy under the local building code, unless the building official or Code Enforcement Division makes a written finding based on substantial evidence in the record that the construction could have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety. This does not prevent the City from changing the occupancy code of a space that was uninhabitable space or that was only permitted for nonresidential use and was subsequently converted for residential use in accordance with this section.

The City also requires additional requirements for accessory dwelling units that require an ADU permit, outlined below:

A. Maximum Size. A detached or attached ADU shall not exceed 850 square feet for a student or one-bedroom unit and 1,000 square feet for a unit with two or more bedrooms. a. An attached ADU that is created on a lot with an existing primary dwelling is limited to 50 percent of the floor area of the existing dwelling.
b. The application of other development standards in Chapter 17.28.010.F of Atwater’s municipal code might limit the size of the ADU, but it shall not require the ADU to be less than 800 square feet.

B. Floor Area Ratio (FAR). No ADU subject to Chapter 17.28.010.F may cause the total FAR of the lot to exceed 45 percent.

C. Setbacks. The ADU must conform to a four-foot side and rear-yard setback and 25-foot front yard setback, or 65 feet if it follows the provisions of Chapter 17.12.110 of Atwater’s Municipal Code. However, no setback is required if the ADU is constructed in the same location and dimensions as an existing structure.

D. Lot Coverage. No ADU subject to this section may cause the total lot coverage of the lot to exceed 50 percent.

E. Minimum Open Space. No ADU subject to this section may cause the total percentage of open space of the lot to fall below 50 percent.

F. Passageway. No passageway, as defined by Chapter 17.28.010.C.9 of Atwater’s municipal code, is required for an ADU.

City of Atwater
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B4-19
G. Parking. Generally, one off-street parking space is required for each ADU, unless specified in Chapter 17.28.010.F.7.b of Atwater’s Municipal Code listed below, where no parking is required:
a. The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit. b. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic zone. c. The ADU is part of the proposed or existing residence or an accessory structure under Chapter 17.28.010.F.7.a of Atwater’s municipal code.
d. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU. e. When there is an established car share vehicle stop located within one block of the ADU. f. When the permit application to create an ADU is submi8tted with an application to create a new single-family or new multi-family dwelling on the same lot, provided that the ADU or the lot satisfies any other criteria listed above in subsections G.a-e.

H. Architectural Requirements. The materials, colors, architectural design, and roof slope of the ADU should match that of the primary dwelling. The internal horizontal dimensions of the ADU must be at least 10 feet wide in every direction, with a minimum interior wall height of seven feet. The exterior lighting must be limited to down-lights or otherwise required by the building or fire code. The ADU must have an independent exterior entrance located on the side or rear of the building and not facing the public right-of-way. All windows and doors of the ADU may not have a direct line of sight to an adjoining residential property. Windows and doors in the ADU that are less than 30 feet from a property line that is not a public right-of-way line must either be (for windows) clerestory with the bottom of the glass at least six feet above the finished floor, or (for windows and for doors) utilize frosted or obscure glass.

I. Landscape Requirements. Evergreen landscape screening must be planted and maintained between the ADU and adjacent parcels as follows:
a. At least one 15-gallon size plant shall be provided for every five linear feet of exterior wall.

Alternatively, at least one 24-inch box size plant shall be provided for every 10 linear feet of exterior wall.
b. Plant specimens must be at least six feet tall when installed. As an alternative, a solid fence of at least six feet in height may be installed.
c. All landscaping must be drought tolerant.
d. All landscaping must be from the City’s approved plant list.

J. Historical Protections. An ADU that is on or within 600 feet of real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources must be located so as to not be visible from any public right-of-way.

Conclusion
The City of Atwater's ADU Ordinance was last updated in 2023 and is in compliance with California Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22. The ADU Ordinance does not comply with new state laws that went into effect January 1, 2025.

Recommended Action
The City shall amend the ADU Ordinance to be in compliance with the most recent state laws.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B4-20
B4.3.3.3 Multi-Family
Multi-family housing is permitted by-right in the R-2, R-3-2.5, R-3-2.0, R-3-1.5, and R-3-1.0 zones.

Multi-family development is not permitted in any other zone but can be incorporated into the R-T zone (residential transition) where a mix of two land uses has been approved over the years through re-zoning. Up to 21 dwelling units per acre may be allowed in the R-T zone, depending on environmental and site constraints.

Conclusion
Multi-family development requirements are not a constraint to residential development.

Recommended Action
None required.

B4.3.3.4 Group Homes/Residential Care Facilities
State law requires residential care facilities with six or fewer persons to be allowed by-right in all zones that allow residential uses in zones where single-family residential uses are allowed. Zoning Code section 17.06.174 defines a community care facility as any facility, place, or building which is maintained and operated to provide non‐medical residential care or day care services for children, adults, or children and adults, including, but not limited to, the physically handicapped, mentally impaired, or incompetent persons. A community care facility which services six or fewer persons is considered a residential use of the property. The Zoning Code does not specify a unique set of performance standards for community care facilities. Zoning Code section 17.06.240 defines a family as an individual or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, or a group of not more than five persons (excluding domestic employees) who need not be related by blood, marriage, or adoption, living together in a single‐family dwelling unit. This definition could be considered a constraint in that it conflicts with state definitions allowing up to six unrelated persons within a residential context.

Community care facilities are permitted in agricultural (A-R) and low-density residential zones (R-E, R-1-10, R-1-8, and R-1-6) as accessory uses. For the A-R zone, the maximum occupancy is 12 persons, while the low-density residential zones don’t restrict the number of residents served by the facility. The City currently has no provisions in the Zoning Code to allow the development of group homes in additional residential zones.

In 2018, AB 2162 required cities to change their zoning to provide a “by-right” process and to expedite review for supportive housing projects of 50 units or fewer. This law applies to sites in zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted, including in nonresidential zones permitting multi-family use. Additionally, AB 2162 prohibits local governments from imposing any minimum parking requirements for units occupied by supportive housing residents if the development is located within one-half mile of a public transit stop. AB 2162 requires 25 percent of the units (or a minimum of 12 units, whichever is greater) to be approved by-right with no minimum parking. If the development consists of fewer than 12 units, then 100 percent of the units, excluding managers’ units, in the development shall be restricted to residents in supportive housing.

City of Atwater
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B4-21
Conclusion
The City does not specify a detailed set of performance standards for community care facilities and only allows for such developments in two zones. The Zoning Code does not permit community care facilities with seven or more persons in all zones that permit housing, which constrains the development of these uses.

Recommended Action
The City will implement Program 6 to amend the Zoning Code to allow community care facilities serving six or fewer residents as a single-family use in all zones that permit housing and allow care facilities of seven or more residents in all zones that permit residential uses, with objectivity and approval certainty, subject only to the same restrictions imposed upon residential uses of similar type and form.

B4.3.3.5 Emergency Shelters
In 2019, AB 101 was passed requiring that a Low Barrier Navigation Center development be a use by-right in mixed use districts and nonresidential districts permitting multi-family uses. A Low Barrier Navigation Center is a low barrier, temporary, service-enriched shelter that helps homeless individuals and families obtain permanent housing. The City will need to amend its Zoning Code to explicitly allow the development of Low-Barrier Navigation Centers, by-right, in residential use and mixed-use districts, as well as nonresidential districts permitting multi-family uses.

AB 139, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, mandates that emergency shelters may only be subject to standards that apply to residential and commercial development within the same zone.

AB 139 also states that there should be sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter.

AB 2339 was passed in 2022 and went into effect January 1, 2023. AB 2339 requires that jurisdictions identify zoning designations where emergency shelters are allowed to include sites that meet at least one of the following:
 Vacant and zoned for residential use;
 Vacant and zoned for nonresidential use and located near amenities and services for homeless individuals;
 Nonvacant and is suitable for use as a shelter in the current planning period.

Emergency shelters are allowed by-right in the M-1 and M-2 zones and are not allowed in any zone allowing residential uses. However, due to the wide unavailability of vacant parcels in the M-1 and M-2 zones, the City also allotted areas within the Business Park (B-P) zone for emergency shelters.

The Zoning Code limits the maximum stay to six months or less. The definition of emergency shelter in the Zoning Code does not include interim interventions, (e.g., navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care), as required by AB 2339. The City’s standards for emergency shelters include the following:
 An emergency shelter may have up to 60 beds.
 Emergency shelters shall have separation of at least 300 feet from residential zones, parks, and schools.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B4-22
 Facilities shall establish and maintain set hours for client intake and discharge. The hours of operation shall be consistent with the services provided and shall be posted in a publicly visible and accessible location on a sign that is no larger than one square foot.  Outdoor activity and intake areas shall be screened from public view and from the view of adjacent properties.
 A security plan shall be submitted to the Sheriff's Department for review and approval prior to operation and shall be reviewed annually.
 On-site lighting shall be provided in all parking, pedestrian paths, and entry areas.  A minimum of one supervisory level staff member must be present on the site during hours of operation. Operator(s) must ensure that loitering does not occur on the property during nonshelter hours and must ensure that clients are not loitering, littering, or otherwise creating a nuisance to the neighborhood.
 The emergency shelter shall provide on-site parking for all staff plus one space per ten occupants allowed at the maximum capacity.
 The maximum length of stay shall be no longer than six months, as established by the California Health and Safety Code for emergency shelters.
 Operation of emergency shelters shall comply with all federal, state, and local requirements, and all applicable Building, Fire, and Health and Safety codes.

The Merced County Point-in-time count estimated that 855 unhoused individuals were residing in the county in 2022, including 59 in Atwater. Of that number, 15 are unsheltered and 44 are sheltered. As shown in Table B4-8, Atwater has the potential capacity for more than 6,326 individuals in emergency shelters in the M-1 and M-2 zones, which is significantly greater than the identified 59 individuals counted in 2022.

Table B4-8 Emergency Shelter Capacity Analysis
APN Acreage Realistic Capacity (beds)
001-146-018 3.95 860
001-146-019 17.5 3,811
056-021-010 7.6 1,655
Total 29.05 6,326
Source: City of Atwater, 2023
Emergency shelters must be permitted in zones that allow residential uses. While there is sufficient capacity in M-1 and M-2 zones, these zones do not permit any type of residential uses. should As a result, under Program 6, the City will amend the principal permitted uses in the Commercial Thoroughfare (C-T) zone to permit emergency shelters by-right, as well as mixed-use buildings that include residential uses. As shown in Table B4-9, Atwater has the potential capacity for 4371,410 individuals in emergency shelters on vacant parcels in the C-T R-3 zone, exceeding the identified 59 individuals experiencing homelessness in 2022. These vacant C-T parcels are well situated with access to public transit and essential services. The majority of these identified parcels zoned R-3 are located near the Atwater Loop bus route, commercial services such as grocery stores, community organizations, and health clinicsthe Merced County Human Services Agency and WIC of Mered County. The Winton Commuter bus route also provides connections from Atwater to the City of

City of Atwater
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B4-23
Merced, where most countywide resources for persons experiencing homelessness are concentrated.

Table B4-9 Emergency Shelter Capacity Analysis in Commercial Thoroughfare Zone Zone(C-T)
APN Acreage Realistic Capacity (beds)
002-152-015 0.08 16
156-070-030 0.33 72
004-024-009 0.02 3
156-070-026 0.44 95
004-110-013156-070-027 1.500.63 327136
005-120-030156-070-024 1.050.53 228115
005-120-050 2.88 627
005-120-056 1.05 228
Total 6.480.08 4371,410
Source: City of Atwater, 20263
Conclusion
Maximum stay requirements pose a constraint to housing access for residents experiencing homelessness. In addition, emergency shelters are not allowed in any residential zones. This is not consistent with state law which requires that low-barrier navigation centers be allowed by-right in areas zoned for mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses. Furthermore, interim interventions are not included in the Zoning Code definition of emergency shelter.

The City requires more parking than is required to accommodate staff. As stipulated by AB 139, this adds additional project costs and is a constraint to the development of emergency shelters.

Additionally, the standard for design requirements related to views of adjacent properties and the requirement that emergency shelters have a separation of a minimum of 300 feet from residential zones, parks, and schools may also constrain development.

Recommended Action
The City will implement Program 6 to revise the definition of emergency shelter in the Zoning Code to remove maximum stay requirements, to include interim interventions, and to permit mixed-uses and emergency shelters by-right in C-N, C-C, C-T, and C-Gthe R-3 zones and to allow emergency shelters in any residential and/or residential mixed-use zone(s) subject to the same requirements for residential use of the same type in the same zone. Through Program 6, the Zoning Code will also be amended to define Low-Barrier Navigation Centers, consistent with state law and to explicitly allow by-right, in mixed-use and nonresidential districts permitting multi-family uses. The amendments to the Zoning Code under Program 6 will also ensure off-street parking requirements to provide parking spaces for staff only, remove maximum stay requirements, and remove the requirement to have a minimum 300 separation from residential zones, parks, and schools and the design requirements related to views of adjacent properties.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B4-24
B4.3.3.6 Transitional and Supportive Housing
“Transitional housing” is defined as buildings configured as rental housing operating under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months from the beginning of the assistance. Transitional housing units are residential uses subject only to those requirements and restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
“Supportive housing” is defined as housing with no limit on length of stay that is occupied by the target population and that is linked to on-site or off-site services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining permanent housing, health services, and employment, as needed. Supportive housing units are residential uses subject only to those requirements and restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. AB 2162, which went into effect on January 1, 2019, requires that cities allow supportive housing with up to 50 units by-right in multifamily and mixed-use zones and precludes cities from imposing parking requirements on supportive housing developments located within 0.5-mile of a public transit stop.

Transitional and supportive housing is allowed as permitted use in R-E, R-1, R-2, R-1-M, R-3, and R-T zones. R-3 zones and R-T zones also permit multi-family uses, in compliance with state law. The City does not impose additional requirements on transitional and supportive housing types beyond those that apply to residential uses.

Conclusion
The City allows transitional and supportive housing in zones allowing multi-family and mixed uses, in compliance with state law. However, the Zoning Code does not currently comply with AB 2162, whereby supportive housing that is within a half-mile of a transit line, no minimum parking spaces are required.

Recommended Action
Through Program 6, the City will update the Zoning Code to comply with AB 2162, whereby for supportive and transitional housing located within half-mile from transit, no minimum parking can be required.

B4.3.3.7 Farmworker Housing / Employee Housing
The Employee Housing Act (Health & Safety Code Section 17021.6) requires that any employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household, shall be deemed an agricultural land use. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of employee housing that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone. The permitted occupancy in employee housing in a zone allowing agricultural uses shall include agricultural employees who do not work on the property where the employee housing is located. Health and Safety Code Section 17021.8 mandates that eligible agricultural employee housing developments are subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process and not subject to a conditional use permit.

The Zoning Code does not allow the development of farmworker housing or employee housing in any residential or zone that permits agricultural uses. Further, there is no definition of farmworker housing or employee housing provided in the current Zoning Code.

City of Atwater
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B4-25
Conclusion
The Zoning Code does not permit the development of farmworker and employee housing in any zone. The City’s Zoning Code does not comply with state law regarding farmworker/employee housing.

Recommended Action
The City will implement Program 6 to revise the Zoning Code to permit employee housing for six or fewer employees as a single-family residential use in zones that permit agricultural uses, allow farmworker and employee housing with up to 36 beds in group quarters or up to 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single-family or household as an agricultural use, and to allow eligible agriculturally employee housing developments to be permitted ministerially to ensure compliance with the Employee Housing Act (Health & Safety Code Section 17021.6).

B4.3.3.8 Single-Room Occupancy Units
The City currently has no provisions in the Zoning Code to allow the development of single-room occupancy units (SROs).

Conclusion
Zoning Code standards do not permit the development of SROs, which constrains the production of a wide variety of housing types in the city.

Recommended Action
The City will implement Program 6 to revise the Zoning Code to allow the development of SROs in residential zones allowing multi-family uses (R-2, R-3) and/or in commercial zones allowing hotel and motel uses (C-C, C-T, DB-D, B-P). Additionally, the City will establish a procedure to encourage and facilitate SRO development in the allowable zoning districts.

Housing for Persons with Disabilities
California Government Code Section 65583 requires local jurisdictions to analyze potential and actual government constraints on the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for persons with disabilities. This is to ensure that persons with either physical or mental disabilities are provided with reasonable accommodation for access to and the enjoyment of all facilities, including housing. Government Code Section 65583(c)(3) also requires housing elements to provide a program to “…address, and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for persons with disabilities.”
This section analyzes if the zoning policies and permitting procedures in Atwater impose any constraints to persons with disabilities accessing appropriate and adequate housing in the city.

B4.3.3.9 Definition of Family
Local jurisdictions may restrict access to housing for households that do not meet the jurisdiction’s definition for “family.” A restrictive definition of “family” that limits the number of individuals living together may illegally limit the development and siting of group homes for persons with disabilities, but not for housing families that are similarly sized or situated.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B4-26
The City of Atwater’s definition of family is as follows:
 “Family” means an individual or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, or a group of not more than five persons (excluding domestic employees) who need not be related by blood, marriage, or adoption, living together in a single-family dwelling unit.

Conclusion
The City’s definition of “family” restricts the number of persons living together to five. This is a constraint to the development of group homes with six or more persons. Additionally, the Zoning Code should not distinguish between biologically related and unrelated persons.

Recommended Action
Revise the City’s Zoning Code to remove the limit of number of persons residing in a dwelling unit as a “family” to comply with fair housing law The City will implement Program 6 to amend the Zoning Code to revise the definition of “family” to comply with fair housing laws.

B4.3.3.10 Reasonable Accommodation Procedures
The federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act require that cities and counties provide reasonable accommodation where such accommodation may be necessary to afford individuals with disabilities equal housing opportunities. Cities and counties must also consider requests for accommodations related to housing for people with disabilities and provide the accommodation when it is determined to be “reasonable” based on fair housing laws and the case law interpreting the statutes.

Reasonable accommodation is one of the tools intended to further housing opportunities for people with disabilities. These accommodations require that local jurisdictions make modifications or exceptions in their zoning laws and other land-use regulations when accommodations are necessary to afford individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. For example, it may be a reasonable accommodation to waive a setback requirement so that a paved path of travel can be provided to residents with mobility impairments.

Reasonable accommodation enables developers and providers of housing for people with disabilities a means of requesting from the local government flexibility in the application of land use and zoning regulations or, in some instances, even a waiver of certain restrictions or requirements because it is necessary to achieve equal access to housing.

The City enforces the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), which regulates the access and adaptability of buildings to accommodate person with disabilities (access standards, safety measures, braille sign standards, etc.). The City allows existing and new homes to be retrofitted or fitted for features that provide accessibility and independent living for persons with disabilities. Handicapped parking is not addressed in the City’s parking requirements, but it is a provision in the California Building Code.

The City does not require special building code compliance or additional levels of review to build, improve, or convert housing for persons with physical disabilities. Requests for modifications to ensure disability housing access and accommodations do not require a building permit and many other accommodations can be permitted over the counter. Requests for reasonable accommodation can be made directly to the City’s ADA coordinator contact as listed on the City website for ADA Information. Resolution of the issue or request will begin immediately. There are

City of Atwater
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B4-27
no associated fees for requests for reasonable accommodation. Any person with disabilities or individuals representing such person can request permits for reasonable accommodations for disabled persons to City staff to allow modifications to facilitate access to housing for persons with disabilities, who use a standard entitlement process to ensure land use compatibility and sited facilities.

Conclusion
Atwater enforces state requirements related to reasonable accommodation. However, the City does not provide written procedures or guidelines for reasonable accommodations. This is a constraint for housing for persons with disabilities.

Recommended Action
The City should establish a written procedure for reasonable accommodation requests and provide the information on the City website.

B4.3.4 Planning and Development Fees
The development review process is intended to regulate all projects. Through this process, residential yard size and other open space uses are determined, which in turn control population density for conformance with the General Plan. Regulation is necessary to conserve and stabilize property values, provide adequate open space, diminish street congestion; facilitate adequate community utilities such as transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, and other public facility requirements; and to safeguard public health, safety, and general welfare.

The City charges various fees and assessments to cover the cost of processing permits and providing certain services and utilities. Development impact fees in Atwater are reasonable in comparison to other jurisdictions in the state and region. Table B4-10 describes residential development planning fees for both single- and multi-family development.

Table B4-10 Residential Development Planning Fees
Fee Title Single-Family Unit Cost
Annexation Application $3,063 plus $115 per acre
Pre-zoning Deposit $2,041 + actual cost
Specific Plan Preparation Actual Cost + 20%
General Plan Amendment Preparation Deposit of $2,031, Actual Cost + 20% Site Plan Review Deposit of $1,029 + actual cost
Tentative Subdivision Map Deposit of $3,046 + $61 per lot, Actual Cost + 20% Tentative Parcel Map Deposit $1,876 + $61 per lot, Actual Cost + 20% Conditional Use Permit Actual Cost. $2,000 Minimum Deposit Variance Deposit $993, Actual Cost + 20%
Zone Change Deposit $1847, Actual Cost + 20%
PD Zone: Master Plan Application Deposit $2242, Actual Cost + 20% PD Zone: Final Development Plan Application Deposit $2242, Actual Cost + 20% Environmental Assessment Actual Cost + 20%
Source: City of Atwater, Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, Amended June 27, 2022.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B4-28
Table B4-11 shows development impact and permit fees for single-family and multi-family prototype developments. The total cost of development impact and permit fees for a typical 12,000 square foot single-family house on an existing lot is in excess of $22,000, or about 10.5 percent of the median sales price of $208,000 for such a home in Atwater. For a typical 800 square foot unit in a multi-family development, these fees are approximately $14,000 per unit.

Table B4-11 Residential Development Fees
Impact Fees
Cost Per Unit
Single-Family Multi-Family
Development Impact and Connection Fees
Parks and Recreation $1,240 $1,020 per unit
Sewer Connection $400 $400 per unit
Sewer Capacity Fees Dwelling Unit: $3,667
Mobile Home: $3,312
Dwelling Unit: $3,667 per unit
Mobile Home: $3,312 per unit
Water Connection $400 $400 per unit
Water Capacity Fees Residential Estate: $2,989
Detached Single-Family Residential: $2,689
Med/High Density Residential: $1,257
per unit
Government Building $949 per acre $949 per acre
Fire $1,038 per acre $1,038 per acre
Police $800 per acre $800 per acre
Traffic Circulation $3,684 per acre $3,684 per acre
Traffic Signals/Options $312 per acre $312 per acre
Subtotal $21,958 $13,945
Development Permit Fees
Building Inspection Based on a Fee Type (Sq Footage) Based on Fee Type (Sq Footage) Building Plan Check
75% of project valuation or Based on 3rd
Party Hourly Rate
75% of project valuation or Based on 3rd
Party Hourly Rate
Site Improvement Inspection 3% of improvement value 3% of improvement value Site Improvement Plan Check Cost + 25% Cost + 25%
Notes:. Typical 6,000 sq. ft. residential lot and 1,500 sq. ft. single-family unit Source: City of Atwater, Schedule of Fees, 2023.

Single-family development fees in Atwater are comparable to similarly sized cities in the same county. Fees for a single-family unit range are approximately $21,958 in Atwater but range from $12,326 to $58,103 in the cities of Livingston, Dos Palos, Gustine, Los Banos, and Merced. Similarly, fees for multi-family are comparable, at approximately $13,945 per multi-family unit in Atwater.

Multi-family fees range from $8,997 to $47,550 per unit in other cities in the region. Table B4-12 shows a comparison of development fees in other Merced County jurisdictions.

City of Atwater
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B4-29
Table B4-12 Residential Development Fee Comparison
Jurisdiction
Total Cost Per Unit
Single-Family Multi-Family
Atwater $21,958 $13,945
Dos Palos $12,435 $12,435
Gustine $58,103 $47,550
Livingston $20,804 $5,561
Los Banos $32,961 $26,197
Merced (City) $12,326 $8,997
Merced (County) $30,996 $26,423
The City typically collects entitlement fees at time of application submittal, and all appropriate development impact fees and building permit fees at the time of building permit issuance. For projects with entitlements (i.e. subdivision maps or conditional use permits), this puts fee payment well into the overall timeline. However, for already entitled properties, such as infill units on single lots, this process imposes potential financial impacts upon the developer, since the developer’s recovery of those costs does not occur until such time as the individual units are sold. The postponement of these fees until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued could facilitate the development of additional housing. The City is currently deferring fee payment until the final construction inspection is complete. In the past two years the City has reduced development impact fees as a measure to revive the housing market in the aftermath of the economic downturn. The City does not currently waive development fees as a means of expediting the availability of housing for very low‐ and low‐income households.

Conclusion
Planning and development fees are comparable to other cities in Merced County and are not considered a constraint to development.

Recommended Action
None required.

B4.3.5 Permit Types
The City of Atwater provides the full range of services relating to the development of property within its Sphere of Influence. Subdivision map processing, parcel maps, planned developments, special use permits, and building plans are all processed by the City. The City actively encourages developers to meet and confer with its planning staff prior to the formal submittal of an application as a means to facilitate the timely processing of the application. Pre-application conferences can resolve misunderstandings regarding zoning and development standards and processing procedures.

Several permitting processes may be required depending on the type of development proposal:

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B4-30
Subdivision and Merger
City requirements for these actions parallel State Subdivision Map Act requirements. For projects that require separate ownership parcels, a subdivision is required to establish the land division. The subdivision process is subject to Permit Streamlining Act requirements, but also usually requires CEQA review and can take up to a year to complete. Mergers would be accomplished through the filing of a new map creating a smaller number of parcels. The City follows the approval and disapproval findings of the Government Code section 66474. These are as follows:
 The subdivision must be consistent with applicable general and specific plans.  The site must be physically suitable for the type of development and the proposed density of development.
 The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.  The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
 The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with an easement.

These findings are/are not considered subjective.

Permitted Uses
Permitted Uses, also known as “use by-right,” refer to uses that are permitted in a specific zoning district, and as a result are not subject to additional review or applied conditions for approval by the Planning Commission. Permitted Uses also generally will not cause an adverse environmental impact on surrounding uses. Permitted Uses must still acquire all necessary permits to proceed with development, however the process is much more streamlined than for projects requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Most residential development is allowed by-right in residential zones.

Site Plan Review
Projects subject to the City’s site plan and design review process (all applications for building permits, permitted uses, conditional uses other than agricultural residential, residential estate, and single-family residential buildings and minor structures for the conduct of a business which is to be conducted primarily in the open air outside of a structure) must be approved by the Community Development Director, or designee, to ensure consistency with the City’s Residential Design Guidelines or Commercial and Industrial Guidelines. Site Plans will be evaluated with their consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Code.

Atwater’s site plan review process consists of review and approval by the Community Development Director, or their designee. The Atwater Municipal Code outlines the specific requirements and guidelines for site plans in each zone. The City’s Uniform Development Application includes further guidelines and processes for Site Plan review, ensuring overall approval certainty for projects meeting such requirements. The applicant may appeal a denial from the Community Development Director, by filing an appeal to the Planning Department in writing and within ten calendar days. The appeal will be reviewed by the Planning Commission.

City of Atwater
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B4-31
Conditional Use Permit
Many uses require the applicant to obtain a conditional use permit. The purpose of a conditional use permit is to allow the proper integration into the community of uses which may be suitable only in specific locations in the zone, or only if such uses are designed or laid out on the site in a particular manner. Conditional use permits are approved or denied by the Planning Commission and can be appealed to the City Council. A Planning Commission public hearing is to be set within 30 days of receipt of an application, although CEQA requirements could extend this time for some projects. Conditional use permit processing is subject to Permit Streamlining Act requirements.

The few residential uses that require a conditional use permit approval in Atwater are second units in the R-E and R-1 zones (but refer to Program 7 to permit second units by-right); mobile home parks; and apartments above the ground floor in the C-C and C-G zones. In approving a conditional use permit the Planning Commission must find that the proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the municipal code and the General Plan; that conditions of approval deemed necessary in the public interest will be met; and that the use will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. For a mobile home park, the findings must indicate that dimensions, location, and layout of each mobile home space, buildings, other structures, garbage storage, parking areas, landscaping, fencing, signs, street lighting, and fire protection devices meet state, federal, and local requirements. The submittal requirements are not different than the development plans that would be required for any other approval route.

The Planning Commission may approve a proposed use as long as it conforms to the requirements of the Code and the General Plan, any additional conditions stipulated by the Planning Community Development Director as deemed necessary in the public interest will be met, or will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. These findings are/are not considered subjective.

Planned Development
The purpose and benefits of a Planned Development (PD) zone are described above in the section on Flexibility in Development Standards. A Planned Development is optional; however, an application is usually submitted along with a tentative map application to subdivide the property of at least 10 acres. The purpose of a Planned Development district is to integrate land, buildings, and uses by flexible and innovative design, encourage mixed land uses, and ensure safe and efficient circulation throughout the project area.

A Planned Development proceeds in two stages: a conceptual plan is reviewed by staff, and a master plan is submitted concurrently with a PD zone change (if the site is not already zoned PD) for Planning Commission recommendation and City Council approval. The City approves both residential and commercial Planned Developments.

Following approval of a master plan, a detailed development plan is processed for development of all or portions of the site. The development plan is submitted for Planning Commission recommendation and City Council approval, typically concurrent with a tentative subdivision map. If approval of a zone change or general plan amendment is required for residential development, it may be processed concurrently or prior to either the master plan or the development plan. A Planned Development application also requires CEQA review and is likely to require a negative declaration or environmental impact report; this review would be incorporated with the environmental review already typically required for a subdivision map.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B4-32
Planned Developments do not have set design standards that apply to development within a PD zone, the applicant submits a master plan for the desired standards of future development that are subject to two public hearings; one for the Planning Commission recommendation and another for City council approval. The Zoning Code states that the master plan shall conform to the approved development schedule but includes language that the project “will be exemplary in its design” and have “higher standard or quality of development than typically found in the other zones” which is subjective.

Because of the complexities, the Planned Development process can take a year or longer to complete. However, since the tentative map processing can run concurrently with the planned development process, there is usually a high level of efficiency, since the designs of the master plan, development plan, and tentative map are all aligned. Therefore, the conditional use permit process does not result in a constraint on development. Each non-legislative approval process is subject to Permit Streamlining Act requirements. For a 50-lot subdivision without a Planned Development, the application fees would be $5,815. For that same subdivision, the additional application fees for a Planned Development including rezone would be $5,303, or about $106 per house. The additional steps required under a Planned Development are not generally expected to affect lower-income housing, since most Planned Developments are single-family residential in nature.

Residential and commercial developments in a PD zone would require a Master Plan and Development Plan. Allowed land uses within a PD zone are consistent with uses allowed by the underlying General Plan land use designation. For residential development in areas that have PD zoning and a commercial designation on the General Plan land use map, a General Plan amendment would be necessary which would increase the cost and certainty of development. There are two Planned Development remainder parcels (PD-16 and PD-19) that are targeted for medium and highdensity residential development. The first stage of the Planned Development approval, including the re-zoning, is already complete on these sites, and the final master plan stage is the only remaining requirement. The master plan is comparable to the site plan that would be required for any development within R-3, so it will not result in additional effort that would constrain development of these sites. The City has recently amended the Zoning Code for PDs where the applicant keeps the existing master plan for existing Planned Development parcels, or rezones to Low Density Residential, to not require additional design at the entitlement stage.

Conclusion
Planned Development districts are not a constraint to housing development as they allow for flexible residential developments. Planned Development approvals do not have fixed design or development standards; however, the current language could be considered subjective, which could be a constraint to development. Site plan and permit approvals include subjective standards that require personal interpretation to determine compliance with standards. This is a constraint to development. Program 6 has been added to this Housing Element to reduce and/or eliminate potential governmental constraints related to subjectivity within the review process.

Recommended Action
The City will implement Program 6 to revise the Zoning Code to remove subjective language from Planned Development, site plan, and permit approval requirements as well as update the Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design Guidelines.

City of Atwater
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B4-33
B4.3.6 Permit Procedures and Processing Times
While permit processing and development review are necessary to ensure that development proceeds in an orderly manner, permit processing fees, the costs of studies, and implementation of conditions, as well as time consumed, can impact the cost of housing development.

The initiation of a development begins with the filing of an application with the City Community Development Department. The application is routed for review by the various City departments including the public works, engineering, and planning divisions. Typically, a three-week time frame is provided for these comments. This would apply to ministerial approvals, such as a house on a single lot, and assumes that no variance or special use request is being processed in conjunction with the permits. For discretionary projectsAt the same time, the environmental review process begins concurrently with application review. Assuming that there are no outstanding issues, a negative declaration is usually prepared. After City review, the project is publicly noticed and scheduled for Planning Commission hearing by the Community Development and Resources Commission. For a project that requires circulation of a negative declaration, the total typical processing time is about six to nine months. For a project that requires an environmental impact report, a year or more may be required. For projects requiring CEQA clearance but not requiring public review of environmental documents, a time frame of approximately two four to three six months is estimated from the initial application to a Community Development and Resources CommissionPlanning Commission hearing.

Both single-family and multi-family projects require two public hearings; one for the Planning Commission for the recommendation to City Council, and the second for the City Council to approve.

Housing projects requiring a conditional use permit require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Projects involving a subdivision require two public hearings, one with the Planning Commission and one with the City Council. To approve a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must find that the use complies with development standards, is consistent with the Atwater General Plan and other applicable plans, and will not create a nuisance or be detrimental to public welfare. Appeals to the City Council are typically scheduled for the next available meeting, which may vary from one to two weeks after the Community Development and Resources Commissionpublic hearing. The City’s Health and Safety Code defines public nuisance, removing subjectivity and uncertainty in the approval process.

The City has not received any applications for multi-family development projects in recent years; therefore, processing and approval times for multi-family projects are not available. However, permit procedures and approval timeframes would be similar for both single-family and multi-family projects, assuming similar CEQA findings and requirements. To approve an application the City must find that The required approval findings for both single-family and multi-family a projects are is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, and applicable development standards. Where required by CEQA, a project must undergo the appropriate level of a CEQA environmental reviewevaluation. The City does not impose additional approval findings beyond those already required to demonstrate consistency with the General Plan and underlying zoning district. Once a project complies with objective zoning and development standards, no Multi-family projects do not have to undergo additional discretionary approvals, such as a design review isare required, which reduces uncertainty, time and cost. , that are often in place in other jurisdictions and that add time to the approval process.

The time required to process a project varies greatly from one project to another and is directly related to the size and complexity of the proposal and the number of actions or approvals needed to

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B4-34
complete the process. Table B4-13 identifies the typical processing time most common in the entitlement process. It should be noted that each project does not necessarily have to complete each step in the process (i.e., small scale projects consistent with General Plan and zoning designations do not generally require EIRs, General Plan Amendments, Rezones, or Variances).

Table B4-13 Timelines for Permit Procedures
Type of Approval or Permit Typical Processing Time Approval Body Site Plan Review/Design Plan Review 1 – 2 months Director Conditional Use Permit 1-3 months Planning Commission
Variance 1-3 months Planning Commission
Zone Change 2-3 months City Council
General Plan Amendment 2-3 months City Council
Architectural/Design Review - Minor 1 month Director
Architectural/Design Review - Major 1 month Director
Tentative Subdivision Map 3 months Planning Commission
Final Subdivision Map 7 months City Council
Tentative Parcel Map 3 months Planning Commission
Final Parcel Map 7 months City Council
Negative Declaration 6 - 9 months Planning Commission
Environmental Impact Report 8 months to 1 year or more Planning Commission Single-Family Unit/Bldg. Permit Review 2 – 6 weeks Building Inspector Source: City of Atwater, 2023.

Table B4-14 shows the typical processing procedures by project type for Atwater.

Table B4-14 Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type One Single-Family
Unit (Weeks)
Subdivision
(Weeks)
Multi-Family Units
(Weeks)
Planned Unit
Development (Weeks)
Design Review (2-4) Design Review (2-4) Design Review (2-4) Design Review (2-4) Master Plan (12)
Planned Development
Final Development Plan
(8-12)
Site Plan (6-8) Site Plan (6-8) Site Plan (6-8) Site Plan (6-8) Tentative Map (6-9) Conditional Use Permit (6-9) Conditional Use Permit (6-9)
Environmental Assessment (12) Environmental Assessment (12) Environmental Assessment (12)
Final Map (10) Final Map (10)
Total 8-12 Weeks 36-43 Weeks 26-33 Weeks 26-33 Weeks
Source: City of Atwater, 2023.

City of Atwater
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B4-35
Building Permits
Building permit review timelines for all projects are as follows depending on complexity and scope of work:
 First review: 1 to 20 working days
 Second review: 1 to 15 working days
 Third review: 1 to 15 working days
 Fourth review: 1 to 10 working days
 Fifth review: 1 to 10 working days
Conclusion
Permit procedures and processing times are not considered a constraint to development.

Recommended Action
None Required.

State Streamlining
Under the 5th Cycle Housing Element reporting period (2015-2023), the City of Atwater has made insufficient progress toward its lower-income RHNA and is subject to SB 35 streamlining provisions for projects that include at least 50 percent affordability. SB 35 requires that eligible projects be reviewed for compliance and consistency with the City’s objective standards and are not subject to discretionary processes, such as CEQA environmental review and public hearings. Eligible projects with 150 units or fewer must be approved within 90 days and projects with more than 150 units must be approved within 180 days. In addition, AB 1397 requires that 5th cycle opportunity sites reused in the 6th cycle and identified to accommodate lower-income units (very low-income and lowincome) be subject to by-right approval if projects include 20 percent affordable units for lowerincome households on-site. The City has not adopted procedures for processing SB 35 applications, nor have they created a checklist for SB 35 applications. There have not been any projects approved through SB 35 ministerial approval in Atwater.

The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330 and amended by SB 8) establishes a statewide housing emergency and creates new state laws focused on the production and preservation of housing. SB 330 and SB 8 aim to expedite and increase certainty in the development process with changes to the Housing Accountability Act and Permit Streamlining Act that will be in effect from January 1, 2020, to January 1, 2030. SB 330 also addresses the statewide housing shortfall with new protections for existing housing and restrictions on certain zoning actions that reduce the availability of housing. The legislation creates a preliminary application process, and housing developments will only be subject to those ordinances, fees, and policies in effect when the completed preliminary application is submitted. Like SB 35, SB 330 limits jurisdictions from imposing subjective design standards on housing developments. Objective standards are limited to design standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official. They must be verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark available to both the applicant and the public official prior to application submittal.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B4-36
Conclusion
The City is not in compliance with SB 35 as it has not adopted procedures for processing SB 35 applications, nor has the City created a checklist for SB 35 applications. Recommended Action The City should amend the Zoning Code to address updates to SB 35 and SB 330 and create written procedures for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process, which will be implemented by Program 6. .

B4.3.7 Transparency in the Development Review Process
To increase transparency in the development process, the City’s website publishes resources that help developers and homeowners navigate the residential development and home improvement processes. The City’s Community Development webpage (https://www.atwater.org/communitydevelopment/) provides links to planning and building permit resources, including the City’s zoning and land use maps, permit application forms, rate and fee schedule, and staff contacts.

Conclusion
The City’s website provides all the necessary information and resources required by the State and is therefore in compliance with state law.

Recommended Action
None required.

B4.3.8 Short-Term Housing Rentals
The City of Atwater does not currently have a short-term housing rental program that regulates short-term vacation rentals in the city.

Conclusion
Short-term rentals are not considered a constraint.

Recommended Action
None required.

B4.3.9 Code Enforcement
The City of Atwater implements the California Building Code (CBC), 20252 Edition, which is based on the 2021 2024 International Building Code and is published by the California Building Standards Commission as Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The 20252 California Building Code is set forth to regulate and govern the conditions and maintenance of all property, buildings, and structures within the city by providing the standards for supplied utilities and facilities and other physical things and conditions essential to ensure that structures are safe, sanitary, and fit for occupation and use and providing for the condemnation and demolition of buildings and structures that are unfit for human occupancy and use.

The City has included three additions to the CBC:

1. Permits. No building or structure shall be used or occupied and no change in existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made until the Building

City of Atwater
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B4-37
Official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefore as provided in the 20252 Edition of the California Building Code, Division II Section 111. It shall be required to post the certificate of occupancy on the building or structure for which it was used.

2. Building Permits extensions. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 105.5 Expiration, as contained in Division II, Scope and Administration of the 20225 Edition of the California Building Code the Building Official may grant in writing more than one extension to a building permit if it finds the delays due to economic conditions or other causes beyond the control of the applicant. Any request for extension must be received prior to the expiration of the original period or any extension thereof. If there has been a change in any City fees applicable to the project since the date of the original permit, the new fees shall be applicable to any extension.

3. Building permits fee refunds. As provided in Section 109.6 Refunds, of Division II Scope and Administration, of the 20252 Edition of the California Building Code, the Building Official is authorized to establish a refund policy provided no work has been done and the request for refund is filed prior to the expiration of the original permit period or any extension thereof.

Additionally, the City Council may refund up to 100 percent of all other related fees, e.g., connection charges, park fee, etc.

The enforcement of building codes in the city starts with issuance of a warning notice from the Code Enforcement division. The Code Enforcement division takes a combination approach to code enforcement. The City addresses property maintenance issues by initiating enforcement action and investigation, issuing citations, and notices. The Code Enforcement manager is responsible for collecting and analyzing information and developing necessary educational programs in order to ensure compliance with code requirements. Additional noticing to the property owner follows, with incremental increases in fines per violation if compliance is not met. The City will work collaboratively with property owners to resolve problems and obtain compliance.

Conclusion
The City has adopted the most recent (20225) California Building Code. The City has not implemented any amendments to the CBC. The City’s building codes are consistent with the codes applied in other jurisdictions throughout California and code enforcement efforts do not negatively impact the construction of affordable housing.

Recommended Action
None required.

B4.4 Environmental Constraints
A community’s environmental setting affects the feasibility and cost of developing housing.

Environmental issues range from the availability of water to the suitability of land for development due to potential exposure to seismic, flooding, wildfire, and other hazards. If not properly recognized and accommodated in residential design, these environmental features could potentially endanger lives and property. This section discusses potential environmental constraints to future housing development in Atwater.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B4-38
B4.4.1 Agricultural Lands
Most of the undeveloped land surrounding the city is classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Agriculture is an important economic sector in the County. Any annexation of land to support needed residential development would result in the loss of agricultural land, leading to potential land use conflicts. While preserving agricultural land is a priority for the City and County, this focus may constrain housing development in the city. In identifying land for annexation, the City should focus primarily on areas immediately adjacent to the city, in order to limit the loss of agricultural land.

The Williamson Act was passed by the State Legislature with the intent of preserving agricultural lands. Participants in a Williamson Act program agree under contract to keep their properties in agricultural production for a period of 10 years, with an automatic renewal each year until terminated. In return, the participants have their properties assessed based on agricultural use rather than market value, resulting in a lower property tax assessment. There are a few properties adjacent to the city that are under Williamson Act contracts, all of which are relatively small in size.

The one exception is the area northwest of Atwater, where there is a substantial amount of Williamson Act land. Outside of this area, however, there are few constraints to future housing development due to Williamson Act contracts. If the City focuses on annexing lands adjacent to the City, as recommended above, developments on Williamson Act lands or other parcels with agricultural preservation restrictions could be avoided.

B4.4.2 Seismic Zones
No known faults are located within the City’s sphere of influence. The closest mapped faults are located 20 miles to the northeast in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and 30 miles to the southwest in the Diablo Range. The nearest Alquist‐Priolo Special Studies Zone is the Ortigalita fault zone in southwest Merced County, which is approximately 38 miles from the City. According to the General Plan EIR, seismic ground shaking is the seismic hazard most likely to occur in the city. Structures in the City are likely to sustain damage due to major seismic events and new buildings in the city must be designed for Seismic Design Category D1. Compliance with the California Building Code requirements will ensure that seismic ground shaking will not present a constraint to the development of housing in Atwater.

B4.4.3 Flood
The city is located within the San Joaquin Valley, which contains few elevated features. According to the General Plan EIR, no natural watercourses are located within the city. Most of the City is located outside of the 100‐year floodplain zones, with the exception of areas in the southeast corner of the city bounded by Bellevue Road to the north and Buhach Road to the west. Housing development within the 100‐year floodplain must comply with the development requirements in place for flood hazard areas, and this will ensure that risk of flooding will not present a constraint to the development of housing in the city.

B4.4.4 Climate Change
HCD has developed guidelines for addressing climate change, which are to be incorporated into the Housing Element and/General Plan update process. This effort provides an opportunity for jurisdictions to adopt programs and/or strategies that benefit both housing and affordability, while including energy and climate objectives to address climate change concerns. The City, through the

City of Atwater
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B4-39
former Atwater Redevelopment Agency, adopted land‐use policies and/or programs to encourage infill and mixed use within the City’s former redevelopment areas. Continued promotion of higher density, in‐fill housing along the City’s transportation and transit corridors will contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and promote energy conservation. Implementation of energy‐conserving building designs will add initial cost to affordable housing but will over the long‐ term be cost effective by lowering monthly energy costs for residents.

B4.4.5 Site Contaminants
Most of the vacant sites in Atwater are already established as agricultural land and primarily lowdensity residential lots. No significant toxic contaminants are likely on vacant residential land. There is the potential for agricultural sites to have chemical contamination from pesticides. Remediation of this condition usually involves soil testing to identify locations above established standards, and removal of contaminated soils in those locations. This is typically done in conjunction with larger development proposals, such as subdivisions and Planned Developments, where larger agricultural sites are used, and the cost can be spread among a larger number of housing units. Some sites, which contain existing buildings, may have additional environmental hazards, including asbestos or lead which would require removal ahead of building demolition, or may have soils contamination from, primarily, petrochemical leaks.

B4.4.6 Wildland/Urban Fire Hazards
Fire hazard potential is largely dependent on the extent and type of vegetation, known as surface fuels, that exists within a region. Fire hazards are typically highest in heavily wooded, undeveloped areas as trees are a greater source of fuel than low-lying brush or grassland. Suburban, urban areas, or rocky barren areas have minimal surface fuels and therefore typically have the lowest fire hazard.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE) has designated most of Atwater as “Local Responsibility Area Unzoned” and small portions of the City designated as “Local Responsibility Area Moderate.” None of the City or surrounding area is designated as a very high or high fire hazard severity zone.3
Conclusion
There are few environmental constraints on future development of lands for housing in the Atwater area. The greatest constraint is loss of agricultural land. The topography of the area is level, with no steep slopes or deep ravines. There are no identified sensitive natural communities in the vicinity, including wetland areas or other significant areas of protected habitat. Since most of the land identified for potential future housing is undeveloped or used for agriculture, there are no significant sites of hazardous materials contamination.

Recommended Action
None required.
3 County of Merced. 2021. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://web2.co.merced.ca.us/pdfs/oes/MercedCounty-MJHMP2021-2016.pdf

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B4-40
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-1
B5 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
(AFFH)
B5.1 Introduction
This section of the Housing Element analyzes issues relating to fair housing for the City of Atwater.

This analysis is based on the directives from State Assembly Bill (AB) 686. Background information on AB 686, countywide fair housing services, data sources, and analysis of the regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) issues are included in Chapter 4, Regional Assessment of Fair Housing.

B5.2 Data Sources
To conduct this analysis, the City utilized data from a variety of sources discussed in Chapter 4, Regional Assessment of Fair Housing. Additionally, the analysis includes a discussion of historic land use and segregation patterns and input from sources of local knowledge, including advocates for people with special needs, housing development and advocacy organizations, housing and social services providers, and low-income residents.

B5.3 Methodology
This local AFFH analysis evaluates fair housing issues on the following topics:
 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
 Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty  Disparities in Access to Opportunity
 Disproportionate Housing Needs
 Other Relevant Factors, including limited English proficiency and housing stock type  Analysis of Housing Site Inventory using AFFH indicators  Local Area Knowledge, which includes a discussion of historic land use and segregation patterns and input from sources of local knowledge, including advocates for people with special needs, housing development and advocacy organizations, housing and social services providers, and low-income residents
This analysis identifies patterns and trends at the local scale. Where appropriate, the analysis refers to the regional AFFH analysis provided in Chapter 4, Regional Assessment of Fair Housing, which analyzes patterns and trends of the county and Northern San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Subregion comprised of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced Counties.

For the purposes of this analysis, the City is divided into seven neighborhoods, each with one or more census tracts: Buhach, Castle Garden, Downtown Atwater, Fluhr, McSwain, North Atwater, and Sierra Vista (Figure B5-1). These neighborhoods are based on the City’s planning documents, including the General Plan, as well as local knowledge from City staff and are discussed further in Chapter B6, Housing Resources. Most of the geographic analysis of fair housing issues in Atwater is based on the California Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer described in

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-2
Chapter 4, Regional Assessment of Fair Housing. The AFFH Data Viewer relies on information provided by the Census and other data sources at the census tract and block group level.

A total of nine census tracts cover the city, with some tracts spanning areas outside of the city boundary. This can skew the data presented in the analysis; therefore, we have noted where this may apply. The neighborhoods and census tracts that make up Atwater include:
 Buhach: Consists of two census tracts that divide the neighborhood along Buhach Road, Census Tract 8.02 to the west and Census Tract 9.04 to the east. Census Tract 8.02 is contained within the city boundary, whereas Census Tract 9.04 is part of a much larger census tract. It should be noted that the portion of Census Tract 9.04 included within Buhach is only about four percent of the total census tract area. The data shown in Census Tract 9.04 may not accurately represent the eastern portion of Buhach and may better represent the areas outside of Atwater’s city boundaries. The areas outside of the city’s boundary included within Census Tract 9.04 include the Census Designated Place of Franklin and agricultural land.  Castle Garden: Consists of one census tract, Census Tract 8.01, that only goes slightly out of the city boundary into primarily agricultural land that should not significantly influence the data presented in this report.
 Downtown Atwater: Consists of one census tract, Census Tract 7.01, that is contained within the city boundary.
 Fluhr: Consists of two census tracts that divide the neighborhood along Santa Fe Drive, Census Tract 6.03 which covers most of the neighborhood, and Census Tract 5.03 in the northeastern corner of the neighborhood. Census Tract 6.03 covers the majority of Fluhr and only goes slightly outside city boundaries into other residential land, which will not skew data in this portion of the neighborhood. On the other hand, Census Tract 5.03 spans an area nearly seven miles by eight miles and includes the Castle Airport, Cressey (a Census Designated Place), a United States Penitentiary, and many acres of agricultural land. The portion of Census Tract 5.03 that is included within the Atwater city boundary is about 140 acres, making up only about 0.5 percent of this tract. Due to this disproportion, the data in this portion of Fluhr will be heavily skewed by factors outside of Atwater and may not provide a complete picture of that portion of the neighborhood.
 McSwain: Consists of two census tracts, Census Tract 6.01 that covers all of the Sierra Vista neighborhood and Census Tract 7.02 that spans beyond the city boundaries. Census Tract 6.01 covers all of Sierra Vista and makes up a small portion of the neighborhood between Atwater Boulevard and Highway 99. The data in Census Tract 6.01 is likely to better represent the neighborhood of Sierra Vista than McSwain. Census Tract 7.02 makes up the majority of McSwain stretches beyond the city’s boundaries and may better represent the population outside of McSwain. Census Tract 7.02 stretches from Highway 99 in the North to Highway 140 in the South, and Buhach Road to the east to Bret Crane Road to the west, covering an area of about three by three miles. Of the portion of Census Tract 7.02 that is included within the Atwater city boundary, only about 407 acres are in McSwain, making up only about seven percent of this tract. Within this census tract there are a high number of estate-style singlefamily residences and agricultural land.  North Atwater: Consists of one census tract, Census Tract 6.02, that is contained within the city boundary.
 Sierra Vista: Consists of one census tract, Census Tract 6.01, that extends only slightly outside the city boundary into agriculture land. The potion of this census tract outside of the census tract will not have much of an influence on the data.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-3
Figure B5-1 Atwater Neighborhoods
Source: Rincon Consultants, 2023.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-4
B5.4 Local Setting
Atwater originally developed as an agricultural hub in the late 1800s, with its growth driven by the railroad and the surrounding farmland. Early development focused on supporting agriculture, with small businesses, community services, and infrastructure built around the town center in what is now known as Downtown Atwater. By the early 20th century, irrigation advancements allowed the farming economy to expand, attracting more residents to the area.

A significant turning point came in 1941 with the establishment of Castle Air Force Base. The base brought a surge of residential and commercial growth, as the city developed housing and services for military personnel and their families just northeast Atwater (the neighborhood referred to as Fluhr). This marked the beginning of Atwater's suburbanization, with post-war suburban expansion further driving growth. The 1950s and 1960s saw the development of new residential subdivisions, particularly in the northwest, as single-family homes became the dominant housing type. Streets were designed to accommodate cars, with shopping centers and schools built to serve the growing suburban population.

When Castle Air Force Base closed in 1995, Atwater faced economic challenges, but the town continued to grow as a suburban community. Residential development continued, particularly on the city’s periphery, where new subdivisions attracted families. The former airbase was repurposed as Castle Commerce Center, which brings opportunities for new businesses and industry to support the local economy. Today, Atwater remains a mix of suburban neighborhoods and agricultural uses, with suburban expansion continuing on its outskirts. The city has focused on developing housing and growing its commercial base, particularly along Highway 99, while still maintaining its connection to the farming economy.

In the early 2000s, the City received state funding from the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) under the Planning and Technical Assistance Allocation (PTA) to conduct a Downtown Revitalization Study and prepare a plan to revitalize the Downtown Area. In 2009, the City Council adopted the Downtown Revitalization strategy. This type of activity is essential to help preserve the viability of the Downtown Core Area.

Land Uses and Development Trends
Atwater's historical development patterns have significantly shaped its current landscape. The city's land use distribution reflects a suburban character, with Single-Family Residential uses dominating at 40.3 percent of assessed land acreage (Figure B5-2). Multi-Family Housing comprises a smaller portion at 9.7 percent. Other major land uses include land designated Government (12.9 percent) and Vacant Land (9.0 percent). Despite the prevalence of single-family housing throughout Atwater, a significant portion of units are occupied by renters. Approximately 46 percent of the city's households are renters. As illustrated in Figure B5-3, renter units are concentrated in Castle Gardens, Downtown Atwater, and Sierra Vista. Buhach and McSwain have the lowest renter concentration.

Figure B5-4 illustrates Atwater's suburban and agricultural development. The city is primarily surrounded by agricultural land to the west and south. Developed areas, including Residential, Commercial, Business Park, and Aviation/Manufacturing uses, are concentrated in the central neighborhoods as well as in Fluhr near Winton and Castle Airport (Figure B5-2). Current zoning shows Commercial zones along major intersections and adjacent medium- and high-density uses.

High-density development is primarily concentrated in Downtown Atwater.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-5
As a result of these development patterns and land use zoning, population is concentrated in North Atwater and Downtown Atwater (Figure B5-5). Figure B5-6 also shows historical development patterns, with older housing primarily located in Sierra Vista, North Atwater, and Downtown Atwater. Newer developments are situated in McSwain and east Buhach.

Downtown Atwater serves as the city's historical core, featuring older, established homes and businesses. Its development reflects Atwater's early 20th-century origins, with smaller lots and single-story homes. Revitalization efforts are underway to preserve its charm while attracting new businesses. This is one of the most affordable rental areas in the city.

Sierra Vista is another area with some of the oldest single-family Housing in the city, though it has seen newer developments in recent decades. It remains connected to Downtown Atwater and its amenities. Sierra Vista is also one of the most affordable rental areas in the city.

Fluhr and Castle Garden, located near the former Castle Air Force Base, have a mix of older, postWorld War II housing and industrial areas. This section was initially developed to support military families and includes the city's mobile home park areas. Castle Garden features a combination of single-family and multi-family residential uses. Fluhr is among the most affordable neighborhoods in the City.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-6
Figure B5-2 Atwater Zoning Map

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-7
Figure B5-3 Renter-Occupied Concentration

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-8
Figure B5-4 Atwater Aerial View

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-9
Figure B5-5 Atwater Population Density

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-10
Figure B5-6 Percentage of Housing Built Before 1990

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-11
Figure B5-7 Median Gross Rents

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-12
B5.5 Summary of AFFH Analysis Findings
Atwater’s racial and ethnic composition is predominantly Hispanic/Latino. The percentage of nonwhite population is lower than that of Merced County and the median incomes are slightly higher than the county. The city has moderate rates of poverty and a moderate percentage of Low- and Moderate-Income (LMI) residents. The city is characterized as moderate-, high-, and highestresource, or characteristics that have been shown by research to support positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families, particularly long-term outcomes for children. There is very limited transit in Atwater, as well as a high pollution burden. A large percentage of renters in Atwater are experiencing housing cost burden (spending more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs) but are at low risk of displacement. Sierra Vista and Downtown have a higher concentration of LMI residents than other areas of the city. The eastern part of Fluhr, the eastern part of Castle Garden, East Buhach, the eastern part of North Atwater, Downtown, and portions of Sierra Vista have the highest concentration of non-white residents.

Below is a summary of AFFH analysis findings by neighborhood in Atwater.

B5.6 Fair Housing Resources
Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
The City of Atwater refers fair housing inquiries to Central California Legal Services (CCLS), a nonprofit organization, that provides fair housing information and resources to residents and housing providers. The CCLS helps tenants in disputes with their landlords and bring cases to ensure local governments follow the law to provide low-income housing. They also refer individuals who are facing housing voucher discrimination to local organizations, including CCLS and Self-Help Enterprises. Fair housing complaints can also be reported directly to the City Manager’s Office. The City works with Self-Help Enterprises, a nonprofit organization that operates throughout the Central Valley that serves low-income and households in need of housing assistance, to provide fair housing services to residents of Atwater. Organizations providing fair housing services throughout the county are discussed in Chapter 4, Regional Assessment of Fair Housing.

Currently, the City works with Self-Help Enterprises to distribute information on fair housing and housing resources through flyers, the City’s website, and social media accounts. Self-Help Enterprises attends local events to advertise City housing programs. There are no active or recent fair housing lawsuits, settlements, or legal cases in the city of Atwater. Program 13 in the Housing Plan emphasizes the need for fair housing outreach and enforcement. Through this program the City of Atwater works with the Merced County Housing Authority to provide fair housing information and resources to residents and housing providers.

Fair Housing Laws
In an effort to end housing segregation, the United States Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1968, making housing discrimination based on race, color, national origin, or religion illegal. In 1974, Congress amended the Fair Housing Act to include sex as a protected category. Then in 1988, Congress again amended the Fair Housing Act by passing the Fair Housing Amendments Act, making housing discrimination against families with children and people with disabilities unlawful. 1 The Fair 1 42 U.S. Code §§ 3601 et. seq.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-13
Housing Amendments Act also incorporated accessibility standards for new multi-family units and “reasonable accommodations” for people with disabilities into the Fair Housing Act.

In addition to prohibiting discrimination based on federal laws, the State of California has enacted a number of statutes that mirror and, in certain cases, extend federal fair housing protections. The Unruh Civil Rights Act of 1959 and subsequent court decisions require equal access to the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services of all business establishments regardless of protected status.2 The courts have interpreted this Act to prohibit any arbitrary discrimination based in any class distinction, regardless of whether or not that basis is enumerated in the Act.

The Fair Employment and Housing Act of 1963 is the primary state law that prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, lease negotiation, or financing of housing based on race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, and ancestry. 3 The California Fair Housing Act of 1992 brought state laws into conformity with the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1988 and added protections for people with a “mental and physical disability” and “familial status.” The Act also requires that housing providers allow persons with disabilities to modify their premises to meet their needs.

The Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 provides that all persons have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, age, disability, or position in a labor dispute. The Act prohibits violence or threat of the same in rental housing situations. The Banes Civil Rights Act also forbids interference by force or threat with an individual's constitutional or statutory rights in places of worship, housing, and private property.

The Federal protected classes include:
 Color
 Disability4
 Familial status
 National origin
 Race
 Religion
 Sex
The additional State of California protected classes include:
 Age
 Ancestry
 Arbitrary discrimination
 Gender
 Gender identity
 Gender expression
 Genetic information
2 California Civil Code, §§ 51 and 52
3 California Government Code §§ 12900-12906
4 The Fair Housing Act uses the term ‘handicap,’ however, this analysis uses the term “person with a disability,” to represent this language of the Act.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-14
 Marital status
 Sexual orientation
 Source of income
The City of Atwater strives to offer equal access for all to the housing opportunities. The City’s Housing Element includes policies Goals, Policies, and Programs that facilitate and promote affirmatively furthering fair housing, including:
 Goal 7: Promote housing opportunities and access for residents regardless of age, race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, disability, or economic level in compliance with local, state, and federal fair housing laws.
 Policy 7.1: Promote meaningful and informed participation of residents, community groups, and governmental agencies in all local housing and community development activities.  Policy 7.2: Comply with federal, state, and local fair housing anti-discrimination laws ensuring equal access to housing regardless of circumstances as protected by fair housing laws.
 Policy 7.3: Provide fair housing services to city residents and ensure that residents are aware of their fair housing rights.
 Policy 7.4: Provide residents with housing mobility options by facilitating the development of a variety of housing types and expanding access to housing services.  Policy 7.5: Protect tenants from discriminatory housing practices and displacement.  Policy 7.6: Promote the integration of affordable and special needs housing in existing and planned neighborhoods.

The City of Atwater is also taking meaningful actions to ensure compliance with SB 329 and SB 222, expanding the source of income protection to include “federal, state, or local public assistance and federal, state, or local housing subsidies.” Prior to these bills, source of income protection excluded public housing subsidies, such as the Housing Choice Vouchers, in the definition of income. Both bills went into effect on January 1, 2020. As stated in the AFFH Meaningful Actions Matrix in the Housing Element’s Program section, the City will work to develop informational materials to expand outreach and education on SB 329 and SB 229 to promote the use and expand the locational choices for Housing Choice Vouchers.

The City of Atwater also reviewed its compliance with recent changes to Sections 65580-65589.8 that require local jurisdictions to address the provision of housing options for special needs groups, including transitional and supportive housing for persons, residential care facilities, and employee housing, among others. The City has included Program 6 to amend zoning regulations in conformance with state law.

The City does not have any pending lawsuits, enforcement actions, judgments, settlements, or findings related to fair housing and civil rights. As detailed in a later section, any complaints regarding fair housing are directed to the City Manager's office. The office forwards a record of the complaint to the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), formerly known as the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-15
The City complies with state and federal housing laws as follows:
 Fair Housing Act; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – the City complies by ensuring its actions related to housing are not discriminatory through City protocols, decision-making procedures, and adhering to non-discrimination requirements of federal funding programs.  Rehabilitation Act of 1973 – see Fair Housing Act; also, the City complies through its accessibility protocols, administered and enforced by the City’s ADA Coordinator.  American Disabilities Act – the City complies with the ADA through building permit review and issuance.
 California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and FEHA Regulations – the City complies with FEHA and its regulations through established City protocols decision making, legal counsel and advisement.
 Government Code Section 65008 – the City Zoning Code is written to ensure that the City’s actions regarding the development of housing for persons and families of very low, low, moderate, and middle incomes, or emergency shelters for the homeless, are not discriminatory.

Programs have been included in this Housing Element to remove constraints and facilitate housing for all households, including protected classes (e.g., programs regarding residential care facilities, emergency shelters, etc.)
 Government Code Section 8899.50 – This section documents compliance with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirements.
 Government Code Section 11135 et. seq. – the City complies with anti-discrimination requirements through the City’s Human Resources programs and the City’s procurement protocols.
 Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) – With Program 7, the City plans to update the Zoning Ordinance to comply with current state density bonus law.  Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code Section 65589.5) – the City has documented compliance with the HAA as described in Section 6. The City’s website publishes resources that help developers and homeowners navigate the residential development and home improvement processes. The City’s Community Development webpage (https://www.atwater.org/community-development/) provides links to planning and building permit resources, including the City’s zoning and land use maps, permit application forms, rate and fee schedule, and staff contacts.
 No-Net-Loss Law (Government Code Section 65863) – the City has documented compliance with sufficient capacity for Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and will ensure compliance with no-net-loss via required annual reporting to HCD.
 Least Cost Zoning Law (Government Code Section 65913.1) – the City includes programs in this Housing Element to ensure that sufficient land is zoned with appropriate standards to accommodate its RHNA.
 Excessive subdivision standards (Government Code Section 65913.2) – the City’s subdivision standards are typical or not excessive in compliance with the Government Code.  Limits on growth control (Government Code Section 65302.8) – the City complies as it has no growth control measures
 Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65583) – this Housing Element documents compliance with Housing Element law.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-16
B5.7 Ability to Address Complaints
Any complaints regarding fair housing are directed to the City Manager’s office directly. From there, the office sends a record of the complaint to the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), formerly the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), which maintains a record of housing discrimination complaints filed in local jurisdictions. HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) also collects fair housing complaint data. Fair housing complaints may be filed with either the CRD or FHEO, however, the FHEO may refer complaints to the state or local agency for investigation. According to the AFFH Data Viewer, between 2013 and 2022, a total of seven cases were filed with the FHEO in Atwater. Overall, racial discrimination comprised of two cases followed by familial status basis with one case. The seven cases filed in Atwater make up five percent of the total FHEO cases filed throughout Merced County between 2013 and 2022.

The City does not have sufficient staffing and financial resources to adequately address fair housing concerns. The City will collaborate with regional agencies, fair housing providers, organizations, and other jurisdictions within the county to address housing needs, including fair housing outreach and services, as specified in Housing Plan Programs 9 and 13.

B5.8 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
Race and Ethnicity
Atwater is overall quite diverse with 41 to 80 percent of residents identifying as non-white (Figure B5-8). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Hispanic/Latino residents comprise the largest racial/ethnic group in Atwater (approximately 55 percent). Areas with a higher percentage of nonwhite residents (61 to 80 percent) are in east Fluhr, east Castle Garden, East Buhach, east North Atwater, Downtown, and portions of Sierra Vista. The percentage of non-white residents in Atwater is similar to the racial/ethnic makeup across the Northern SJV region.

From 2011 to 2021, the racial/ethnic diversity in Atwater increased. During this time period, the percentage of white residents decreased four percent, the percentage of Hispanic/Latino residents increased by six percent, and the percentage of Asian American/Pacific Islander decreased by two percent (Table B5-1). Hispanic/Latino residents remained the largest racial/ethnic group in the county, equaling approximately one half (55 percent) of the total population in 2021.

Table B5-1 Population by Racial Group (City of Atwater) Percent of Population
Race 2011 2021
Hispanic/Latino (of any race) 49.2% 55.3%
Not Hispanic/Latino
White 36.0% 31.9%
Asian American/Pacific Islander 7.4% 5.8%
Other or Multiple Races 3.0% 3.0%
Black/African American 4.3% 3.9%
Native American/Native Alaskan 0.2% 0.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2007-2011, 2017-2021), Table DP05.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-17
The HCD AFFH Data Viewer identifies the degree to which areas have a predominant racial/ethnic majority. The predominant racial/ethnic group in each census tract is that with the largest population. Most of the city is predominantly Hispanic/Latino residents. Only the McSwain area in the southern end of the city has a predominantly white population (Figure B5-9).

According to Othering and Belonging Institute (OBI) racial segregation/integration data, most neighborhoods within Atwater are racially integrated (Figure B5-10). The census tracts in the city that stretch beyond the city boundary show higher levels of segregation, with high white segregation in McSwain and high segregation among people of color in northeastern Fluhr. Since the data in these tracts is likely to reflect the population outside of Atwater, it may not accurately represent the breakdown of neighborhood segregation in those areas. This assumption has been anecdotally verified by the City.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-18
Figure B5-8 Percent of Total Non-White Population (City of Atwater) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-19
Figure B5-9 Predominant Populations (City of Atwater)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-20
Figure B5-10 Racial Segregation and Integration (City of Atwater) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2023-2031 Draft Housing Element 5-21
Persons with Disabilities
As referenced in Chapter 3, Regional Housing Needs Assessment, 14 percent of the total population in the city of Atwater (31,401 residents) is living with one or more disabilities. The most common disability in the city is ambulatory difficulty, followed by hearing difficulty (Figure B5-11). This is somewhat similar to the Northern SJV region with hearing difficulty being the most common disability across the region. Disabilities are most prevalent among senior residents. Approximately 49 percent of residents aged 65 and over are living with a disability.

Figure B5-11 Disability by Type (City of Atwater)
Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability.

These counts should not be summed.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2017-2021), Table S1810.

In all areas of Atwater, 10 to 20 percent of the population have a disability. In most of Merced County, between five and 20 percent of the population have a disability. The northeastern part of the county has higher concentrations of persons living with a disability than the southern portion of the county. There is no evidence of segregation with individuals living with a disability shown within the city as seen in Figure B5-12.

Approximately five percent of the total employed population in Atwater have one or more disabilities, slightly below the nine percent seen in 2016. Eleven percent of the unemployed population had one or more disabilities, slightly up from 10 percent in 2016. Table B5-2 shows employment status by disability status estimates for Atwater, which has slightly decreased in the past five years.

Adult residential facilities and residential elderly care facilities are shown below. There are eight adult residential facilities in the city and two just outside the City boundaries. Additionally, there are two residential elderly care facilities in Atwater. Facilities are located throughout the City and are accessible citywide.

5.3%

3.2%

5.0%

7.5%

2.4%

4.2%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%
With a hearing
difficulty
With a vision
difficulty
With a cognitive
difficulty
With an
ambulatory
difficulty
With a self-care
difficulty
With an
independent
living difficulty Percent of Population Reporting Disability

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) 5-22
Figure B5-12 Percent of Population with a Disability (City of Atwater) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-23
Table B5-2 Employment Status by Disability Status (City of Atwater) Disability Status
Employed
2012-2016
(Percent of Total
Employed)
Unemployed
2012-2016
(Percent of Total
Unemployed)
Employed
2017-2021
(Percent of Total
Employed)
Unemployed
2017-2021
(Percent of Total
Unemployed)
No Disability 9,381
91%
1,431
90%
12,010
95%
1,418
89%
With a Disability 980
9%
162
10%
697
5%
169
11%
Total 10,361 1,593 12,707 1,587
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2012- 2016, 2017-2021 Estimates.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-24
Figure B5-13 Percent of Population with a Disability and Residential Care Facilities (City of Atwater)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2024 and Department of Developmental Services. 2024.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-25
Familial Status
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18 and the martial status of the head of the household. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Examples of differential treatment include limiting the number of children in an apartment complex or confining households with children to a specific location. These actions are potentially discriminatory. Single-parent households are protected by fair housing law.

Household composition of married couple families with children present in Atwater is similar to Merced County and the Northern SJV region. However, there is a higher percentage of single parent, female households in Atwater than Merced County and the Northern SJV region. Atwater had a total of 10,309 households in 2021. Households with children present comprised approximately 36 percent (3,693 households) of the total households. Married-couple families with children comprised the largest share of households with children (12 percent). Most single-parent households are female single-parent households (75 percent). Single-parent, female-headed households are more likely to rent than own, comprising approximately 17 percent of renteroccupied households but only eight percent of owner-occupied households (Table B5-3).

Table B5-3 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (City of Atwater) Household Type Owner-Occupied
Percent of Total
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Percent of Total
Renter-Occupied
Married Couple Family, with
Children Present
1,140 21.2% 1,052 21.3%
Single-Parent, Male Householder,
no Spouse Present
168 3.1% 92 1.9%
Single Parent, Female
Householder, No Spouse Present
423 7.9% 818 16.5%
Total Households with Children
Present
1,731 32.3% 1,962 39.7%
Total Households 5,366 4,943
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure by Household Type and Presence and Age of own Children, 2017-2021 Estimates.

In most of Atwater, less than 20 percent of households are those with children residing in femaleheaded, single-parent households (Figure B5-15). The neighborhoods of Castle Garden, Downtown Atwater, and Sierra Vista have higher percentages of children residing in female-headed, singleparent households (20-40 percent). This is similar to the rest of the region, except for the major cities in the urban areas, which have higher percentages of children residing in female-headed, single-parent households.

Approximately 21 percent of households in Atwater are married couples with at least one child under 18 years.5 As Figure B5-16 displays, 40-80 percent of Atwater households are comprised of married couples. In Castle Garden, North Atwater, and Downtown Atwater, 40-60 percent of households are married couple households. Across the rest of the city, 60-80 percent of households are married couple households. This is similar to regional trends. 5 U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table DP1

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-26
As shown in Figure B5-14 below, there are six child care centers in Atwater and three just outside the City boundaries. Given the smaller footprint of the city, child care centers are accessible to all Atwater neighborhoods.

Household Income
Household income is directly connected to the ability to afford housing. Higher-income households are more likely to own rather than rent housing. As household income decreases, households tend to pay a disproportionate amount of their income for housing and the number of persons occupying unsound and overcrowded housing increases. To achieve fair housing objectives, people in lowincome households must have a choice in housing opportunities—that is, when they are able to locate units that are affordable and well maintained in all parts of a jurisdiction and region.

This section identifies household income disparities using data based on median household income and LMI geographies. HUD defines an LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI. The definition of low or moderate-income is based on HUD income definitions of up to 80 percent of the area median income (AMI). Data for this analysis is from the HUD Low- and Moderate-Income Summary based on the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (most recent available data).6
As of 2021 (most recent available data), the median household income in Atwater is $59,436, which is slightly higher than the county’s median income of $53,992.7 Median household income is highest in the McSwain area and the western portion of Fluhr (Figure B5-17). In most other parts of the city, median household income is at or below the 2021 state median income of $84,097. This is similar to the Northern SJV region, where most of the region’s AMI is below the state median income. The southern part of Sierra Vista and southwestern portion of Fluhr have the lowest median incomes in the city, $27,321 and $21,550, respectively.

LMI populations are seen throughout Atwater, particularly in the western end of the city (Figure B5-18). Similar to the lowest income areas of the city, the southern part of Sierra Vista and southwestern portion of Fluhr have the highest occurrence of LMI households in the city.

Approximately 50 to 75 percent of North and Downtown Atwater neighborhoods are LMI households.
6 HUD Exchange 2021: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/acs-low-mod-summary-data/ 7 ACS 5 Year, 2017-2021, S1901: https://data.census.gov/table?q=S1901:+INCOME+IN+THE+PAST+12+MONTHS+(IN+2021+INFLATIONADJUSTED+DOLLARS)&g=160XX00US0603162&tid=ACSST5Y2021.S1901

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-27
Figure B5-14 Female-Headed Households with Children Present, No Spouse/Partner Present and Child Care Centers (City of Atwater)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2024 and Department of Developmental Services. 2024.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-28
Figure B5-15 Female-Headed Households with Children Present, No Spouse/Partner Present (City of Atwater) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-29
Figure B5-16 Married Couple Households with Children Present (City of Atwater) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-30
Figure B5-17 Median Household Income (City of Atwater)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-31
Figure B5-18 Low- and Moderate-Income Population (City of Atwater) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-32
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
To identify racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (known as R/ECAPs), the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) includes a poverty concentration and racial segregation filter that aligns with HUD’s R/ECAP methodology but is intended to reflect the level of racial and ethnic diversity more effectively. TCAC categorizes census tracts that have both a poverty rate of over 30 percent and that are designated as being racially segregated (overrepresentation of people of color relative to the region) as areas of high segregation and poverty. Census tracts with 1.25 times the county’s percentage of black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, or all people of color are designated as racially segregated areas.

There are no areas of high segregation and poverty in Atwater. However, in Downtown Atwater there is a higher percentage of non-white residents and an overall median income of less than $55,000. The type of housing available in Downtown Atwater may contribute to the concentration of lower-income households. Most of the city is zoned for single-family residential uses, including the Downtown area. However, Downtown Atwater also has one of the largest areas zoned for high density residential uses in the city. Higher density housing units are typically more affordable to lower income households. The city’s land use patterns are further discussed in Section B5.11.

Additionally, the census tract encompassing Downtown Atwater has the largest proportion of housing units built prior to 1960 compared to all other tracts in the city. A discussion of substandard housing conditions is included in Section B5.10 and a brief history of Atwater is included in Section B5.11.

Poverty and Segregation
Poverty rates in Atwater are generally range 20 to 30 percent in the northern areas of the city (Figure B5-19). Downtown Atwater has the highest poverty rates in the city with 30 to 40 percent of the population living below the poverty line. The neighborhood of McSwain has the lowest percentage in the city, with less than 10 percent of residents living below the poverty line. This is likely due to this area being part of a much larger, more affluent census tract. The McSwain neighborhood is mainly comprised of business parks and industrial uses, with few residents, so the data may not be representative of residents living in this neighborhood.

Concentrated Areas of Affluence
HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer identifies Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs), defined as white, affluent communities as census tracts that have a white population that is 1.25 times higher than the Council of Governments region and a household median income 1.5 times higher than the AMI. In Atwater, RCAAs are only located in the McSwain neighborhood ( Figure B5-20). It should be noted that McSwain is part of a much larger census tract which contains estate-style single-family residences, which could be the reasoning behind the RCAA designation in this neighborhood. The portion of the census tract within city boundaries is zoned for business parks and industrial uses and has very few residents, so the RCAA designation may not accurately reflect the population living in Atwater. RCAAs in Atwater are predominantly white and primarily have household median incomes much greater than the county average of $52,534.

Demographics of the census tract encompassing the McSwain neighborhood compared to demographics citywide are shown in Table B5-4. As discussed above, this tract is primarily comprised of owner-occupied households. The median income in this tract is $99,676, significantly higher than the median income citywide. Similarly, this tract has a lower poverty rate and larger

City of Atwater
Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
2024-2032 Draft Housing Element 5-33
non-Hispanic White population compared to the citywide trend. There are no public or subsidized housing units located in the McSwain neighborhood. This tract is a TCAC highest resource area, like the Buhach and Fluhr areas. Less than 5 percent of households are overcrowded in the RCAA tract and the rate of cost burdened owners in the area is consistent with most tracts citywide.

According to the 2006-2010 ACS, non-Hispanic White residents represented 69.5 percent of the population in the RCAA tract, indicating that the non-White population has grown in the neighborhood in recent years. In comparison, the non-Hispanic White population citywide represented 37.1 percent of the population during the 2006-2010 ACS. The proportion of residents below the poverty level in the RCAA area has also increased during this period. These trends indicate that the RCAA is becoming increasingly diverse with regards to racial/ethnic and income makeup. However, the housing suitable for lower income households in the RCAA may still be limited. As discussed above, the tract identified as an RCAA encompasses much of the unincorporated County area south of the City. Because most of the area within the City limits are zoned for business parks and industrial uses where few residents reside, many of the demographic trends in this tract can be attributed to the residential areas in the unincorporated County area.

Table B5-4 Demographics of RCAA
Area
% With Two or
More Units Median Income Poverty Rate
% Renter
Households White
McSwain 3.2% $99,676 10.6% 20.7% 51.1%
Atwater (City) 29.4% $59,436 17.3% 47.9% 31.9%
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 and 2017-2021 ACS.

Subsidized Housing
Atwater has a range of publicly assisted rental housing affordable to lower and moderate-income households. Overall, there are 401 subsidized units in the city, 314 are assisted by HUD funding, 51 with Atwater Housing Authority support, and 36 with HUD project-based vouchers.

According to the AFFH Data Viewer, 186 housing choice vouchers (HCVs) were in use in Atwater in 2021. The Fluhr, Downtown Atwater, and eastern Buhach neighborhoods saw the highest percentage of renter-occupied units using HCVs (Figure B5-21)

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-34
Figure B5-19 Poverty Status (City of Atwater)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-35
Figure B5-20 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (City of Atwater) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-36
Figure B5-21 Housing Choice Vouchers
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Draft Housing Element B5-37
Conclusion
Atwater is predominantly Hispanic/Latino, with 55 percent of its population identifying as Hispanic/Latino. Most neighborhoods, except for McSwain, are also predominantly Hispanic/Latino.

According to OBI's racial segregation/integration classification, McSwain has High White Segregation and is considered a RCAA. This neighborhood is one of the least developed in the city, primarily consisting of business parks and single-family planned developments. As discussed later, McSwain also has the highest concentration of resources.

In contrast, the areas north of Highway 99, including Downtown Atwater, Sierra Vista, and North Atwater, have the highest concentration of poverty in the city. These tracts also have some of the highest concentrations of minorities, renters, and older higher density housing. The stark differences between these two neighborhoods highlight the need for strategies to improve mobility into newer planned developments and to address the challenges faced by communities north of Highway 99.

B5.9 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
TCAC Opportunity Areas
To assess fair access to opportunities, HCD and TCAC convened in the California Fair Housing Task Force (Task Force) to “provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD).” The Task Force has created Opportunity Maps to identify resource levels across the state “to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas for families with children in housing financed with nine percent Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs).” These opportunity maps are made from scores of three different domains made up of a set of indicators related to economic, environmental, and educational opportunities and poverty and racial segregation. Based on these domain scores, tracts are categorized as Highest Resource, High Resource, Moderate Resource, Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing), Low Resource, or areas of High Segregation and Poverty. Table B5-5 shows the full list of indicators.

Table B5-5 Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty
Adult education
Employment
Job proximity
Median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution Indicators and values Education Math proficiency
Reading proficiency
High School graduation rates
Student poverty rates
Poverty and Racial Segregation Poverty: tracts with at least 30% of population under federal poverty line Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-38
Opportunity map categorization and domain scores for Atwater census tracts are shown in Table B5-

6. As seen in the table and Table B5-6, most tracts in the city are considered to be High Resource or Highest resource except for Census Tracts 6.01 (North Atwater) and 7.01 (Downtown Atwater). The education and economic scores are similar for in these two tracts, but Downtown Atwater has a notably lower environmental score. The next sections explore each domain in more detail.

Table B5-6 Opportunity Map Scores and Categorization for Atwater Census Tract Economic Score Education Score
Environmental
Score Composite Score
Final Category/
Resource Level

6.01 0.54 0.71 0.29 4.0 High

6.03 0.79 0.93 0.35 5.0 Highest

5.03 0.67 0.92 0.13 4.0 High

6.02 0.41 0.65 0.52 3.0 Moderate

7.01 0.40 0.58 0.23 3.0 Moderate

7.02 1.0 0.58 0.58 5.0 Highest

8.01 0.63 0.67 0.36 4.0 High

8.02 0.75 0.50 0.46 4.0 High

9.04 0.64 0.90 0.48 5.0 Highest
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2023 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Draft Housing Element B5-39
Figure B5-22 Atwater TCAC Opportunity Areas

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-40
Access to Quality Education
Educational outcomes are measured through the educational opportunity index, which measures the percentage of fourth-grade students testing proficient in reading and math within three miles of a census block group. Scores range from 0-1, with 1 being the most positive educational outcome, and 0 being the least positive educational outcome. Educational outcomes vary throughout Atwater, with most of the city within the 0.6 to 1 range. The Fluhr neighborhood and the eastern portion of Buhach had more positive education outcomes compared to the rest of the city (Figure B5-23).

There are two school districts in Atwater, the Atwater Elementary School District (10 schools) and the Merced Union High School District (two schools). According to Ed-Data, the Merced Union High School District had an overall graduation rate of 94.2 percent. Approximately 11.1 percent of students who are classified as English learners, and 77.9 percent are eligible for free or reducedpriced meals.8 The educational levels of an area’s residents are a key driver of local economic potential. A more educated populace is likely to be associated with stronger economic conditions including higher household incomes and a lower unemployment rates. Atwater and Merced County show lower level of educational achievement than California overall, with lower proportions of high school graduates and less than half the percentage of adults with bachelor’s degrees or higher. Nearly 30 percent of the city and county adults 25 or older have not completed high school, almost twice the statewide proportion. Improving educational outcomes for local students would likely provide more employment opportunities and an improved quality of life for those students as well as improving the City’s attractiveness to the types of businesses that prioritize the educational attainment of the local workforce.9
Economic Outcomes
TCAC economic opportunities are measured by census tract. They consider poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. A higher economic index score reflects more positive economic outcomes. Economic outcomes vary across Atwater but most of the city is within 60 to 80 percent, similar to economic outcomes in the northern portion of Merced County (Figure B5-24).

Most of the land zoned for commercial and industrial uses in Atwater is in Downtown and McSwain, For example, the Walmart Supercenter and Western Marketing & Sales, the city’s largest employers, are in McSwain. Despite its proximity to jobs, residents in Downtown Atwater are affected by lower levels of education (Figure B5-23) and higher levels of poverty (Figure B5-19). Like mentioned above, increasing educational achievement should be a priority to improve the resident’s economic outcomes.

According to 2021 ACS estimates, Atwater had an employment rate of 64 percent, which is higher than the employment rate for Merced County (49 percent). The unemployment rate has dropped two percent since 2016. The largest industries in Atwater are educational services, health care, and social assistance (22 percent), manufacturing (13 percent), and transportation and warehousing, and utilities (11 percent). Educational services, health care, and social assistance and agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining are also the largest industries in the county based on employment. According to the State’s Employment Development Department’s Labor Market 8 Ed-Data. Atwater Elementary. 2021-2022. https://www.ed-data.org/district/Merced/Atwater-Elementary 9 City of Atwater Existing Conditions Reports. April 2024. Prepared for the City of Atwater by the De Novo Planning Group. https://atwater.generalplan.org/

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Draft Housing Element B5-41
Information two of the major employers in Merced County are in Atwater: Walmart Supercenter and Western Marketing & Sales.10While educational, healthcare, and social assistance services are the largest industries in Atwater, the city lacks a substantial number of these types of jobs. From 2017 to 2022, Atwater experienced rapid employment growth compared to Merced County and the state, primarily driven by agriculture, construction, retail trade, and accommodation and food services. These types of industries are located in Downtown Atwater, McSwain, and Fluhr.

However, the limited growth—and even loss of jobs—in “white-collar” sectors such as professional services highlights Atwater and Merced County’s challenges in diversifying their economies. This lack of diversification limits the availability of higher-paying, full-time jobs typically found in sectors like professional services, as opposed to the agriculture and service-related jobs dominating the area. Economic diversification should therefore be a key priority moving forward.

Atwater also shows an imbalance between workers and jobs, with more working residents than jobs. This is an indicator of net out-commuting from the city, with only approximately one job in Atwater for every two working residents. This information highlights the importance of local economic development, to create a better balance between the size of the local working population and the number of local employment opportunities.

Transit Access and Walkability
Transit service is limited in Atwater. “The Bus,” Merced County's Regional Transit System, was formed from the consolidation of four former local public transit service providers in July 1996.

Today The Bus is the single public transportation service provider for all of Merced County. The Bus operates 15 fixed routes throughout the region. The Bus offers veterans, seniors and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-eligible passengers to ride for free on all services provided by The Bus throughout Merced County. There are several fixed routes that pass through Atwater, as well as other services through The Bus.

The Bus offers the following services in Atwater:
 Atwater Loop/Atwater Crosstown runs from 6:20 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on the weekdays and from 8:49 a.m. to 6:05 p.m. on the weekends. This route consists of nine stops, with the ninth being an On Demand Stop11 only. There are other stops along this route, but the Bus will only stop at these locations if a passenger is clearly visible.
 The Winton Way route runs from 6:18 a.m. to 7:04 p.m. on weekdays and from 8:32 a.m. to 5:34 p.m. on the weekends. This route consists of six stops, with the sixth being an On Demand Stop only. There are other stops along this route, but the Bus will only stop at these locations if a passenger is clearly visible.
 The Turlock Commuter runs from the city of Merced to Turlock, with one bus stop in Atwater (Atwater Transpo) and several bus stops in Livingston and Delhi. This route operates from 5:30 a.m. to 8:50 p.m. on weekdays and from 9:00 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. on weekends. 10 Major Employers in Merced County. State of California Employment Development Department. Labor Market Information Resources and Data. https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/majorer/countymajorer.asp?CountyCode=000047 11 To be picked up at an ODS location, call the fixed route dispatch office during regular hours of operation at 209-725-3813. Tell the Customer Service Representative (CSR) which stop you are at and the general location you are traveling to. The CSR will let you know when the next available fixed route bus can come to that stop to pick you up. The CSR will then inform the bus operator on that route that they will need to go to and stop at that ODS location on the next available route. To be let off at an ODS location, clearly inform the bus operator when you board the bus that you would like to be let off at the ODS location.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-42
 Paratransit is a curb-to-curb shred transit service for persons with a disability and seniors.

Paratransit service is available in every city and community in Merced County and operates between 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.

Residents in Atwater have lower access to transit and lower transit ridership compared to larger cities in the region such as Merced and Turlock according to AllTransit. Atwater received an average AllTransit performance score of 3.2 which equates to a low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible by transit.12 However, this score is higher than scores for cities in the western part of Merced County, such as Dos Palos (1.2) and Los Banos (1.0). As shown in Figure B5- 25 only two routes serve the City, mostly along Highway 99 between Downtown Atwater and McSwain and up to Castle Commerce Center in northeast Atwater. The Commerce Center includes a general aviation airport and a developing multi-modal freight facility with rail service for local agricultural producers and industries. While the Airport and Commerce Center are outside city limits, the current and future facilities will provide jobs for city residents and generate economic activity within Atwater itself. The development of improved rail-related facilities will also provide environmental benefits by replacing multiple truck trips with fewer train trips, resulting in reduced emissions and improved local air quality.

Walk Score is a private company that offers a walkability index on its website which measures the pedestrian friendliness of a given location by analyzing walking routes to nearby amenities and examining population density and road metrics, including block length and intersection density, using data from various sources including Google, Factual, and the U.S. Census.13 Atwater received a walk score of 41 out of 100, which is considered “car dependent.” The most walkable areas in Atwater are in the neighborhoods of North Atwater (walk score of 75) and Downtown Atwater (walk score of 86) which are both considered “very walkable.” The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the National Walkability Index that ranks block groups based on factors such as street intersection density, proximity to transit stops, and diversity of land uses, which are chosen for their ease of measurement and understanding, and each block group is ranked and assigned a score based on these variables.14 According to the National Walkability Index, most of Atwater is more walkable than the average community in the United States. North and Downtown Atwater are the most walkable (Figure B5-26). Areas along the border of the city are the least walkable, mainly in the southern portion of Atwater. 12 AllTransit.Org, 2021. https://alltransit.cnt.org/
13 Walk Score, 2021. https://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml 14 EPA, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/national-walkability-index-user-guide-and-methodology

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-43
Figure B5-23 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (City of Atwater) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-44
Figure B5-24 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Economic (City of Atwater) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-45
Figure B5-25 Existing Bus Transit Services

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-46
Figure B5-26 Walkability Index (City of Atwater)
Source: National Walkability Index, 2023.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-47
Healthy and Safe Housing Environment
The CalEnviroScreen map for the city of Atwater identifies the degree to which communities are considered burdened by pollution. CalEnviroScreen identifies the highest pollution burden in Downtown Atwater (Figure B5-27). Pollution burden caused by ozone and particulate matter (PM2.5) is relatively high throughout the entire city. Downtown Atwater likely experiences the highest pollution in the city due to its proximity to Highway 99 and to industrial uses that are in the southern portion of the neighborhood. The TCAC environmental opportunity map also identifies pollution burden, using CalEnviroScreen scores. However, unlike CalEnviroScreen, the TCAC map compares census tracts to other census tracts within the same council of government to show differences in pollution burden within the region. According to the TCAC opportunity map, environmental outcome scores in the eastern part of Fluhr closest to the airport as generally less positive, although this census tract may not reflect the immediate impacts in Atwater. The environmental outcomes throughout the rest of the city are in the moderate (0.2 to 0.6) range, with North Atwater, Buhach, and McSwain having the most positive environmental scores in the city (Figure B5-28).

Senate Bill (SB) 535 tasks the California Environmental Protection Agency with identifying disadvantaged communities. Disadvantaged communities are low-income areas that are disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards. Under SB 535, a minimum of 25 percent of funds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, funded by revenue from the state’s cap-and-trade emissions program, goes to projects that benefit disadvantaged communities. Most of the neighborhoods in Atwater are considered a disadvantaged community under SB 535 (Figure B5-29). SB 535 disadvantaged communities in Atwater include the neighborhoods of Buhach (the eastern portion of a large census tract), Castle Garden, Downtown Atwater, Fluhr, and Sierra Vista.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-48
Figure B5-27 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (City of Atwater)

Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-49
Figure B5-28 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Environmental (City of Atwater)

Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-50
Figure B5-29 SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities (City of Atwater) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-51
B5.10 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate housing needs refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. To analyze the extent of disproportionate housing needs, this section reviews HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data on housing cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing conditions (collectively known as “housing problems”); homelessness; and displacement risk.

Housing Problems
According to federal law, “housing problems” refers to any of four housing issues: cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing conditions.

Approximately 39 percent of total households in Atwater experienced housing problems. About 22 percent of total households experienced severe housing problems.

Substandard Housing Conditions
HUD considers housing units to be “standard units” if they comply with local building codes, whereas housing units are considered “substandard” if they lack complete plumbing or kitchen facilities. According to 2017-2021 ACS estimates, all units within Atwater have complete plumbing facilities and 99.8 percent of units have complete kitchen facilities.

Approximately 75 percent of Atwater’s housing stock was constructed prior to 1990 and is more than 30 years old. These units are potentially in need of repair and improvements. According to the City, substandard housing units are not concentrated in one area of the city but occur throughout the city.

Housing Cost Burden
The rate of cost burden (spending more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs) among Atwater residents is higher than the county and Northern SJV averages. Cost burden among homeowners is lowest in Downtown Atwater, with less than 20 percent of homeowner households considered cost burdened. In almost all other parts of the city, between 20 and 40 percent of homeowners are cost burdened. The neighborhood of Sierra Vista had the highest percentage of cost burdened homeowner households (40 to 60 percent) (Figure B5-30).

Cost burden by renters is seen throughout Atwater, with 40 to 60 percent of renter households are cost burdened in the neighborhoods of Castle Garden, Buhach, Downtown Atwater, North Atwater, and Sierra. Fluhr and McSwain have lower percentages of renters overpaying, with McSwain and northeast Fluhr observing trends below 20 percent, however these two areas are located within tracts that stretch far beyond city boundaries and better reflect the population outside of Atwater (Figure B5-31).

Approximately 34 percent of households in Atwater are cost burdened and 14 percent of households are severely cost burdened (Table B5-7). Generally, a higher percentage of renteroccupied households are cost burdened across all income levels. Extremely low-, very low-, and lowincome households experienced cost burden at disproportionately high rates compared to moderate and above moderate-income households, for both renter and owner households.

Approximately 82 percent of all extremely low-income households experience cost burden, while

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-52
only eight percent of moderate- and above moderate-income households experience cost burden.

The percentage of households experiencing cost burden generally increases as income decreases.

Table B5-7 Cost Burden by Income Category (2015-2019)
Household by Tenure, Income, and
Housing Problem
Renters Owners Total Households
Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent
Extremely low-income (0-30% AMI) 1,060 395 1,455
With any housing problem 900 84.91% 295 74.68% 1,195 82.13% With cost burden >30% 895 84.43% 300 75.95% 1,195 82.13% With cost burden >50% 750 70.75% 200 50.63% 950 65.29%
Very low-income (31-50% AMI) 815 370 1,185
With any housing problem 665 81.60% 270 72.97% 935 78.90% With cost burden >30% 605 74.23% 260 70.27% 865 73.00%
With cost burden >50% 145 17.79% 160 43.24% 305 25.74%
Low-income
(51-80% AMI)
1,090 760 1,850
With any housing problem 595 54.59% 275 36.18% 870 47.03% With cost burden >30% 425 38.99% 270 35.53% 695 37.57%
With cost burden >50% 0 0.00% 60 7.89% 60 3.24%
Moderate & Above Income (>80% AMI) 1,385 3,295 4,680
With any housing problem 1,210 87.36% 410 87.41% 4,090 87.39% With cost burden >30% 110 7.94% 245 7.44% 355 7.59%
With cost burden >50% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Total Households 4,350 4,820 9,170
With any housing problem 3,370 77.47% 3,720 77.18% 7,090 77.32% With cost burden >30% 2,035 46.78% 1,075 22.30% 3,110 33.91% With cost burden >50% 895 20.57% 420 8.71% 1,315 14.34% Note: Housing Problems: There are four housing problems in the CHAS data: 1) housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2) housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3) household is overcrowded; and 4) household is cost burdened. A household is said to have a housing problem if they have any 1 or more of these 4 problems.

Cost burden: Monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceeding 30% of monthly income.

Severe cost burden: Monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceeding 50% of monthly income.

Source: HUD, CHAS ACS tabulation, 2015-2019 release
Overcrowding
As discussed in Chapter B3, Housing Needs Assessment, Atwater has 1,835 large households (households with five or more people), comprising approximately 18 percent of total households, as shown in Table B5-8. This is four percent lower than the county (22 percent) and one percent higher than the Northern SJV region average (19 percent). A higher percentage of renter households (19 percent) are large households compared to owner households (17 percent).

Approximately five percent of households in Atwater are overcrowded (more than 1.0 persons residing per room) and four percent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 persons residing per room). Overcrowded housing is higher in the Fluhr, Sierra Vista, Buhach, and Downtown Atwater neighborhoods (five to 10 percent). (Figure B5-32).

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-53
Table B5-8 Large Households (City of Atwater)
Number of Household Percent of Households
Total Occupied Housing Units 10,309 100%
Total Large Households (5 or More Persons) 1,835 18%
5-Person Household 1,309 13%
6-Person Household 276 3%
7-or-More Person Household 250 2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2017-2021), Table B25009.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-54
Figure B5-30 Overpayment by Home Owners (City of Atwater) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-55
Figure B5-31 Overpayment by Renters (City of Atwater)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-56
Figure B5-32 Overcrowded Households (City of Atwater)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-57
Homelessness
According to the 2022 Merced County Continuum of Care Point-In-Time (PIT) Count, 855 unhoused individuals were recorded in Merced County and its jurisdictions, representing a two percent increase since 2021.15 The PIT Count recorded 15 unhoused individuals in Atwater, representing an 11 percent increase since 2021.16 Factors contributing to the increase in unhoused persons may include social structural issues such as increases in rent, loss of job, and rising health care costs. Of the 15 unhoused persons identified during the 2022 count, two were chronically unhoused, which is defined as people who have been unhoused for at least a year (or repeatedly) while struggling with a disabling condition such as serious mental illness, substance use disorder, or physical disability.

One individual had a chronic health condition, two had mental health problems, two had physical disabilities, and four had substance problems.

As Table B5-9 shows, the majority of unhoused persons are white (93 percent).

Table B5-9 Race/Ethnicity of Homeless Population and Overall Population (City of Atwater)
Homeless Population Total Population
White 93.33% 0.04%
Hispanic/Latino 0.00% 0.00%
Native American/Alaskan Native 0.00% 0.00%
Black/African American 0.00% 0.00%
Asian American/Pacific Islander 0.00% 0.00%
Multiple Races or Other 6.67% 0.00%
Source: Merced County Continuum of Care. 2022. Homeless Count and Survey Report The City has observed encampments scattered throughout the city with the main concentration of ongoing encampments on the Atwater Boulevard corridor on private and Union Pacific property that borders the bus stop. Some unhoused individuals reside in their cars but change locations often. The PIT Count only identified individuals contacted in person and would not account for individuals who are absent from their encampments or mobile around town at the time of count.

Therefore, it is likely that the PIT Count underestimates the number of unhoused individuals in Atwater.

The City’s unhoused population consists mostly of males with an even mix of white and Hispanic/Latino residents. City staff noted that many unhoused individuals verbally admit to the use of narcotics and that a majority of unhoused have refused any placement services throughout the years of contact. Other cities within Merced County have experienced similar trends among the unhoused population where individuals refuse or are reluctant to receive services. For those that are interested in receiving assistance, there is a need for transportation to available services, all of which are located in the city of Merced. The City recently initiated its Permanent Local Housing 15 Merced City and County Continuum of Care. 2022. Point in Time. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6149207801c5c134f32b280c/t/625605199113fa3f4be48dbe/1649875108255/Merced+County+C oC+2022+Homeless+Count+and+Survey+Report+
16 Merced County Continuum of Care. 2022. Homeless Count and Survey Report. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6149207801c5c134f32b280c/t/625605199113fa3f4be48dbe/1649875108255/Merced+County+C oC+2022+Homeless+Count+and+Survey+Report+

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-58
Allocation program to help those at risk of becoming unhoused. All other programs and services for unhoused individuals are provided by Tulare County.

Displacement
The Urban Displacement Project (UDP) designates communities as at risk of displacement if the share of very low-income residents is greater than 20 percent and have any of the two following characteristics:
 The share of renters is above 40 percent
 The share of people of color is above 50 percent
 The share of very low-income households that are severely rent burdened is above the county median
 The percent change in rent is above the county median for rent increases The UDP has identified two census tracts in Atwater that are considered at risk of displacement, in the neighborhoods of Fluhr and Downtown Atwater (Figure B5-33). The eastern portion of Fluhr and all of Downtown Atwater overlap with a higher percentage of LMI residents (Figure B5-17).

Downtown Atwater may be at particular risk of displacement due to the higher percentage of its population that is low-income (52 percent). Home values and rents have increased significantly in Atwater over the past decade. Between 2016 and 2021, home values increased from $160,200 to $265,200 (66 percent increase) and median rent increased from $897 to $1,089 (21 percent increase) (2012-2016 and 2017-2021 ACS). In addition, about 34 percent of all households are cost burdened, meaning many households are paying too much for housing. While the UDP rates the City as having a low risk of displacement, these trends indicate cost burdened and low-income households may be at risk of displacement if the cost of housing continues to rise.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-59
Figure B5-33 Displacement Risk (City of Atwater)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-60
B5.11 Local Area Knowledge
The Northern Valley Yokuts were the first inhabitants of the San Joaquin Valley and area surrounding what is now known as Atwater. The Yokuts did not farm but were hunter-gatherers whose diet primarily consisted of acorns, berries, roots, deer, small mammals, birds, and fishing.

Spanish and Mexican settlement and later the Gold Rush led to the decline of the Yokuts. Many Yokuts succumbed to diseases brought by the newcomers and were forcibly relocated to missions by the Spanish or driven off their lands by gold miners.17 As more people moved to California, its railroad system became more prominent, and towns became more established along the railroad routes. Atwater’s population grew with the establishment of the railroad station and other transportation opportunities. As the town grew, farming and ranching became the primary economic driver. To this day the agricultural industry continues to play a large role in the economy and development patterns throughout Atwater and the region. Incorporation and annexation of land has continued to influence disparity due to the control over land use, decision-making, infrastructure budgeting, and the ability to address environmental concerns.

Stakeholder and Community Input
The City held a community workshop on August 28, 2023. During the workshop, participants expressed the desire for housing closer to work and essential services. Some of the major takeaways from this workshop were:
 Off-site improvement requirements made housing development expensive.  High prices, lack of affordable housing, and cost of building housing make it difficult to find housing.
 Residents would like housing in proximity to schools, job opportunities and parks.  The ability for people to maintain the upkeep of their home helps improve a neighborhood.  Rent-restricted affordable housing development, a variety of new housing, and fair housing services were the most voted programs for effectively addressing needs in Atwater with three votes each. This was followed by the development of rental housing for large households, housing for special needs housing development, and housing rehabilitation and repair with two votes each. Renter protection and support and homelessness prevention and housing each received one vote.

The City also participated in a series of stakeholder interviews with service providers, community organizations, and affordable and market-rate housing developers held between August 8 and August 23, 2023. Community organizations identified the need for housing near medical facilities and public transportation. Additional housing needs include transitional housing and citywide and countywide rent control. Compared to larger cities in the region, smaller, rural areas have vastly fewer amenities and housing resources. According to market-rate housing developers, barriers to developing housing include high construction costs, limited resources offered for affordable housing within the Central Valley, and lack of subsidies for affordable housing units. Affordable housing developers described the need for more attainable zoning and entitlement approvals and the 17 Javier Powell. 2012. Those Before us: the Yokuts People. https://losbanosenterprise.com/community/history/2023/those-before-usthe-yokuts-people/

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-61
necessity of transit being near affordable housing locations. According to affordable housing developers, one way cities can address housing needs is by fostering strong relationships with affordable housing providers and maintaining knowledgeable staff to pursue grant opportunities for affordable housing.

An online community survey was available on the Merced County Association of Governments Housing Element website in both English and Spanish from March 27, 2023 to December 6, 2023.

The survey asked participants about housing issues and the types and location of housing development they would like to see in their city. Respondents in Atwater identified homelessness, availability of desirable housing, and affordability of desired housing as the most urgent housing challenges. According to respondents in Atwater, the largest barrier to affording desirable housing in the city is the cost of quality housing is too high and the lack of housing. Housing needs identified by respondents in Atwater include more housing with three or more bedrooms. When asked about their preferences for the location of future housing development, respondents said they would like to see housing in areas near public transit stops, employment, and shopping centers.

Other Relevant Factors
Other factors to fair housing issues in Atwater that have not been previously discussed in this analysis include language barriers and access to home ownership. These contributing factors limit the accumulation of wealth and access to housing resources in historically marginalized communities.

Limited English Proficiency
Language barriers can lead to linguistic and cultural isolation. According to the 2017-2021 ACS, 47 percent of residents within Atwater speak a language other than English at home, and the majority of those speak Spanish.18
Housing Stock Type
The majority of Atwater’s housing stock (67 percent) is made up of detached single-family homes, which may not be affordable to lower-income households.

Atwater had 1,835 large households (households with five or more people), or approximately 18 percent of total households. A higher percentage of renter households (19 percent) are considered large households compared to owner households (17 percent). Only 16 percent of all housing units contain four or more bedrooms which can accommodate large families without overcrowding.

Community Opposition
Atwater has experienced some opposition from residents towards affordable housing projects, as some residents do not want affordable housing in their neighborhood. Most recently, a group of residents objected to a 120-unit affordable housing project proposed in the Fluhr neighborhood, citing concerns over speeding, privacy, and crime.
18 U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table S1601

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-62
Community Engagement
The City has faced challenges with engaging the community in fair housing matters. The City is actively working to enhance its community engagement efforts through increased social media notices, increased public noticing about events at public facilities, and adding noticing to the City’s utility newsletter. In addition, the City makes public meetings widely available to the community. All meetings and workshops are held in person and virtually (broadband infrastructure is maintained throughout the city). As stated above, 47 percent of city residents speak a language other than English at home, indicating many residents may have difficulty participating in community outreach due to language barriers. The City has staff on hand to provide translation for non-English speakers at public meetings and providers housing materials on the City’s website in English and Spanish. The City is working to expand access to community outreach efforts. The City is working on updating its software to make the website complaint with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Land Use
The majority of assessed land acreage (40.3 percent) within the Atwater city limits is single-family residential uses. Other major land uses within the city include government (12.9 percent), and vacant (9.0 percent). Within the unincorporated portions within the Atwater Sphere of Influence (SOI), 84.8 percent of lands are agricultural uses. The City of Atwater is primarily surrounded by Agricultural land in the west and southern portions of the city. Developed uses including Residential, Commercial, Business Park and Aviation/Manufacturing uses within the northeast and northwest portion of the planning area near the Winton and the Castle Airport unincorporated areas.

In 1963, the State Legislature created a local agency formation commission (LAFCO) for each county, with the authority to regulate local agency boundary changes. Subsequently, the State has expanded the authority of a LAFCO. The goals of the LAFCO include preserving agricultural and open space land resources and providing for efficient delivery of services. The Merced LAFCO has authority over land use decisions in Merced County affecting local agency boundaries. Its authority extends to the incorporated cities, including annexation of County lands into a city, and special districts within the County. LAFCO has the authority to review and approve or disapprove the following:
 Annexations to or detachments from cities or districts.  Formation or dissolution of districts.
 Incorporation or disincorporation of cities.
 Consolidation or reorganization of cities or districts.  Development of, and amendments to, Spheres of Influence. The SOI is the probable physical boundary and service area of each local government agency. This may extend beyond the current service area of the agency.
 Extensions of service beyond an agency's jurisdictional boundaries.  Provision of new or different services by districts.
 Proposals that extend service into previously unserved territory in unincorporated areas.

In addition to traditional General Plan land use designations (such as low density residential, commercial, etc.), the City has applied a Specific Plan Area 1, 2, and 3 overlay to a portion of the city. This overlay has been applied within the southwest portion of the City’s 2000 proposed Sphere of Influence to indicate those locations where Specific Plans will be prepared to guide future growth and development. Lands within these areas will continue to be under the jurisdiction of the County

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-63
of Merced until the Specific Plans are adopted and future annexation is completed. Incorporation of these areas within the City’s proposed Sphere of Influence will allow the City to review and comment on any development applications that are considered by Merced County in the interim, and provide opportunities for the establishment of uniform development standards and coordinated facilities planning.

The City’s Zoning Map is presented in Figure B5-34. As mentioned above, Atwater is primarily zoned for single-family residential uses. The area south of Atwater Boulevard (McSwain) is zoned for Business Park and Planned Development uses. As discussed in Section B5.8, the tract encompassing the area south of Atwater Boulevard was identified as an RCAA.

While there are no TCAC areas of high segregation and poverty, the Downtown Atwater area a higher percentage of non-white residents and an overall median income of less than $55,000.

Downtown Atwater contains retail shops, restaurants, service businesses, and professional offices located along a four block expanse of Broadway. The Downtown Atwater area is zoned for a mix of uses including low density residential, high density residential, residential transition, and central commercial. The Downtown area contains one of the largest areas zoned for high density residential in the city. In general, higher density housing is more affordable to moderate and lower income households.

History of Atwater
Atwater is situated in Merced County, California, within the vast San Joaquin Valley. When American settlers first arrived, they encountered a landscape of rolling plains intersected by large rivers, which ultimately made the region ideal for agriculture.19 The area was initially home to various tribes of the Yokuts Indians, and later became part of Spanish land grants. However, the landscape and population began to shift significantly after the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in February 1848. The 1849 gold discovery sparked a rush of fortune-seekers to California. Atwater’s development was slow at first, with a population of only about 100 by the early 1900s. However, the town was fortunate to attract several visionaries and benefactors who invested in its future. Despite this slow beginning, Atwater eventually grew.

Atwater was incorporated into Merced County in 1922.20 In 1872, as the Central Pacific Railroad extended through the San Joaquin Valley, local farmers Marshall D. Atwater and John Mitchell convinced the railroad to add a spur to Mitchell’s warehouse, where Atwater stored his grain. This area came to be known as the “Atwater Switch." At this time, the town of Atwater was little more than a handful of farms and buildings, not yet even beginning to take shape as a town. The completion of the Lake Yosemite reservoir made intensive farming in Atwater possible. The city was laid out following the completion of the new irrigation system. Atwater would grow to have an extensive agricultural history, producing crops such as almonds, cotton, and tomatoes.

Marshall D. Atwater, John Mitchell and George Bloss, all made substantial contributions to the town of Atwater and other cities in the Merced region. The Bloss home is the headquarters of the Atwater Historical Society, and is a house museum. Bloss Mansion, located in the Downtown Atwater area, is the only property listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The census tract encompassing 19 History of Atwater, Atwater Historical Society. Accessed November 2024. http://www.atwaterhistoricalsociety.com/historyofatwater.html. 20 Atwater and Livingston at 100: What did these Valley cities have in common when founded? July 24, 2022. Merced Sun-Star (S. Lim). https://www.mercedsunstar.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/sarah-lim-museum-notes/article263646638.html.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-64
the Downtown area has the largest proportion housing units built prior to 1960 compared to other Atwater tracts.

The Merced Army Air Field south of town was one of many small fields established in World War II for training flight personnel. It later became Castle Air Force Base, re-named for Frederick Castle, a Medal of Honor award winner after he was shot down in late 1944. In 1981, the Castle Air Museum opened next to the base. The base closed in 1995.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-65
Figure B5-34 City of Atwater Zoning Map

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-66
B5.12 Housing Site Inventory Analysis
This portion of the AFFH analyzes the relation between the housing opportunity sites and AFFHrelated issues. Government Code Section 65583(c)(10) requires the housing opportunity sites to be analyzed with respect to AFFH to ensure that sites designated for low-income households are dispersed equitably throughout the city rather than concentrated in areas of high segregation and poverty or low-resource areas that have historically been underserved, and conversely, that sites designated for above moderate-income households are not concentrated in areas of high resources.

By comparing the sites inventory to the fair housing indicators in this assessment, this section analyzes whether the sites included in the Housing Element Site Inventory improve or exacerbate fair housing conditions, patterns of segregation, and access to opportunity.

Housing Sites by TCAC Opportunity Area
For purposes of evaluating fair housing, resource levels designated by TCAC/HCD denote access to economic and educational opportunities such as low-cost transportation, jobs, and high-quality schools and the quality of environmental factors in the area such as proximity to hazards and air quality. TCAC has a composite opportunity score for each census tract. Atwater has a mix of resources with most areas considered high resource. Downtown Atwater and North Atwater are moderate-resource areas, while Fluhr, parts of Buhach, and McSwain are highest-resource areas.

The rest of the city consists of high-resource areas.

The City’s Site Inventory can accommodate 4,6623,174 housing units on 157 7121 sites.

Figure B5-35 shows the housing opportunity sites by TCAC designated resource area. The housing opportunity sites are designated by income category – whether the sites could accommodate housing appropriate for low-, moderate-, or above moderate-income households. The “appropriateness” of sites for various affordability levels is dictated by state housing element law and HCD guidance and includes allowable density, size of site, realistic capacity, existing use(s), and other factors. More information about the sites and income designations is available in Chapter B6, Housing Resources.

Most of the housing opportunity sites are in high- or highest-resource areas (97 percent of the proposed housing units), with the rest in moderate-resource areas (three percent of proposed housing units). The majority of the sites are located in Fluhr and McSwain, in part due to the availability of large vacant and underutilized parcels in these neighborhoods.

A small portion of the City’s RHNA will be satisfied by planned and approved projects (172 25 of the total required 3,017 housing units). To understand the overall picture of housing development during the eight-year planning period, this analysis considers those units. Of the two planned and approved projects, both are in highest resources area. None of the planned and approved projects or housing opportunity sites identified on the Site Inventory are located in low resource areas or areas of high segregation and poverty.

Total Units by Resource Area
There are 155 99369 units planned in areas of moderate resource: 4 19two percent of the overall units. Of these, T43 wenty-two percent (71 218 30units) will be lower-income units, 3 29nine percent (24 2866 units) will be moderate-income units, and 3 4948 percent (60 48933 units) will be above moderate-income units. In contrast, 4,5072,181 3,105 units are planned in areas designated high/highest resource: 96 4641 percent of those units (1,7511,285 units) will be lower-income units,

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-67
97 13 8percent (898 373 560 units) will be moderate-income units, and 97 41 percent (1,8581,146206 units) will be above moderate-income units.

Table B5-10 shows the number of proposed housing units by income level in each resource area.

Table B5-10 Proposed Housing Units by Resource Area
Income Level
Lower-Income
Units
Moderate-Income
Units
Above ModerateIncome Units Total Units
Areas of High Segregation
and Poverty
0 units
(0% of lowerincome units)
0 units
(0% of moderateincome units)
0 units
(0% of above
moderate-income
units)
0 units
(0% of total units)
Low-Resource Areas 0 units
(0% of lowerincome units)
0 units
(0% of moderateincome units)
0 units
(0% of above
moderate-income
units)
0 units
(0% of total units)
Moderate-Resource Areas 71 21021830units
(4152% of lowerincome units)
24 6 units
(3431% of
moderateincome units)
60 48933 units
(3303% of above
moderate-income
units)
155 99369 units
(326% of total
units)
High-/Highest-Resource
Areas
1,751 2851,285
units
(968598% of
lower-income
units)
404898373560
units
(975799% of
moderateincome units)
1,8581461,260
units
(977098% of
above moderateincome units)
3,1058044,507
units
(977498% of total
units)
The planned and approved projects, together with the housing opportunity sites, will add a higher percentage of units in all income categories in high-/highest resource areas. All proposed housing units are located in moderate and high /highest resource areas. Therefore, overall housing development during the planning period will not increase patterns of segregation but will increase integration by household income in terms of access to opportunity.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-68
Figure B5-35 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Resource Area Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-69
Sites by Income Population
Census tracts with more than 50 percent LMI households are in two of the neighborhoods in Atwater and include a small percentage of the total opportunity sites. Figure B5-36 shows the housing opportunity sites by percentage of LMI populations. Approximately 11 1619 percent of the total housing units included in the opportunity sites are located in census tracts with more than 50 percent of households who are LMI due to the availability of underutilized sites in these areas and the potential for mixed-use, transit-oriented development within Downtown Atwater. Of the opportunity sites in these areas, approximately 28 sixeight percent of proposed units are appropriate for above moderate-income households, 24 2023 percent appropriate for moderateincome households, and 47 2529 percent for low-income households. These areas of Atwater will benefit from the mix of households of differing income levels. The Site Inventory will improve the mixture of housing opportunities by income level in the city and will not exacerbate segregation by income between neighborhoods. Program 9 focuses on the need for housing preservation and housing issues for residents, Program 10 directs the City to collaborate with other agencies to assist in the development of housing for lower-income residents, and Program 11 prioritizes the need for public infrastructure improvements specifically water and sewer services.

Sites by Overcrowded Households
Overcrowding is low to moderate throughout Atwater, with most of the city having rates of five to 10 percent of overcrowding (Figure B5-37). The Site Inventory assumes that sites located within areas where rates of overcrowding range from five to 10 percent will accommodate 2,9662,7921,868 housing units. Of these units 992 995807 could accommodate lower-income households. This equates to approximately 21 2625 percent of the total housing units included in the Site Inventory. The Site Inventory will not exacerbate overcrowding conditions but will add new housing opportunities in areas that need them.

Sites by Overpayment by Renters
The percentage of overpayment by renters ranges between 40 to 60 percent in the majority of Atwater, including in the Buhach, Downtown, Sierra Vista, North, and Castle Garden neighborhoods as shown in Figure B5-38. Identified sites will provide housing opportunities for a mix of income levels in these neighborhoods, including 528 422 units appropriate for lower-income households, 234 141328 units appropriate for moderate-income households, and 572 375489 units appropriate for above moderate-income households. Most of these housing units will likely be rental units, based on trends in planning entitlements and developer interest. Program 7 aims to provide additional affordable housing units and to eliminate the disparity in the percentage of households in poverty within Atwater. Additionally, Program 10 provides assistance in finding affordable and subsidized housing options and seeking funds to construct affordable infill housing in Atwater.

According to the UDP, new market-rate construction in gentrifying areas neither worsens nor eases rates of people moving out of the area. It increases rates of people moving to an area across all socio-economic groups, particularly high-socio-economic residents. The UDP recommends subsidized housing construction and housing preservation to help existing residents stay in their neighborhood. Housing preservation and rehabilitation will be implemented in Atwater through Program 9. The mix of lower, moderate, and above moderate-income housing units in Buhach, Downtown, Sierra Vista, North, and Castle Garden will provide affordable housing options for existing lower-income residents as well as encourage higher-income households to move into the area. The Site Inventory will not exacerbate overpayment by renters but will add new housing opportunities in areas that need them.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-70
Figure B5-36 Housing Opportunity Sites by Income Population Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-71
Figure B5-37 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowding
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-72
Figure B5-38 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-73
Sites by Areas of Integration and Segregation
Atwater is racially integrated, yet a few neighborhoods have a higher percentage of non-white residents (over 50 percent) than other portions of the city. Housing opportunity sites in portions of Castle Garden, Downtown, North Atwater, and Sierra Vista accommodate a mix of income levels in areas that already have a diverse mix of ethnic and racial groups as shown in Figure B5-39.

Opportunity sites in these areas can accommodate 766 508 units appropriate for lower-income households, 252 141 units appropriate for moderate-income households, and 262 37567 units appropriate for above moderate-income households. The Site Inventory will not contribute to segregation based on race/ethnicity or income level.

As discussed in Chapter B3, Housing Needs Assessment, approximately seven percent of the population has one or more disabilities. For persons with disabilities who live independently or with other family members, independent living can be supported with special housing features, financial support, and in-home supportive services. The location of housing is also an important factor for people with mobility restrictions who rely on public transportation for travel. Although there isn’t a concentration of population with a disability anywhere in Atwater, promoting more growth in areas of the city with greater walkability and in proximity to transit stops will allow more residents to live near transit and create housing opportunities for residents who are unable to drive. The City will implement housing Program 1 to identify active transportation needs and apply for funding to implement projects to meet the transit needs in the southern areas of the city by the end of the planning period.

Sites by Communities Vulnerable to Displacement
Downtown and Fluhr are areas considered to be at risk of displacement by the UDP. All lowerincome and moderate-income housing units proposed in these neighborhoods are in areas considered at risk of displacement. Figure B5-40 shows the housing opportunity sites in relation to the location of sensitive communities. The Site Inventory includes capacity for 384 415 units appropriate for lower-income households in the Downtown and Fluhr neighborhoodsareas that are at risk of displacement, or approximately 20 2832 percent of the total number of the proposed lower-income units accommodated by the opportunity sites. These lower-income units will provide affordable housing options for existing very low and low-income residents at risk of displacement.

To ensure that these housing units are not at risk of conversion, the city has Program 8 in place.

Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score
The majority of Atwater has high CalEnviroScreen scores, above the 71st percentile. The McSwain neighborhood has the lowest CalEnviroScreen score (58th percentile), while Downtown Atwater has the highest CalEnviroScreen score (93rd percentile). All housing units included on the Site Inventory outside of the McSwain neighborhood are located in census tracts with a CalEnviroScreen score greater than 71. A total of 1,6021,554 1,855 housing units (approximately 34 4158 percent of total proposed housing units) are located in census tracts with a CalEnviroScreen score greater than 80.

Figure B5-41 shows the housing opportunity sites by CalEnviroScreen score. The Site Inventory would not concentrate lower-income units in areas of higher pollution burden.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-74
Figure B5-39 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-75
Figure B5-40 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-76
Figure B5-41 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Percentile Score Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-77
Sites Analysis Summary Data
Table B5-11 summarizes the Site Inventory by development priority area, sites, number of units by income level, and census tract characteristics. While most of the city consists of low resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty, a majority of parcels in the Site Inventory are in high resource areas. In addition, housing opportunity sites throughout the city do not concentrate new housing in areas with a higher percentage of LMI residents, overcrowding, overpayment by renters, non-white residents, or areas with a higher risk of displacement.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-78
Table B5-11 Site Inventory by Census Tract Characteristics Census Tract Number
Number of
Existing
Households
Site Inventory Capacity (Units) AFFH Indicators
CalEnviroScreen
Percentile Lower-Income
ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome
Percent NonWhite Percent LMI
Households
Median
Household
Income
TCAC
Opportunity Area
Percent
Overpayment by
Renters
Percent
Overcrowded
Households Displacement Sensitivity
Buhach
06047000802 1,494 43237 1189 9126 47% 28% $61,518 High-Resource 46% 5% Lower Displacement Risk 77% 060470009042 1,487 0 187 251 38% 20% $81,696 Highest-Resource 41% 2% Lower Displacement Risk 86% Castle Garden
06047000801 1,948 037 015 129157 41% 34% $58,750 High-Resource 50% 2% Lower Displacement Risk 86% Downtown
06047000701 1,163 3044 69 3332 33% 63% $49,583 Moderate-Resource 44% 7% At Risk of Displacement 93% Fluhr
06047000603 1,939 385340 97156 737675 42% 39% 61,277 Highest-Resource 30% 7% At Risk of Displacement 80% McSwain
06047000702 1,647 508766 229141 11167 59% 17% $99,676 Highest-Resource 10% 1% Lower Displacement Risk 59% 6047000601 1,954 309 88 44 41% 83% $42,206 High Resource 57% 5% Lower Displacement Risk 75% North Atwater
06047000602 1,418 027 815 1528 41% 65% $59,426 High-Resource 43% 3% Lower Displacement Risk 76% Sierra Vista
06047000601 1,954 4033 2829 815 41% 64% $42,206 High-Resource 57% 5% Lower Displacement Risk 75% Total 1,3151,1831,822 566566922 1,2931,2911,918
Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/California Housing and Community Development (HCD), Opportunity Maps (2023); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2017-2021)

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-79
This page intentionally left blank.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-80
B5.13 Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions
AB 686 requires an identification and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues based on all the previously required analysis (outreach, fair housing assessment, site inventory). This section lists contributing factors that create, perpetuate, or increase the severity of one or more fair housing issues that were identified in community outreach, and the analysis in this document Contributing factors were prioritized based on their impact on fair housing issues as well as the City’s ability to address the contributing factors. Chapter B7 provides meaningful actions the City will undertake to affirmatively further fair housing for special needs, racial/ethnic minority, and lowincome residents.

Enforcement and Outreach
The City’s website has limited information on fair housing and no information on fair housing rights and responsibilities for tenants and landlords. In addition, housing information on the City’s website is limited to English.

Contributing factors to enforcement and outreach in Atwater include:
 Language Barriers (Medium): Forty-seven percent of the population of Atwater speaks a language other than English. Community Development information on the City’s website is provided only in English.
 Lack of local public or private fair housing outreach and enforcement (High): The City does not provide its own fair housing outreach or enforcement, and does not provide information on partnering agencies or fair housing organizations to provide assistance to tenants and landlords.  Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations on the City’s website. (High)  Lack of local fair housing laws to support strong enforcement. (Low)  Lack of sufficient distribution of fair housing information: The City’s website does not provide housing information on the City’s website. (High)
 Lack of fair housing testing. (Medium)
 Limited participation in fair housing outreach. (Medium) Rationale: Resources to educate, investigate, and enforce fair housing complaints are key to ensuring fair housing protections are accessible and effective for protected classes. In addition, proactive interventions to fair housing issues prevent displacement.

Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
Atwater is a racially/ethnically diverse city with a moderate percentage of LMI residents and low median household incomes. In particular, Downtown and Sierra Vista have a higher percentage of LMI residents. Multi-family residential zones are concentrated in Downtown and Sierra Vista.

Contributing factors to segregation and integration patterns and trends in Atwater include:
 Displacement of residents due to economic pressures (Medium): Home values and rents have increased significantly in Atwater over the past decade. Between 2015 and 2021, home value increased from $147,500 to $265,200 (80 percent increase) and median rent increased from $888 to $1,089 (23 percent increase). In addition, about 34 percent of all households are cost burdened, meaning many households are paying too much for housing. While the UDP rates

City of Atwater
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element B5-81
most the city as having a low risk of displacement, the Fluhr and Downtown Atwater neighborhoods are at risk of displacement, these trends indicate cost burdened and low-income households may be at higher risk of displacement if the cost of housing continues to rise.  Location and type of affordable housing (High): Stakeholders have stated that high prices, lack of affordable housing, and cost of building housing make it difficult to find housing. Affordable housing units are concentrated in Downtown Atwater. Land use and zoning laws (High): Most of Atwater is zoned for single-family residential uses with medium- and high-density residential zoning concentrated in Downtown Atwater.

Rationale: Efforts to deconcentrate segregation should focus on two key areas: increasing affordable housing in both high-poverty and low-poverty neighborhoods to facilitate mobility, and implementing measures to incentivize affordable housing development and expand opportunities in areas with higher resources.

Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
There are no areas of high segregation and poverty in Atwater. However, in Downtown Atwater there is an overlap with a higher percent of non-white population and an overall median income of less than $55,000. About 69 percent of residents living in Downtown are Hispanic/Latino and 69 percent are low-income. This census tract also has the highest CalEnviroScreen score and is at risk of displacement.

Contributing factors to racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty in Atwater include:
 Displacement of residents due to economic pressures (Medium): High rates of cost burden and rising housing costs are placing low-income residents at risk of displacement.  Land use and zoning laws (High): Most of Atwater is zoned for single-family residential uses with medium- and high-density residential zoning concentrated in Downtown Atwater.  Location and type of affordable housing (High): Affordable housing units are concentrated in Downtown Atwater.

Rationale: Efforts to deconcentrate areas with a concentration of minorities and poverty should focus on two key areas: increasing affordable housing in both high-poverty and low-poverty neighborhoods to facilitate mobility, and implementing measures to incentivize affordable housing development and expand opportunities in areas with higher resources.

Disproportionate Housing Needs
Cost burden among renters is high throughout most of the city. Cost burden among homeowners is highest in Sierra Vista. Atwater has a moderate percentage of large households, approximately 18 percent of all households in the city. Overcrowding is highest in Sierra Vista, Downtown, Fluhr, and portions of Buhach. In addition to overcrowding and cost burden throughout the city, Downtown and North Atwater have an older housing stock than other areas of the city. Approximately 91 percent of housing units in Downtown Atwater are over 30 years old and 72 percent are over 50 years old. However, Downtown has the lowest household median incomes and high percentage of LMI residents, indicating that homeowners may not be able to afford to pay for repair and maintenance on their homes.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B5-82
Contributing factors to disproportionate housing needs in Atwater include:
 Lack of affordable housing in a range of sizes (High): More than half of the housing stock (67 percent) is made up of detached single-family homes, which may not be affordable to lowerincome households. Sixteen percent of all housing units contain four or more bedrooms which can accommodate large families without overcrowding.
 Cost of housing maintenance and repairs (Medium): Atwater’s older housing stock may indicate that a significant number of housing units are in need of repair.

Rationale: The lack of affordable housing options can restrict individuals and families to a limited number of choices, forcing them to settle for substandard housing or pay a disproportionate amount of their income on rent. This can perpetuate cycles of poverty and limit upward mobility.

Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Most of Atwater is considered high or highest resource, however, Downtown and North Atwater are moderate-resource areas. This area has the highest pollution burden and lowest education and economic opportunity scores in the city.

Contributing factors to disparities in access to opportunities in Atwater include:
 The availability, type, frequency, and reliability of public transportation (Medium): There are only two fixed route public transit options in the city.  Land use and zoning patterns (High): Types of zoning that accommodate land uses with employment opportunities, such as industrial and commercial, are concentrated in the portion of city closest to Highway 99. All medium and high-density housing zones are also concentrated in these areas. The remainder of the city is comprised of low-density residential zoning.  High pollution burden (Medium): Atwater is ranked in the 71 up to the 100th percentile and for pollution burden by CalEnviroScreen.
 Lack of public and private investment (High): Without investment, businesses are less likely to locate in these areas, leading to a lack of jobs and economic growth. This can create a cycle of poverty, as residents struggle to find employment and generate income.

Rationale: Improving economic opportunities requires a range of policies designed to create jobs, develop the workforce, create housing closer to jobs and ensure that workers can get to jobs. More jobs and more affordable housing give residents more housing choices (type of housing and mobility).

B5.14 Meaningful Actions to Address Fair Housing Issues The findings of this analysis were used to develop meaningful actions, metrics and milestones that promote inclusive communities, increase housing opportunities, and address racial/ethnic and economic disparities in the city. The contributing factors were prioritized to better formulate policies and programs and carry out meaningful actions to further fair housing. Meaningful actions to address fair housing issues are included in the housing programs located in Chapter B7, Housing Plan.

City of Atwater
Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B6-1
B6 Housing Resources and Site Inventory
Analysis
This section documents the methodology and results of the Site Inventory analysis conducted to demonstrate the City of Atwater’s ability to meet its share of the 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). This section also discusses infrastructure, services, and financial and administrative resources that are available for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in the City of Atwater. Background information on regional development trends and analysis are included in Chapter 4, Regional Housing Resources.

The Site Inventory was developed through the analysis of development trends, the identification of available land, and community input. Community engagement events, including a community workshop held in Atwater on August 28, 2023, influenced the selection of opportunity sites.

B6.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
This Housing Element covers the planning period of January 2024 through January 2032 (also referred to as the 6th cycle). The Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG), as the metropolitan planning organization for the Merced County region, is responsible for preparing the RHNA for the region based on recent growth trends, income distribution, and capacity for future growth. This methodology must align with state objectives, including but not limited to:
 Promoting infill, equity, and environmental protection  Ensuring jobs-housing balance
 Affirmatively furthering fair housing
Atwater must identify adequate land with appropriate zoning and development standards to accommodate its assigned share of the region’s housing need. Atwater’s share of the RHNA is 3,017 units, which is distributed among five income categories, as shown in Table B6-1.

Table B6-1 Atwater 2024-2032 RHNA
Income Category (Percent of Merced
County Area Median Income [AMI]) Number of Units Percent of Total Units Extremely Low (< 30% of AMI)* 423 14.0%
Very Low (30 to 50% of AMI) 345 11.4%
Low (51 to 80% of AMI) 526 17.4%
Moderate (81% to 120% of AMI) 508 16.8%
Above Moderate (> 120% of AMI) 1,215 40.3%
Total 3,017 100%
*The RHNA does not project the need for extremely low-income units, but pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 65583(a), the City must project its extremely low-income housing needs based on Census income distribution or assume 50 percent of the very lowincome units required by the RHNA as extremely low-income units. The City’s very low-income requirement is 768 units. The number of extremely low-income units that the City must plan for shown here was projected using Census data. According to the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), data developed by HUD, 28.8 percent of households in the city earned less than 50 percent of the AMI. Among these households, 55.1 percent earned incomes below 30 percent (extremely low). Therefore, the City’s RHNA allocation of 768 very low-income units was distributed as 423 extremely low (55.1 percent of the 768 very low-income units required by the RHNA) and 345 very low-income units. However, for purposes of identifying adequate sites for the RHNA allocation, state law does not mandate the separate accounting for the extremely low-income category.

Source: MCAG, 2022. Final Regional Housing Needs Plan.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B6-2
B6.2 Meeting the RHNA
Each jurisdiction must identify adequate land with appropriate zoning and development standards to fulfill its share of the RHNA. Jurisdictions can use planned and/or approved projects, estimated accessory dwelling unit (ADU) production, and vacant and/or underutilized sites to accommodate the RHNA. In some cases, rezoning must occur to prepare sites for future residential development.

Once the City has demonstrated in the Housing Element that it has the development capacity to accommodate the RHNA, it has two implementation-related obligations during the planning period:

Maintain a “no net loss” policy of its residential development capacity over the housing element planning period, meaning that sites listed in the adopted Housing Element land inventory may not be down-zoned to a lower-density residential zone or rezoned to a nonresidential zone, unless the city up-zones or rezones alternative sites prior to the density reduction or rezone on the inventoried site.

Continue to allocate available funding resources to and facilitate the development of affordable housing.

B6.2.1 RHNA Credits
The City may use units in approved and/or permitted residential developments which will be completed within the planning period, and anticipated ADU production, as credit towards fulfillment of its RHNA.

Planned and Approved Projects
Residential developments approved and permitted, but not yet built (also called “pipeline projects”) can be credited towards the City’s RHNA provided it can be demonstrated that the units can be built by the end of the 6th cycle planning period. Similarly, units that are under construction but have not yet received a building permit as of June 30, 2023, can also be credited towards the RHNA.

Affordability (the income category in which the units are counted) is based on the actual or projected sale prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms establishing affordability of the units within the project. Pipeline projects that can count toward the City’s 6th cycle RHNA are listed in Table B6-2 and the locations of these projects are shown on Figure B6-1. For the purpose of this Housing Element, the city is divided into seven neighborhoods: Buhach, Castle Gardens, Downtown Atwater, Fluhr, McSwain, North Atwater, and Sierra Vista.

There are is three one multifamily pipeline projects in Atwater. The City anticipates a total of 172 25 units would be affordable to above moderate-income households.

Entitlements for a site plan usually take one to two months, while conditional use permits (CUPs) usually take three months. Issuing building permits to begin construction usually takes around two months (varies depending on how fast the applicant can address any changes). Construction typically begins around six months from permit issuance. Approximately 20 to-30 percent of projects result in an expired entitlement prior to the building permit stage primarily due to financial burdens. The City of Atwater has provisions in the Municipal Code to preserve entitlements during permit application and issuance. Based on the current status of these projects and given the City’s past trends of project approvals, all units are expected to receive Certificates of Occupancy during the 2024-2032 planning period. The Sunset Drive Development project has received Tentative Map approval and areis in the process of obtaining Final Map approval. Following Final Map approval, both projects would need to submit building permit applications and obtain permit issuance before

City of Atwater
Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B6-3
beginning construction. There are no known barriers that would impede the completion of these projects. The City will continue to monitor these projects through Program 2 and identify alternative sites if necessary.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B6-4
Table B6-2 Pipeline Projects
Map
ID Project Name
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
(APN)1
Very
LowIncome
Units
LowIncome
Units
ModerateIncome
Units
Above
ModerateIncome
Units
Total
Units
Percent of
Maximum
Density
Achieved Status
Estimated
Completion
Date
1 Chelsea
Investments
Corporation
150-190-037 0 0 0 120 120 100% Tentative map and zone change approved, construction to begin
in late 2024
2 Redwood MixedUse
Development
150-190-037 0 0 0 52 52 52% All but final map approved; Annexation is expected on the
completion of the project.

Following Final Map approval,
developer to submit building
permit application and City to
issue permit before beginning
construction.
31 Sunset Drive
Development
056-540-004 0 0 0 25 25 104% All but final map
approvedApplication is under
review and planned to go to
Planning Commission in January
or February 2024 to seek
approval. Following Final Map
approval, developer to submit
building permit application and
City to issue permit before
beginning construction.
2027
Total 0 0 0 7725 17225
1An assessor's parcel number is a series of digits used to identify property. Each parcel is assigned an APN that corresponds to a location on a page in a book of maps maintained by the County Assessor's Office.

City of Atwater
Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B6-5
Figure B6-1 Pipeline Projects

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B6-6
B6.3 Summary of RHNA Credits
The City can satisfy six approximately one percent of its RHNA requirement with planned and approved units. Since no ADU permits were recorded during the previous planning period, ADUs are not assumed to contribute to the overall share of RHNA. To achieve the remaining RHNA, the City must demonstrate the availability of sites with appropriate zoning and development standards that allow and encourage the development of 2,8452,992 units. This unit count is broken down by household income level. As shown on Table B6-3, Atwater has a remaining RHNA of 768 units affordable to very low-income households, 526 units affordable to low-income households, 508 units affordable to moderate-income households, and 1,0431,190 units affordable to above moderate-income households.

Table B6-3 Remaining Share of RHNA
Affordability Category
(Percent of AMI)
RHNA
Allocation
Units Pending or Approved
or under Construction Estimated ADUs Remaining RHNA
Very Low 768 0 0 768
Low 526 0 0 526
Moderate 508 0 0 508
Above Moderate 1,215 17225 0 1,0431,190
Total 3,017 17225 0 2,8452,992
B6.4 Methodology
B6.4.1 Suitable Sites for Affordable Housing
State law requires that jurisdictions demonstrate in the Housing Element that the land inventory is adequate to accommodate that jurisdiction’s share of the regional growth. State law has established “default” density standards for the purpose of estimating potential units by income range. In a suburban jurisdiction, a density standard of 20 or more units per acre (primarily for higher density multi-family developments) would facilitate the development of housing in the lower-income category.

In addition to default density standards, the California Legislature established size requirements for parcels intended to support the development of lower-income units. Government Code Section 65583.2 establishes that sites between 0.5 and 10 acres in size which are zoned for residential development at greater than 20 units per acre are suitable for lower-income projects. Very small parcels, even when zoned for high densities, may not facilitate the scale of development required to access competitive funding resources. Conversely, typically lower-resource affordable housing developers may be unable to finance the scale of project necessitated by very large parcels. No standalone parcels smaller than 0.5 acres are assumed to accommodate lower-income units. The City assumed no more than 150 lower-income units on any individual site. For large parcels, the City will implement Program 2, to encourage and promote the development of large sites at the densities and affordability levels identified within the Housing Element.

City of Atwater
Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B6-7
B6.5 Nonvacant Sites
Nonvacant sites included on the Site Inventory have comparable predevelopment characteristics to developed residential projects in the region. As discussed in Chapter 4, Regional Housing Resources, residential development in Merced County has occurred primarily on vacant sites and sites occupied by agriculture.

The Housing Element must analyze the extent to which existing uses may impede additional residential development. The City’s Site Inventory accommodates approximately 58 64 percent of its above moderate-income RHNA, and 100 percent lower and moderate-income RHNA on vacant sites.

The remaining 42 36 percent above moderate-income RHNA is proposed on sites currently being occupied by agricultural uses.

B6.5.1 Adequacy of Nonvacant Sites
Of the 157 124 sites included in the Site Inventory, 146 113 are vacant and 11 are on operational agricultural land. The City anticipates development of these sites to accommodate low-, medium-, and high-density residential uses. Five of the nonvacant sites are located in the Fluhr and Buhach neighborhoods and are currently zoned for residential uses. Six of the nonvacant sites are located just outside city limits, north of Shaffer Avenue, and are proposed to be annexed and zoned low-, medium-, or high-density residential. None of the nonvacant sites are under Williamson Act Contract and there are no characteristics that would impede residential development In considering sites, the City identified agricultural land to facilitate the development of a variety of housing types throughout the city. Housing development on nonvacant sites currently utilized as agricultural lands is discussed below. These sites were selected for their redevelopment potential and higher probability of turnover, as seen in Table B6-4. Of the nonvacant sites currently utilized as agricultural land, the average number of units that could be realized is 100 and the average acreage of each site is 17.5720.06.

Table B6-4 Representative Nonvacant Sites
Site ID Site Address Description Size (Acres)
Capacity
(Units)
Achieved
Density
(du/ac)
53, 54, 55 Crest Rd This 6.61-acre parcel is These sites consist of a 6.61- acre, 6.68-acre, and 6.78-acre parcel, all currently
utilized as agricultural land zoned high-density
residential. With their current zoning designations,
the sites could accommodate 40 to 41 dwelling units,
with an achieved density of 6.10 dwelling units per
acre. All three sites are adjacent to residential
subdivisions, mobile home parks, and agricultural
uses.

Development trends with similar predevelopment
characteristics:
 Stocking Street: ( previous use: agriculture, zoned
low-density residential, similarly located adjacent
to residential subdivisions and agricultural uses,
parcel size: 9.83 acres, total units: 44), 44 units
total, achieved density of 4.48 du/ac

6.61, 6.68,

6.78 40, 40, 41 6.10

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B6-8
Site ID Site Address Description Size (Acres)
Capacity
(Units)
Achieved
Density
(du/ac)
 Villas at Sierra Meadows: previous use
agriculture, zoned low-density residential,
similarly located adjacent to single-family
residences and agricultural uses, parcel size 12.31
ac, achieved density of 6.50 du/ac
Crest Rd This 6.68-acre parcel is currently utilized as agricultural land zoned high-density residential.

Development trends with similar predevelopment
characteristics:
 Stocking Street (previous use: agriculture, parcel
size: 9.83 acres, total units: 44)

6.68 40
Crest Rd This 6.78-acre parcel is currently utilized as agricultural land zoned high-density residential.

Development trends with similar predevelopment
characteristics:
 Stocking Street (previous use: agriculture, parcel
size: 9.83 acres, total units: 44)

6.78 41
64 5451 N
Crest
This 86.4851.40-acre parcel is currently utilized as
agricultural land zoned low-density residential. With
its current zoning designation, the site could
accommodate 438 dwelling units, with an achieved
density of 5.08 dwelling units per acre. The site is
adjacent to residential subdivisions and agricultural
uses.

Development trends with similar predevelopment
characteristics:
 Manzanita: (previous use: agriculture, parcel size:

51.33 acres, total units: 213) previous use
agriculture, zoned low-density residential,
similarly located adjacent to residential
subdivisions and agricultural uses, parcel size

51.33 ac, 213 units total, achieved density of 4.15
du/ac.
 The Villas: (previous use: agriculture, parcel size:

58.95 acres, total units: 231) previous use
agriculture, zoned low-density residential,
similarly located adjacent to residential
subdivisions and agricultural uses, parcel size

58.95 ac, 231 units total, achieved density of 3.92
du/ac.
 Eagle Meadows: previous use agriculture, zoned
low-density residential, similarly located adjacent
to residential subdivisions and agricultural uses,
parcel size 49.00 ac, 242 units total, achieved
density of 4.94 du/ac.

86.4851.40 261438 5.08

City of Atwater
Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B6-9
Site ID Site Address Description Size (Acres)
Capacity
(Units)
Achieved
Density
(du/ac)
6 Green Sands
Ave
This 16.40-acre parcel is currently utilized as
agricultural land zoned low-density residential. With
its current zoning designation, the site could
accommodate 83 dwelling units, with an achieved
density of 5.08 dwelling units per acre. The site is
adjacent to residential subdivisions and agricultural
uses.

Development trends with similar predevelopment
characteristics:
 Sundance Village (previous use: agriculture,
parcel size: 21.63 acres, total units: 97): previous
use agriculture, zoned low-density residential,
similarly located adjacent to residential
subdivisions and agricultural uses, parcel size

21.63 ac, 97 units total, achieved density of 4.48
du/ac.
 Olivewood Estates: previous use agriculture,
zoned low-density residential, similarly located
adjacent to single-family residences and
agricultural uses, parcel size 13.90 ac, 60 units
total, achieved density of 4.32 du/ac.
 Villas at Sierra Meadows: previous use
agriculture, zoned low-density residential,
similarly located adjacent to single-family
residences and agricultural uses, parcel size 12.31
ac, 80 units total, achieved density of 6.50 du/ac.

16.40 83 5.08
114 Shaffer Rd This 4.32-acre parcel is currently utilized as agricultural land. The site is proposed to be annexed
and rezoned to high-density residential, and could
accommodate 76 dwelling units, with an achieved
density of 17.50 dwelling units per acre. The site is
adjacent to single-family residences and agricultural
uses.
 Regency Court Apartments: previous use
agriculture, similarly zoned with a maximum
density of 30 du/ac, similarly located adjacent to
single-family residences and near agricultural
uses, parcel size 9.80 ac, achieved density 18.37
du/ac.
 Village at Shannon Parkway Apartments:
previous use agriculture, similarly zoned
multifamily residential with a maximum density
of 30 du/ac, similarly located adjacent to singlefamily residences and near agricultural uses, parcel size 9.24 ac, achieved density 23.38 du/ac.

4.32 76 17.50

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B6-10
Site ID Site Address Description Size (Acres)
Capacity
(Units)
Achieved
Density
(du/ac)
115 Shaffer Rd This 4.88-acre parcel is currently utilized as agricultural land. The site is proposed to be annexed
and rezoned to medium-density residential, and
could accommodate 38 dwelling units, with an
achieved density of 7.70 dwelling units per acre. The
site is adjacent to single-family residences and
agricultural uses.
 Villas at Sierra Meadows: previous use
agriculture, similarly located adjacent to singlefamily residences and agricultural uses, achieved density of 6.50 du/ac.
 Brookside Subdivision: previous use agriculture,
similarly located adjacent to single-family
residences and agricultural uses, achieved density
of 5.97 du/ac.

4.88 38 7.70
116 Shaffer Rd This 22.12-acre parcel is currently utilized as agricultural land. The site is proposed to be annexed
and rezoned to low-density residential, and could
accommodate 77 dwelling units, with an achieved
density of 3.50 dwelling units per acre. The site is
adjacent to single-family residences and agricultural
uses.
 Antelope Estates: previous use agriculture,
similarly located adjacent to single-family
residences and agricultural uses, achieved density
of 3.89 du/ac.
 Villages at Stonecreek IX: previous use
agriculture, zoned low-density residential,
similarly located adjacent to single-family
residences and agricultural uses, parcel size 19.40
ac, 72 units total, achieved density of 3.71 du/ac.
 Sundance Village: previous use agriculture, zoned
low-density residential, similarly located adjacent
to single-family residences and agricultural uses,
parcel size 21.63 ac, 97 units total, achieved
density of 4.48 du/ac.

22.12 77 3.50
117, 118 Shaffer Rd These 22.34-acre and 21.40-acre parcels are currently utilized as agricultural land. These sites are proposed to be annexed and rezoned to mediumdensity residential, and could accommodate 172 and 165 dwelling units, with an achieved density of 7.70
dwelling units per acre. These sites are adjacent to
single-family residences and agricultural uses.
 Villas at Sierra Meadows: previous use
agriculture, similarly located adjacent to singlefamily residences and agricultural uses, achieved density of 6.50 du/ac.
 Brookside Subdivision: previous use agriculture,
similarly located adjacent to single-family
residences and agricultural uses, 229 units total,
achieved density of 5.97 du/ac.

22.34,

21.40 172, 165 7.70

City of Atwater
Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B6-11
Site ID Site Address Description Size (Acres)
Capacity
(Units)
Achieved
Density
(du/ac)
 Villages at Stonecreek IV: previous use
agriculture, similarly located adjacent to singlefamily residences and agricultural uses, 160 units total, achieved density of 5.10 du/ac.
119 Shaffer Rd This 22.68-acre parcel is currently utilized as agricultural land. The site is proposed to be annexed
and rezoned to high-density residential, and could
accommodate 397 dwelling units, with an achieved
density of 17.50 dwelling units per acre. The site is
adjacent to single-family residences and agricultural
uses.
 Regency Court Apartments: previous use
agriculture, similarly zoned with a maximum
density of 30 du/ac, similarly located adjacent to
single-family residences and near agricultural
uses, parcel size 9.80 ac, achieved density 18.37
du/ac.
 Village at Shannon Parkway Apartments:
previous use agriculture, similarly zoned
multifamily residential with a maximum density
of 30 du/ac, similarly located adjacent to singlefamily residences and near agricultural uses, parcel size 9.24 ac, achieved density 23.38 du/ac.

22.68 397 17.50
Redevelopment Trends on Agriculture Sites
The Merced County region has primarily experienced residential redevelopment on sites previously utilized agricultural purposes. Regional examples of projects that were converted from operational agricultural uses to residential uses are listed on Table B6-5.

Table B6-5 Redevelopment Trends on Sites with Operational Agriculture Jurisdiction Project Name
Parcel Size
(acres) Total Units
Achieved Density
(du/ac)
Tulare County
Porterville Villas at Sierra Meadows 12.31 80 6.50
Woodlake Hillside Estates 28.5 75 2.2
Woodlake Olivewood Estates 13.9 60 4.32
Woodlake Antelope Estates 36.0 140 3.89
Woodlake Rodeo Estates I 42.0 184 4.38
Woodlake Rodeo Estates II 36.0 52 1.44
Visalia Village at Shannon Pkwy. Apartments 9.24 216 23.38 Merced County
Dos Palos Stocking Street 9.83 44 4.48
Livingston Manzanita 51.33 213 4.15
Livingston Sundance Village 21.63 97 4.48
Los Banos The Villas 58.95 231 3.92

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B6-12
Jurisdiction Project Name
Parcel Size
(acres) Total Units
Achieved Density
(du/ac)
Los Banos Westbrook 37.81 162 4.28
Merced Regency Court Apartments 9.80 180 18.37
The 11 sites currently used for operational agricultural purposes show similar predevelopment uses, including parcel size, realistic densities, and total units constructed. Existing agricultural operations on all of the nonvacant sites consists of row crops and orchards which would be relatively easy to clear and repurpose for development. Unlike agricultural processing or dairy uses, row crops and orchards typically do not require extensive infrastructure and the threshold is low for clearing land and converting the use. Furthermore, these sites are situated in an area that is desirable for residential development. None of the sites are under Williamson Act Contract and there are no conditions that would impede residential development of these sites. Given these redevelopment trends on operational agriculturally used sites, the City does not anticipate existing operational agricultural uses to impede conversion from agricultural land to residential development on the four sites included in the Site Inventory.

Market Demand
Demand for residential development of formerly agricultural land in the San Joaquin Valley is high, and driven by the critical need for more housing, necessity for less water-intensive land use, and the declining property values of agricultural lands due to constrained water resources. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) has significantly impacted agricultural land use throughout California. Groundwater sustainability plans now require reductions in groundwater use, which could result in the fallowing of between 500,000 and 900,000 acres of cropland in the San Joaquin Valley. The conversion of agricultural land to urban development, which primarily occurs around existing communities, results in a much less water intensive use of land than cropland.1 Counties throughout the San Joaquin Valley have noticed decreasing property values for agricultural lands in response to limited water supply.2 Between 2016 and 2018, 74,641 acres of farmland and grazing lands were converted to other uses in California, including 37,583 acres of land that were urbanized.3 Approximately 44,942 acres were urbanized between 2014 and 2016.4 In Merced County, 3,968 acres of land were urbanized between 2010 and 2020.5 California Department of Conservation data from 1984 to 2022 shows land classified as farmland in and near the Fluhr and Buhach neighborhoods and land north of Shaffer Avenue just outside city limits has been converted to urban and built-up land.6 Trends illustrating local conversion of farmland to urban uses are further supported by recent development throughout Merced County and the region, where properties previously used for agricultural purposes were redeveloped with housing, shown in Table B6-5.
1 Hanak, Ellen, et al. 2023. Managing Water and Farmland Transitions in the San Joaquin Valley. Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/publication/managing-water-and-farmland-transitions-in-the-san-joaquin-valley/ 2 Willis, Natalie. 2024. SGMA Breakdown of the 2024 Trends in Agricultural Land and Lease Values. https://www.valleyagvoice.com/asfmra-conference-unveils-insights-into-agricultural-land-values/ 3 California Department of Conservation. 2023. California Farmland Conversion Report 2016-2018. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/fmmp/pubs/2016-2018/FCR/FCR_1618_Report.pdf 4 California Department of Conservation. California Farmland Conversion Report 2014-2016. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/2012-2014_Farmland_Conversion_Report.aspx 5 California Department of Conservation. Merced County Important Farmland Data Availability, Historic Land Use Conversion. 2020. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Merced.aspx 6 California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland: 1984-2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/

City of Atwater
Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B6-13
B6.6 Development Trends
As discussed in detail in Chapter 4, Regional Housing Resources, the development characteristics in the region indicate that most of the recently developed residential projects, or projects that are planned to be developed, are on vacant land. Out of the 17 projects identified, 13 are single-family developments, and four are multi-family developments. Approximately 12 percent of these projects include affordable units.

The densities of these projects range from 1.64 to 51.34 dwelling units per acre due to the various zoning requirements in each jurisdiction. Multifamily projects with affordable units, on average, achieve a density of approximately 37 dwelling units per acre, and these projects typically achieved a density of 135 percent of the maximum density allowed by the zoning district.

Projects located in low, medium, and high-density residential zones typically achieved a density of 67, 60, and 84 percent, respectively, of the maximum density allowed by the zoning district. Overall, the average achieved density is 8.8 dwelling units per acre, which is low. This can be attributed to the predominance of single-family residential developments in the region.

Of the projects discussed in Chapter 4, Regional Housing Resources, four projects used to determine regional development trends are in Atwater: Bell Crossing, Nebula Drive Planned Development, Sandstone Way Planned Development, and Pollitt Court Planned Development. Each project consists of market rate single-family units. These four projects have an average density of approximately four units per acre with an average achieved density of 77 percent of the maximum density allowed by the zoning district, as shown in Table B6-6.

Table B6-6 Atwater Development Trends
Project Name
Total
Units Acreage Density Zoning District
Zoning District
Density (du/ac)
Number of Units
Allowed
Percent Density
Achieved
Bell Crossing 188 40.43 4.65 Single-Family
(low density)

5.81 234.90 80%
Nebula Drive
Planned
Development
127 28.34 4.48 Single-Family
(low density)

5.81 164.66 77%
Sandstone Way
Planned
Development
122 30.85 3.95 Single-Family
(low density)

5.81 179.24 68%
Pollitt Court
Planned
Development
11 2.33 4.72 Single-Family
(low density)

5.81 13.54 81%
Atwater Average 4.45 77%
Regional Average 8.80 70%
B6.6.1 Realistic Development Capacity
To create a realistic development assumption, the City assumes that the development capacity on each site will be less than the full development capacity allowed by the parcel's zoning or land use designation. Sites do not always develop to their full capacity potential due to factors such as sitespecific conditions and development standards such as open space or parking requirements. To determine a realistic development achievement on the sites in the inventory, the City reviewed pipeline and recently developed projects in the region. On average, the pipeline projects in Atwater

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B6-14
(Table B6-2) achieved an average density of 76 92 percent of the maximum density allowed on the site based on the site’s zoning and development standards. As discussed in Chapter 4, Regional Housing Resources, the average achieved densitydensity achieved for projects collectively in the region is 70 percent. Based on the local and regional trends, the city conservatively assumes the realistic capacity of each site would be 70 percent of the maximum allowable density in each zone and 50 percent for nonresidential zones that allow residential uses (i.e., RT, CC, and GC).

The Site Inventory includes parcels in eight seven zoning districts with varying allowable densities and development standards. The City’s Zoning Code classifies each site into the following zones:
 Residential Estate (R-E): This district allows for very low density single-family residential uses with one unit per 16,000 square feet of lot area, equal to a maximum residential density of 2.72 dwelling units per acre.
 Low Density Residential (R-1-6): This district allows for single-family residential uses with one unit per 6,000 square feet of lot area, equal to a maximum residential density of 7.26 dwelling units per acre.
 Mobile Home Park District (R-M): This district allows for mobile home parks with a residential density of 8.71 dwelling units per acre.
 High Density Residential (R-3-2.5): This district allows for multi-family residential uses with one unit per 2,500 square feet of lot area, equal to a maximum residential density of 17.42 dwelling units per acre.
 Residential Transition (R-T): This district allows for apartment and mixed-use developments with a maximum residential density of 21 units per acre.
 Central Commercial (CC): This district allows for residential uses above the ground floor through a Conditional Use Permit, the maximum density is 15 units per acre.  General Commercial (GC): This district allows for residential uses above the ground floor through a Conditional Use Permit, the maximum density is 15 units per acre.  Planned Development (PD): This district allows for a variety of housing types based on parcel’s General Plan Land Use designation, densities range from 5.81 to 43.56 units per acre.

The distribution of income levels among sites was determined by zone district and parcel size. It is typical for units in single-family zones to be affordable only to above moderate-income households.

Within multi-family zones that have a higher density, units are more likely to be affordable to lowerand moderate-income households. Table B6-7 details the realistic capacity of available sites by zoning district.

Table B6-7 Realistic Capacity of Sites by Zoning District Zoning
District
Total
Acreage
Maximum
Density
Realistic
Density
Lower- Income
Units
Moderate
Income- Units
Above
ModerateIncome Units Total
Units
R-E 21.2820.14 2.72 1.90 0 0 3726 3726
R-1-6 2.49 7.26 5.08 0 0 12 12
R-M 20.07 8.71 6.10 0 0 121 121
R-3-2.5 4.03 17.42 12.19 0 46 0 46
R-T 7.595.06 21 10.50 4430 0 2937 7367
CC 1.82 15 7.50 0 3 7 10
GC 9.592.39 15 7.50 0 298 3813 6721

City of Atwater
Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B6-15
Zoning
District
Total
Acreage
Maximum
Density
Realistic
Density
Lower- Income
Units
Moderate
Income- Units
Above
ModerateIncome Units Total
Units
PD 7.20136.09 varies varies 150120 190 669813 839933
Total 192.67191.41 194155 9755 9131,017 1,2041,2
25 B6.6.2 Likelihood of 100 percent Nonresidential Uses on Sites The City identifies 150 88 units on 33 22 sites in the R-T, C-C, and G-C, zones that allow for 100 percent nonresidential uses. In accordance with State law, the housing element must consider the likelihood of nonresidential development on sites that allow for nonresidential uses. To determine likelihood, the City reviewed development that has occurred in nonresidential zones within the last five years. During this time period, there have not been any residential developments constructed in the R-T, CC, and GC zones. Elsewhere in the San Joaquin Valley, residential uses occurred on approximately 18 percent of projects in mixed-use zones in the City of Visalia between 2019 and 2022. During the 5th cycle in Fresno County, the City of Reedley saw development on 16 mixed-use sites included in their Site Inventory. Of these sites, three were developed with residential use. As a result, regional trends indicate that residential uses occur in nonresidential zones on less than one quarter of projects.

The Site Inventory accounts for the likelihood of nonresidential uses being developed in zones that allow both residential and nonresidential uses by providing an adequate buffer of units in all income categories. If 100 percent of the sites in the R-T, CC, and GC zones were developed with 100 percent nonresidential uses, the Site Inventory would still maintain a 45 14 percent buffer of lower-income units, an 80 28 percent buffer of moderate-income units, and a 57 33 percent buffer of above moderate-income units. Additionally, the inventory conservatively assumes a realistic allowable density of 10.5 dwelling units per acre in the R-T zone, and 7.5 dwelling units per acre in the CC and GC zones. A maximum of 21 units per acre is allowed in the R-T zone and 15 units per acre in the CC and GC zones; 50 percent of the maximum density allowed in each zone.

Table B6-8 shows regional residential projects within the last five years (i.e. 2019 through 2024) that have occurred in zones that allow for 100 percent nonresidential uses. As shown on the table, residential projects have generally averaged much higher densities (26 units per acre) than what is assumed on in the Site Inventory (7.5 - 10.5 units per acre). Residential projects in the region also generally achieved nearly 100 percent of their maximum allowable capacity for each zone. Projects that are similar in size, density, and affordability to the identified sites include SPR20-006, Corvina Duplexes, and Duplex at Murray & Encina. The majority of the other projects achieve higher densities on parcels of similar or larger sizes. Given these trends, the City believes that the conservative assumptions on R-T, C-C, and G-C zoned sites account for the lower frequency of residential projects developing regionally in mixed-use zones.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B6-16
Table B6-8 Residential Projects in Zones that allow 100 percent Nonresidential Uses Jurisdiction Project Name Acres
Total
Units
Dwelling Units
Per Acre
Precent of Max
Capacity
Income
Category
Merced County
Merced City Childs Court
Apartments

4.01 119 29.68 No Max Density Very Low, Low
Merced City 3136 E Gerard Ave 9.44 200 21.19 No Max Density Above Moderate
Merced City Andrade Co. 1.33 24 18.05 No Max Density Above Moderate
Merced County SPR20-006 0.18 8 44.44 135% Low
Livingston Tierrasanta Villas 3.98 80 20.10 No Max Density Very Low, Low Tulare County
Visalia Corvina Duplexes 0.5 8 16.00 46% Low
Visalia Lofts at Fort Visalia 1.46 80 54.79 No Max Density Very Low, Low Visalia Duplex at Murray &
Encina

0.19 2 10.53 No Max Density Low
Visalia Rancho Colegio
Affordable Housing

3.47 80 23.05 66% Very Low, Low
Visalia Camino Del Rio 3.12 94 30.13 86% Very Low
Visalia Senior Housing at N
Highland

2.06 70 33.98 97% Very Low
Visalia Caldwell/Lovers
Apartments

11.41 342 29.97 86% Very Low, Low
Visalia Demaree/Houston
Apartments

7.62 243 31.89 91% Very Low, Low
Visalia Lovers Tulare
Apartments

2.78 32 11.51 No Max Density Low
Visalia Cameron Creek
Garden Units

4.81 30 6.24 18% Moderate
Visalia S Stonebrook St & W
Cameron Ave

11.77 276 23.45 156% Moderate
Fresno County
Reedley Paseo 55 1.76 55 31.25 108% Moderate
Reedley Reedley I Mixed Use 4.25 80 18.82 127% Low
Reedley Kashian Mixed Use:

Workforce Housing

2.11 70 33.18 115% Extremely Low
Kingsburg Stone Plaza Mixed Use
Project

0.28 10 35.71 145% Above
Moderate
Average 3.82 95.15 26.20 98%
Although residential development is not the prevailing trend in mixed-use zones, the City anticipates that the selected sites have high potential of residential development. All sites included in the R-T, C-C, and G-C zones are vacant and do not have existing uses that would impede development.

Additionally, Sites sites are generally located along the City's city's main arterials (e.g. Atwater Boulevard and Bellevue Road) and are located in a pedestrian friendly environment with a close proximity to goods, services, and transportation.

City of Atwater
Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B6-17
Under Program 7, the City commits to expand affordable housing options across all income categories through contacting non-profit and private developers to facilitate housing production and pursue funding opportunities. The City will continue to evaluate all future mixed-use development to determine how often development has a residential component edits look good and make adjustments, as necessary, to maintain adequate sites throughout the planning period.

B6.7 Large Sites for Lower-Income Units
The Site Inventory identifies two large vacant sites (larger than 10 acres) that are expected to offer affordable housing opportunities for lower-income households. Both of these sites are currently zoned for nonresidential uses with a proposed rezone to R-3-1 to facilitate high density residential development. As discussed in Chapter 4, Regional Housing Resources, Merced County shows strong trends of residential development on large sites. However, these trends support market-rate development, while affordable units have typically occurred on smaller parcels. As a result, the City conservatively assumed no more than 150 lower-income units on each site, which is consistent with typical state and federal funded developments. Additionally, though the sites are larger than 10 acres, the City conservatively assumed no more than 10 acres of residential development on each site.

The two large parcels with lower-income units are shown on Table B6-9. The first site is 10.03 20 acres, slightly larger than the 10-acre threshold. The second site is 15.1314.49 acres. For this site, the City assumes a realistic capacity of 20 to 30 units per acre., which Twenty units per acre is the minimum allowable density in the R-3-1 zone and much lower than the realistic capacity assumption for other adequately sized sites in the inventory (30 dwelling units per acre). These sites would likely need to be subdivided into appropriate sizes to accommodate development similar to typically state and federally funded developments (e.g., 50 to 150 units). These sites assume a mix of incomes to support a variety of housing types.

Table B6-9 Large Sites with Lower-Income Units
Address APN Zone Acres
Existing
Use
LowerIncome ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome Total
Units
N Winton Way 150130025 R-3-1 10.0320 Vacant 150218 7762 7731 304311 Sycamore Ave 001146019 R-3-1 15.1314.49 Vacant 150309 7788 7744 304441 A summary of recent developments on large sites in the San Joaquin Valley is listed on Table B6-10.

Market rate projects on large sites range from 12 to 58 acres and average approximately 188 units per site. Alternatively, projects with deed restricted units range from 10 to 120 acres and average approximately 291 units per site. Projects like the Ben Maddox-K property (292 lower-income units on 10.8 acres) and the Lovers-Caldwell property (342 lower-income units on 11.4 acres) in Tulare County demonstrate that large sites can support large numbers of deed-restricted units and best represent the two large sites included in the inventory.

While the site at N Winton Way exceeds 10 acres (site is approximately 10.3 20 acres), the total capacity is reasonably similar to typically developed affordable housing and is consistent with some larger affordable developments (e.g. greater than 150 units) in the San Joaquin Valley. For example, the Ben Maddox-K property (292 lower-income units on 10.8 acres) and the Lovers-Caldwell property (342 lower-income units on 11.4 acres) are similar size to N Winton Way yet yield significantly more affordable units than what is assumed on the site. Given the wide range of

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B6-18
development trends on large sites in the region, the City anticipates that the assumed capacities on these large the four large sites are realistic.

Table B6-10 Summary of Recent Developments on Large Sites in San Joaquin Valley Project Acres Deed-Restricted Units Market Rate Units Total Units Merced County
Bell Crossing 40.43 0 188 188
Nebela Drive 28.34 0 127 127
Sandstone Way 30.85 0 122 122
Manzanita 51.33 0 213 213
Sundance Village 21.63 0 97 97
The Villas 58.95 0 231 231
Westbrook 37.81 0 162 162
Stoneridge South 29.75 0 160 160
Yosemite Village Apartments 11.98 0 220 220
Bruno Apartments 10.73 0 164 164
Maracor Development, Inc. 13.50 0 396 396
Yosemite Crossing 21.50 0 96 96
Linc Housing 36.00 54 0 54
Merced Crossing Annexation (Pending) 28.60 65 455 520
Rogina Annexation 147.40 50 350 400
M Street Annexation 37.00 25 175 200
University Vista Annexation 290.60 44 306 350
Virginia Smith Trust (VST) Specific Plan
(Merced County Project)
654.00 325 2,215 2,540
Average 86.13 31.28 315.39 347
Tulare County
the Ben Maddox-K 10.80 292 3 295
Lovers-Caldwell 11.40 342 4 346
Cambria 12.80 0 144 144
Hillside Estates 28.50 0 75 75
Average 15.88 159 57 215
Fresno County
Fancher Creek Town Center 91.00 420 240 660
The Vineyards 38.90 158 0 158
West Creek Village 120.0 120 135 255
Parc Grove Commons 24.00 213 2 215
Campus Pointe 27.50 0 550 550
Avalon Commons 17.80 104 1 105
Average 53.20 169 155 324
Regional Average 35.49 109 125 234

City of Atwater
Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B6-19
To facilitate and incentivize affordability units on these large sites, the City will implement Program 2 through the following actions:
 Provide technical assistance, incentives, and strategies as appropriate to facilitate development of affordable housing, including parceling at appropriate sizes or other site planning tools such as clustered development, allowing flexibility for the transferring of densities within the property.
 Promote the potential subdivision of large sites into multiple parcels for future development through technical assistance, incentives, and strategies during the development phases and when applications are submitted the City for the identified parcels.  Annually meet with property owners and developers to encourage the development of mixed income housing with a mix of unit sizes, types, and prices.  Promote the development of large sites at the densities and affordability levels identified within the housing element.
 Allow the development in phases within 8 years of the Housing Element planning period.  Offer expedited processing and fee deferrals, reductions, or waivers for affordable units in development on large sites identified in the Site Inventory.

B6.7.1 Subdivision Process for Large Sites
To facilitate residential development on these sites, large parcels may be subdivided by utilizing the City’s Tentative Subdivision Map entitlement process, as detailed in Title 16 of the City’s Municipal Code. The review process requires a complete Uniform Development Application submitted to the Community Development Department. City requirements for these actions parallel State Subdivision Map Act requirements. For projects that require separate ownership parcels, a subdivision is required to establish the land division. The subdivision process is subject to Permit Streamlining Act requirements, but also usually requires CEQA review and can take up to a year to complete. The City follows the approval and disapproval findings of the Government Code section 66474. These are as follows:
 The subdivision must be consistent with applicable general and specific plans.  The site must be physically suitable for the type of development and the proposed density of development.
 The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.  The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.

The City Planning Commission is designated as the "advisory agency" and is authorized to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove tentative maps of subdivisions. The City Council may overrule or modify any ruling or determination of the Planning Commission in regard to a tentative map and may make conditional exceptions if special circumstances pertaining to the property involved justify a variance.

Program 2 will promote and incentivize the subdivision of large sites to create parcels at appropriate sizes to support affordable housing projects. Incentives would potentially include, expedited approval of lot splits or creation of new parcels; waiving of the public hearing requirement related to parcel maps; waiving of the public hearing requirement related to approval of large multifamily

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B6-20
uses (provided the project is affordable by deed-restriction), additional density bonus, lot coverage, or allowable height; and fee waivers, reductions, or deferral. By the end of 2027, if development of housing is not feasible on these large sites, within 6 months (by July 2028) the City will identify additional incentives and planning tools or alternative strategies if necessary to ensure adequate capacity for the RHNA.

B6.8 Site Inventory
The Site Inventory lists all sites or parcels that are intended to accommodate residential development in fulfillment of Atwater’s RHNA. The inventory is broken up into seven distinct geographic areas of the city:
 Buhach
 Castle Garden
 Downtown Atwater
 Fluhr
 McSwain
 North Atwater
 Sierra Vista
The sites included in the inventory are listed in Table B6-11, Table B6-12, and . The following items are included for each site in the column heading order from left to right:
 Map Identification number (a unique reference number assigned by the city to reference the parcel on each map)
 Address or nearest cross street
 APN (Government Code Section 65583.2(b)1))
 Size in acres (Government Code Section 65583.2(b)(2))  General Plan land use designation (Government Code Section 65583.2(b)(2))  Zoning designation (Government Code Section 65583.2(b)(2))  Description of existing uses (Government Code Section 65583.2(b)(3))  Minimum allowable density by zone
 Maximum allowable density by zone
 Inventoried income level (units appropriate for lower-, moderate-, above moderate-income households) (Government Code Section 65583.2(c))
 Total number of units realistically assumed on the site  Opportunity category as designated by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)7 The current zoning of the selected sites is shown geographically in Figure B6-2 and the proposed zoning of the selected sites is shown in Figure B6-3. There are no known barriers outside of financing that would preclude development of these parcels in the planning period. 7 Resource levels designated by TCAC/HCD denote access to economic and educational opportunities such as low-cost transportation, jobs, and high-quality schools and the quality of environmental factors in the area such as proximity to hazards and air quality. TCAC has a composite opportunity score for each census tract. Source: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2023/methodology.pdf

City of Atwater
Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B6-21
These sites are also assessed by TCAC Opportunity area which range from areas of High Segregation and Poverty to the Highest Resource areas. The more positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families—particularly long-term outcomes for children, the higher the score. The scores in each neighborhood are listed below and a breakdown of each opportunity category is discussed in Chapter A5, Assessment of Fair Housing.

Buhach
Buhach is bounded by East Juniper Avenue to the north, city boundaries to the south and east, and Shaffer Road to the west. This area primarily consists of low density residential and commercial zones. Buhach is in an area of minimal flood hazard8. This neighborhood can accommodate seven sites with an assumed capacity of 141 above moderate-income units. All sites are in an area of the city that has a TCAC designation of High or Highest Resource. Through rezoning nine onefour sitess from low-density, commercial and institutional, and business park to high-density, medium-density, and low-density residential, Buhach can accommodate an additional 237 43 lower-income units, 89 11198 moderate-income units, and 122 five119 above moderate-income units. Overall, this totals to 237 43 low-income units, 89 11 moderate-income units, and 263 260146 above moderate-income units in this neighborhood.

Castle Gardens
Castle Gardens is bounded by East Bellevue Road to the north, East Juniper Avenue to the south, city boundaries to the east, and Shaffer Road to the west. This area primarily consists of singlefamily residential zone. Castle Gardens is in an area of minimal flood hazard. Castle Gardens can accommodate five four sites with an assumed capacity of 136 129 above moderate-income units. All sites are in areas of the city that have a TCAC designation of High Resource. Through rezoning one site from low-density to high-density residential, Castle Gardens can accommodate an additional 37 lower-income units, 15 moderate-income units, and 21 above moderate-income units. Overall, this totals to 37 low-income units, 15 moderate-income units, and 157 above moderate-income units in this neighborhood.

Downtown Atwater
Downtown Atwater is bounded by Juniper Avenue to the north, Highway 99 to the south, Shaffer Road to the east, and North Winton Way to the west. This neighborhood primarily consists of residential transition, high-density residential, and commercial zones. Downtown Atwater is in an area of minimal flood hazard. Downtown Atwater can accommodate 21 14 sites with an assumed capacity of 44 30 lower-income units, 9 6 moderate-income units, and 32 33 above moderateincome units. All sites are in areas of the city that have a TCAC designation of Moderate Resource.

Fluhr
Fluhr is bounded by city boundaries to the north and east, Bellevue Road to the south, and North Winton Way to the west. This neighborhood primarily consists of residential estates and single family residential zones. Fluhr is in an area of minimal flood hazard. Fluhr can accommodate 68 64 sites with an assumed capacity of 150 120 lower-income units, 66 22 moderate-income units, and 585 700 above moderate-income units. All sites are in areas of the city that have a TCAC designation of Highest Resource. Through rezoning two sites from commercial to high-density residential, Fluhr 8 The city has the Flood Hazard designation of “X”. Zone X is the area determined to be outside the 500-year flood and protected by levee from 100- year flood.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B6-22
can accommodate an additional 190 265 lower-income units, 90 75 moderate-income units, and 90 37 above moderate-income units. Overall, this totals tototals 340 385 lower-income units, 156 97 moderate-income units, and 675 737 above moderate-income units in this neighborhood.

McSwain
McSwain is bounded by Highway 99 and Atwater to the north, and city boundaries to the south, east, and west. This neighborhood primarily consists of business parks and single-family planned developments. McSwain is in an area of minimal flood hazard. McSwain can accommodate one site with an assumed capacity of two above moderate-income units. All sites are in areas of the city that have a TCAC designation of Highest Resource. Through rezoning 21 12 sites from low density residential and business park to high-density residential, McSwain can accommodate an additional 916 817 low-income units, 329 229 moderate-income units, and 337 111 above moderate-income units. Overall, this totals to 916 lower-income units, 329 moderate-income units, and 339 above moderate-income units in this neighborhood.

North Atwater
North Atwater is bounded by Bellevue Road to the north, Juniper Avenue to the south, Shaffer Road to the east, and North Winton Way to the west. This neighborhood primarily consists of singlefamily zones, with some commercial and high-density residential zones. North Atwater is in an area of minimal flood hazard. North Atwater can accommodate nine sites with an assumed capacity of four eight moderate-income units and 13 15 above moderate-income units. All sites are in areas of the city that have a TCAC designation of High Resource. Through rezoning one site from low-density residential to high-density residential, North Atwater can accommodate an additional 27 lowerincome units, 11 moderate-income unit, and 15 above moderate-income units. Overall, this totals tototals 27 low-income units, 15 moderate-income unit, and 28 above moderate-income units in this neighborhood.

Sierra Vista
Sierra Vista is bounded by city boundaries to the north and west, Atwater Avenue to the south, and North Winton Way to the east. This neighborhood primarily consists of single-family residential zones, with some medium and high density and commercial zones closer to Highway 99. Sierra Vista is in an area of minimal flood hazard. Sierra Vista can accommodate four three sites with an assumed capacity of 18 moderate-income units and four above moderate-income units. All sites are in areas of the city that have a TCAC designation of High Resource. Through rezoning two sites from commercial to high-density residential, Sierra Vista can accommodate an additional 33 40 lowerincome units, 11 10 moderate-income units, and 11 four above moderate-income units. Overall, this totals tototals 33 40 low-income units, 29 28 moderate-income units, and 15 eight above moderateincome units in this neighborhood.

City of Atwater
Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B6-23
Figure B6-2 Atwater Site Inventory (Current Zoning)

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B6-24
Figure B6-3 Atwater Site Inventory (Proposed Zoning)

City of Atwater
Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B6-25
Table B6-11 Atwater Site Inventory – Opportunity Sites
Map
ID
Site Address
or Street APN Acres Land Use Zoning
Current
Use
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
LowerIncome
Capacity
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Above
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Total
Capacity
TCAC
Opportunity
Category
Buhach
1 1901 Avenue One 005410003 1.13 Very Low
Density
R-E Vacant 0 2.72 0 0 2 2 Highest
Resource
2 5 Sherry Ln 004120011 0.63 Low Density R-1-6 Vacant 0 7.26 0 0 3 3 High Resource
3 709 Rancho Vista
Rd
004320038 0.25 Low Density P-D(9) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 1 1 High Resource
4 1840 De La Guerra
Way
005442015 0.25 Low Density P-D(25) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 1 1 Highest Resource
5 W Avenue 2 005080039 8.74 Low Density P-D(25) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 44 44 Highest Resource
6 Green Sands Ave 005110038 16.40 Low Density P-D(31) Agriculture 4.36 7.26 0 0 83 83 Highest Resource
7 Green Sands Ave
& Camrose St
005552011 1.38 Low Density P-D(31) Vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 7 7 Highest Resource
Total 28.78 0 0 141 141
Castle Garden
17 Sierra Madre Dr &
E Juniper Ave
004310006 2.81 Low Density P-D(22) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 14 14 High Resource
18 Cascade Dr 004310013 2.51 Low Density P-D(22) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 12 12 High Resource
19 421 Mojave Ct 004310011 6.00 Low Density P-D(22) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 30 30 High Resource
20 2274 Nebula Dr 005463010 1.11 Low Density P-D(29) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 5 5 High Resource
21 Nebula Dr 005070052 14.83 Low Density P-D(29) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 7573 7573 High Resource

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B6-26
Map
ID
Site Address
or Street APN Acres Land Use Zoning
Current
Use
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
LowerIncome
Capacity
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Above
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Total
Capacity
TCAC
Opportunity
Category
Total 27.262

6.15 0 0 136129 13612
9 Downtown
23 1601 Drakeley Ave 002182010 0.50 Residential
Transition
R-3-2.5 Vacant 0 17.42 0 6 0 6 Moderate
Resource
24 980 Cedar Ave 003071001 0.40 Residential
Transition
R-T vacant 0 21 0 0 4 4 Moderate
Resource
25 Broadway Ave and
First St
003074005 0.26 Downtown R-T vacant 0 21 0 0 23 23 Moderate Resource
26 Atwater Blvd and
First St
003074018 0.22 Downtown R-T vacant 0 21 0 0 23 23 Moderate Resource
27 Broadway Ave and
High St
003074033 0.37 Downtown R-T vacant 0 21 0 0 35 35 Moderate Resource
28 Broadway Ave and
High St
003076006 0.42 Downtown R-T vacant 0 21 0 0 46 46 Moderate Resource
29 675 Atwater Blvd 003076010 0.30 Downtown R-T vacant 0 21 0 0 34 34 Moderate Resource
30 500 Broadway 003082002 0.54 Downtown R-T vacant 0 21 57 0 0 57 Moderate Resource
31 431 Atwater Blvd 003084007 0.17 Downtown R-T vacant 0 21 0 0 12 12 Moderate Resource
32 435 Atwater Blvd 003084008 0.26 Downtown R-T vacant 0 21 0 0 23 23 Moderate Resource
33 444 Broadway Ave 003084010 0.50 Downtown R-T vacant 0 21 57 0 0 57 Moderate Resource
34 400 Broadway Ave 003084012 0.23 Downtown R-T vacant 0 21 0 0 23 23 Moderate Resource
35 Atwater Blvd 003093018 0.50 Downtown R-T vacant 0 21 57 0 0 57 Moderate Resource

City of Atwater
Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B6-27
Map
ID
Site Address
or Street APN Acres Land Use Zoning
Current
Use
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
LowerIncome
Capacity
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Above
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Total
Capacity
TCAC
Opportunity
Category
36 135 Broadway Ave 003093026 0.68 Downtown R-T vacant 0 21 79 0 0 79 Moderate Resource
37 358 Broadway Ave 003093029 0.32 Downtown R-T vacant 0 21 0 0 34 34 Moderate Resource
38 477 Atwater Blvd 003084001 2.14 Downtown R-T Vacant 0 21 22 0 0 22 Moderate Resource
39 Drakeley Ave &
Seventh St
2201005 0.2 Downtown
Residential
CC vacant 0 15 0 0 1 1 Moderate
Resource
40 Cedar Ave & 4th
Street
2207004 0.32 Downtown
Residential
CC vacant 0 15 0 1 1 2 Moderate
Resource
41 Broadway Ave &
5th St
2207007 0.44 Downtown
Residential
CC vacant 0 15 0 1 2 3 Moderate
Resource
42 1039 ATWATER
BLVD
2219010 0.38 Downtown
Residential
CC vacant 0 15 0 1 1 2 Moderate
Resource
43 1298 ATWATER
BLVD
3170004 0.22 Downtown
Residential
CC vacant 0 15 0 0 1 1 Moderate
Resource
Total

9.375.
27 4430 96 3233 8569
Fluhr
44 Gertrude Ave &
Camellia Dr
150110021 7.18 Very Low
Density
R-E Vacant 0 2.72 0 0 13 13 Highest
Resource
45 877 Fruitland Ave 150150007 3.50 Very Low
Density
R-E Vacant 0 2.72 0 0 63 63 Highest
Resource
46 Heather Glen Ln &
Fruitland Ave
150150025 2.85 Very Low
Density
R-E Vacant 0 2.72 0 0 53 53 Highest
Resource
47 Caron Ct 150320044 0.53 Very Low
Density
R-E Vacant 0 2.72 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
48 3177 Heather
Glen Ln
150340001 1.32 Very Low
Density
R-E Vacant 0 2.72 0 0 21 21 Highest
Resource

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B6-28
Map
ID
Site Address
or Street APN Acres Land Use Zoning
Current
Use
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
LowerIncome
Capacity
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Above
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Total
Capacity
TCAC
Opportunity
Category
49 3277 Heather
Glen Ln
150340006 1.22 Very Low
Density
R-E Vacant 0 2.72 0 0 21 21 Highest
Resource
50 3216 Heather
Glen Ln
150340008 1.19 Very Low
Density
R-E Vacant 0 2.72 0 0 21 21 Highest
Resource
51 3196 Heather
Glen Ln
150340010 1.21 Very Low
Density
R-E Vacant 0 2.72 0 0 21 21 Highest
Resource
52 500 Fruitland Ave 150190010 1.46 Very Low
Density
R-1-6 Vacant 0 7.26 0 0 7 7 Highest
Resource
53 Crest Rd 156060002 6.61 High Density R-M Agriculture 0 8.71 0 0 40 40 Highest Resource
54 Crest Rd 156060003 6.68 High Density R-M Agriculture 0 8.71 0 0 40 40 Highest Resource
55 Crest Rd 156060004 6.78 High Density R-M Agriculture 0 8.71 0 0 41 41 Highest Resource
56 2815 Crest Rd 156070024 0.53 High Density R-3-2.5 vacant 0 17.42 0 6 0 6 Highest Resource
57 2791 Crest Rd 156070026 0.44 High Density R-3-2.5 vacant 0 17.42 0 5 0 5 Highest Resource
58 2775 Crest Rd 156070027 0.63 High Density R-3-2.5 vacant 0 17.42 0 7 0 7 Highest Resource
59 991 E Bellevue Rd 156070030 0.33 High Density R-3-2.5 vacant 0 17.42 0 4 0 4 Highest Resource
60 337 E Bellevue Rd 156060009 3.66 Commercial GC vacant 0 15 0 13 14 27 Highest Resource
61 E Bellevue Rd &
Fruitland Ave
156060013 1.69 Commercial GC vacant 0 15 0 6 6 12 Highest Resource
62 255 E Bellevue Rd 156060014 1.00 Commercial GC vacant 0 15 0 3 4 7 Highest Resource

City of Atwater
Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B6-29
Map
ID
Site Address
or Street APN Acres Land Use Zoning
Current
Use
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
LowerIncome
Capacity
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Above
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Total
Capacity
TCAC
Opportunity
Category
63 273 E Bellevue Rd 156060023 0.85 Commercial GC vacant 0 15 0 3 3 6 Highest Resource
64 5451 N Crest 156010002 51.408

6.48 Low Density P-D Agriculture 4.36 7.26 0 0 261438 26143 8 Highest
Resource
65 Redwood Ave 150190038
*

6.20 High Density P-D(4) vacant 29.04 43.56 150120 190 190 18812 0 Highest
Resource
66 Champagne Dr 150150026 0.71 Low Density P-D(7) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 3 3 Highest Resource
67 Champagne Dr 150150027 11.00 Low Density P-D(7) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 55 55 Highest Resource
68 179 Crows Nest Ct 150280041 0.28 Medium
Density
P-D(16) vacant 8.71 14.52 0 0 2 2 Highest
Resource
69 Shaffer Road &
East Manzanita
Drive
156131053 1.16 Medium
Density
P-D(16) vacant 8.71 14.52 0 0 114 114 Highest
Resource
70 3580 Leah Way 150350002 0.26 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
71 3570 Leah Way 150350003 0.26 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
72 3520 Leah Way 150350008 0.27 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
73 3521 Leah Way 150350009 0.27 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
74 3531 Leah Way 150350010 0.26 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
75 3530 Jenna Ct 150350011 0.26 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
76 3520 Jenna Ct 150350012 0.26 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B6-30
Map
ID
Site Address
or Street APN Acres Land Use Zoning
Current
Use
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
LowerIncome
Capacity
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Above
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Total
Capacity
TCAC
Opportunity
Category
77 3531 Jenna Ct 150350013 0.33 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
78 475 Joshua Ct 150350017 0.25 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
79 465 Joshua Ct 150350018 0.25 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
80 455 Joshua Ct 150350019 0.25 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
81 454 Aaron Ct 150350020 0.25 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
82 464 Aaron Ct 150350021 0.25 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
83 474 Aaron Ct 150350022 0.25 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
84 484 Aaron Ct 150350023 0.25 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
85 494 Aaron Ct 150350024 0.32 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
86 495 Aaron Ct 150350025 0.26 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
87 485 Aaron Ct 150350026 0.27 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
88 475 Aaron Ct 150350027 0.28 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
89 465 Aaron Ct 150350028 0.28 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
90 455 Aaron Ct 150350029 0.29 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource

City of Atwater
Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B6-31
Map
ID
Site Address
or Street APN Acres Land Use Zoning
Current
Use
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
LowerIncome
Capacity
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Above
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Total
Capacity
TCAC
Opportunity
Category
91 3571 Leah Way 150350030 0.31 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
92 3581 Leah Way 150350031 0.27 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
93 3591 Leah Way 150350032 0.29 Very Low
Density
P-D(27) vacant 0 5.81 0 0 1 1 Highest
Resource
94 Crest Dr. and
Santa Fe Dr.
156010004 1.06 Low Density P-D(28) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 5 5 Highest Resource
95 131 Jeanna Ct 156160004 0.25 Low Density P-D(28) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 1 1 Highest Resource
96 141 Jeanna Ct 156160005 0.24 Low Density P-D(28) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 1 1 Highest Resource
97 180 Jeanna Ct 156160007 0.39 Low Density P-D(28) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 1 1 Highest Resource
98 170 Jeanna Ct 156160008 0.25 Low Density P-D(28) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 1 1 Highest Resource
99 160 Jeanna Ct 156160009 0.26 Low Density P-D(28) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 1 1 Highest Resource
100 150 Jeanna Ct 156160010 0.25 Low Density P-D(28) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 1 1 Highest Resource
101 140 Jeanna Ct 156160011 0.25 Low Density P-D(28) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 1 1 Highest Resource
102 130 Jeanna Ct 156160012 0.28 Low Density P-D(28) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 1 1 Highest Resource
103 151 Kelly Ct 156160015 0.25 Low Density P-D(28) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 1 1 Highest Resource
104 171 Kelly Ct 156160017 0.25 Low Density P-D(28) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 1 1 Highest Resource

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B6-32
Map
ID
Site Address
or Street APN Acres Land Use Zoning
Current
Use
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
LowerIncome
Capacity
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Above
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Total
Capacity
TCAC
Opportunity
Category
105 181 Kelly Ct 156160018 0.25 Low Density P-D(28) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 1 1 Highest Resource
106 191 Kelly Ct 156160019 0.25 Low Density P-D(28) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 1 1 Highest Resource
107 211 Kelly Ct 156160021 0.45 Low Density P-D(28) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 1 1 Highest Resource
108 230 Kelly Ct 156160023 0.22 Low Density P-D(28) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 1 1 Highest Resource
109 220 Kelly Ct 156160024 0.25 Low Density P-D(28) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 1 1 Highest Resource
110 210 Kelly Ct 156160025 0.25 Low Density P-D(28) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 1 1 Highest Resource
111 200 Kelly Ct 156160026 0.25 Low Density P-D(28) vacant 4.36 7.26 0 0 1 1 Highest Resource
Total 132.59
125.39 150120 6622 585700 801842
McSwain
120 Simon St 056540004 1.14 Very Low
Density
R-E Vacant 0 2.72 0 0 2 2 Highest
Resource
Total 1.14 0 0 2 2
North Atwater
142 2336 Palm Ave 002242005 0.19 Low Density R-1-6 Vacant 0 7.26 0 0 1 1 High Resource
143 2326 Linden St 002241019 0.21 Low Density R-1-6 Vacant 0 7.26 0 0 1 1 High Resource
144 Fortuna Ave &
Alabama St
2253034 0.16 Commercial GC vacant 0 15 0 0 1 1 High
Resource
145 Fortuna Ave &
Alabama St
2253035 0.14 Commercial GC vacant 0 15 0 0 1 1 High
Resource

City of Atwater
Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B6-33
Map
ID
Site Address
or Street APN Acres Land Use Zoning
Current
Use
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
LowerIncome
Capacity
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Above
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Total
Capacity
TCAC
Opportunity
Category
146 Fortuna Ave &
Alabama St
2253036 0.17 Commercial GC vacant 0 15 0 0 1 1 High
Resource
147 Elberta Ave &
Shaffer Rd
3211009 0.5 Commercial GC vacant 0 15 0 12 23 35 High
Resource
148 Elberta Ave &
Shaffer Rd
3211010 0.49 Commercial GC vacant 0 15 0 12 23 35 High
Resource
149 Fortuna Ave & 1st
St
3211011 0.47 Commercial GC vacant 0 15 0 12 2 34 High
Resource
150 2670 First St 3211012 0.46 Commercial GC vacant 0 15 0 12 2 34 High Resource
Total 2.79 0 48 1315 1723
Sierra Vista
152 2651 Olive Ave 001051003 1.14 Medium
Density
R-3-2.5 Vacant 0 17.42 0 13 0 13 High
Resource
153 Olive Ave & Wedel
Ave
001054001 0.47 Medium
Density
R-3-2.5 vacant 0 17.42 0 5 0 5 High
Resource
154 1763 Atwater Blvd 001113017 0.29 Residential
Transition
R-T vacant 0 21 0 0 34 34 High
Resource
155 1385 Winton Way 1104001 0.26 Commercial CC vacant 0 15 0 0 1 1 High Resource
Total 2.15 0 18 4 22
Atwater Total 194150 9754 9131,022 1,2041,2
26 *Assuming no more than 150 lower-income units.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B6-34
B6.8.1 Rezone Sites
To accommodate this shortfall of capacity, the City is obligated to rezone land suitable to facilitate the development of the listed rezone sites. The City of Atwater anticipates beginning the rezone process with outreach and public hearings for all properties included in the Sites Inventory following adoption of the Housing Element. The City anticipates adoption of the rezonings by January 31, 2025Spring 2026. Approximately 85 54 135acres of properties to accommodate 2,5811,769 1,948647 housing units will be rezoned concurrently with the adoption of this Housing Element.

The Site Inventory includes 36 1720 sites that will be rezoned to facilitate additional residential development. The sites will be rezoned from low density residential, planned development, general commercial and business park zones to high-density, medium-density, and low-density residential with a maximum density of 43.56 dwelling units per acre. These sites encompass 85 54135 acres and can accommodate a total of 1,4401,165 lower-income units, 545 325512 moderate-income units, and 596 157271 above moderate-income units. Rezone sites are distributed among six four neighborhoods, as seen in Figure B6-2. Table B6-12 summarizes the acreage and unit assumptions for sites proposed for rezoning per neighborhood.

The rezoned sites shall include the following components pursuant to Government Code §65583.2(i):
 Permit owner-occupied and rental multi-family uses by-right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households. By-right means approval without discretionary review.
 Permit the development of at least 16 units per site.  Establish a minimum density of 20 units per acre and a maximum density of at least 20 units per acre for all rezone sites to accommodate lower-income RHNA.  Ensure that either: a) at least 50 percent of the shortfall of low- and very-low-income regional housing need can be accommodated on sites designated for exclusively residential uses; or b) if accommodating more than 50 percent of the low- and very-low-income regional housing need on sites designated for mixed uses, all sites designated for mixed uses must allow 100 percent residential use and require that residential uses occupy at least 50 percent of the floor area in a mixed-use project.

City of Atwater
Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B6-35
Table B6-12 Proposed Rezone Sites to Accommodate RHNA Shortfall Map
ID
Site Address or
Street APN Acres
Existing
Zoning
District
Proposed
Zoning
District Current Use
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
LowerIncome
Capacity
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Above
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Total
Capacity
TCAC Opportunity
Category
Buhach
8 E Juniper Ave &
N Buhach Rd
004440001 1.52 P-D(9) R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 23 9 13 45 High Resource 9 N Buhach Rd 004440002 0.63 P-D(9) R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 10 4 5 19 High Resource 10 N Buhach Rd 004440003 3.36 P-D(9) R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 51 20 30 101 High Resource 11 N Buhach Rd 004440004 1.22 P-D(9) R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 19 7 11 37 High Resource 12 N Buhach Rd 004440005 0.81 P-D(9) R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 12 5 7 24 High Resource 13 E Juniper Ave &
Augusta Ln
004440006 1.04 P-D(9) R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 16 6 9 61 High Resource 14 311 E Broadway
Ave
004110015 3.01 P-D(17) R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 46 18 27 91 High Resource 15 1298 Shaffer Rd 004110003 1.95 C-G R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 3543 1211 115 5859 High Resource 115 Green Sands Ave 005120045 20.69 P-D R-2 Agriculture 0 14.5 0 126 84 210 High Resource 114 Green Sands Ave 005120045 23.14 B-P R-1-6 Agriculture 0 7.3 0 23 11 34 High Resource 116 Gurr Rd 005120046 37.29 P-D R-1-6 Agriculture 0 7.3 0 38 19 57 High Resource 16 Shaffer Rd &
Broadway Ave
004110005 1.36 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 25 8 9 52 High Resource Total 83.071.9514
.90
4343237 1981189 1195122 59448
Castle Garden
22 1900 Shaffer Rd 004052035 2.40 R-1-6 R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 37 15 21 73 High Resource Total 2.40 37 15 21 73
Fluhr
112 Redwood Ave 150190037 2.19 C-G R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 40 13 13 66 Highest Resource 113 N Winton Way 150130025* 10.00 P-D R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 150 77 77 304 Highest Resource Total 12.19 190 90 90 370

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B6-36
Map
ID
Site Address or
Street APN Acres
Existing
Zoning
District
Proposed
Zoning
District Current Use
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
LowerIncome
Capacity
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Above
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Total
Capacity
TCAC Opportunity
Category
Fluhr
112 Redwood Ave 150190037 2.19 C-G R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 47 13 6 66 Highest Resource 113 N Winton Way 150130025 10.20 P-D R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 218 62 31 311 Highest Resource Total 12.39 265 75 37 377
McSwain
121 Truckee Dr &
Bell Dr
001134012 5.69 P-D(26) R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 104 35 34 173 Highest Resource 122 Patriotic Dr &
Bell Dr
056520001 2.67 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 49 16 18 83 Highest Resource 123 Patriotic Dr &
Peace Ct
056520002 1.00 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 18 6 7 31 Highest Resource 124 Peace Ct 056520005 0.73 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 13 4 4 21 Highest Resource 125 Patriotic Dr 056520007 0.55 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 10 3 4 17 Highest Resource 126 Patriotic Dr &
Freedom Ln
056520008 0.55 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 10 3 3 16 Highest Resource 127 Freedom Ln 056520009 0.85 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 1518 55 62 2625 Highest Resource 128 Freedom Ln 056520014 0.69 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 13 4 5 22 Highest Resource 129 Freedom Ln 056520015 0.56 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 1013 33 31 1617 Highest Resource 130 Freedom Ln 056520016 0.58 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 1310 33 13 1617 Highest Resource 131 Bell Ln 001260001 2.62 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 47 16 15 78 Highest Resource 132 Bell Ln 001260013 2.01 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 3743 1212 126 6161 Highest Resource 133 Bell Ln 056320026 0.90 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 1620 55 62 2727 Highest Resource 134 Bell Ln 056320049 3.03 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 5565 1818 209 9392 Highest Resource 135 Bell Ln 056320050 2.79 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 5160 1717 178 8585 Highest Resource 136 Bell Ln 056320051 1.48 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 2732 99 94 4545 Highest Resource 137 Bell Ln 056320052 1.66 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 3035 1010 115 5150 Highest Resource

City of Atwater
Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element B6-37
Map
ID
Site Address or
Street APN Acres
Existing
Zoning
District
Proposed
Zoning
District Current Use
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
LowerIncome
Capacity
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Above
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Total
Capacity
TCAC Opportunity
Category
138 Bell Ln 056320053 2.15 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 3946 1313 136 6565 Highest Resource 139 Bell Ln 056320029 4.00 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 73 24 24 121 Highest Resource 140 Bell Ln 056021010 7.62 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 139163 4646 4623 231232 Highest Resource 141 Sycamore Ave 001146019* 10.0014.4
9 B-P R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 150309 7788 7744 304441 High Resource Total 52.1344.6
4 916817 329229 337111 21,157
North Atwater
151 N Winton Way 002290006 1.75 R-1-5 R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 27 11 15 53 High Resource Total 1.75 27 11 15 53
Sierra Vista
156 2129 Atwater
Blvd
001063061 0.85 GC R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 1619 5 62 2726 High Resource 157 2901 Winton
Way
150082014 0.92 GC R-3-1 Vacant 20 43.56 1721 65 52 28 High Resource Total 1.7877 3340 1110 114 5554
Rezo
ne
Total

85.1471.0
8141.87
14401,165545512325596157271 1,6471,
948
* Assuming up to 10 acres of developable land. Assuming no more than 150 lower-income units.

Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) B6-38
B6.8.2 Annexation Sites
Annexation is the process by which a city adds land to its jurisdictional boundaries. Following annexation, the City extends its services, laws, and voting privileges to meet the needs of residents living in the annexed area. Typically, annexation takes place in areas that are adjacent to a municipality, where the population already has expanded to densities found in urban areas.

Annexation encourages orderly growth and provides standardized services to those who live in the annexed area. The annexation process is a shared procedure between Merced County and the City of Atwater, overseen by the Merced Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).

There are currently six sites located within one annexation area to the North that are anticipated to be made available for development during the 6th cycle. The City has worked with the property owners of these sites to commit a portion of the land to residential zoning, with an assumed 877 924 total units across these parcels. The City has initiated the annexation process with Merced LAFCo and it is anticipated that these parcels will be annexed to the City and developed with residential uses by the end of the planning period. To ensure these parcels are available for development during the planning period, the City will continue to work with property owners and Merced LAFCo to facilitate the annexation of these parcels.

An application to LAFCo was submitted September 2023 for the repurposing of approximately 449 acres of current farmland. The application proposes a mix of commercial, business park and single/multi-family residential uses. The project entitlements include annexation, general plan amendments, zoning amendments, development agreements and processing of a new specific plan.

Zoning across the annexed parcels will accommodate low-density residential, medium-density residential, and high-density residential development. Unit totals per income category were estimated based on the residential zoning densities anticipated for each site. In low density residential zones, above moderate-income units were assigned. In medium and high-density zones, assumed units were split amongst all income categories. Table B6-13 shows the anticipated size and unit assumptions for each annexation and Figure B6-1 shows the locations of these annexation sites.