Livingston City Council
August 18, 2026

■ ■ ■
671 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-22
Figure E3-3 Homelessness by Type by Race (2023)
Source: Merced City and County Continuum of Care, Point-in-Time Count (2022).

The 2023 Merced County CoC data also considers ethnicity, as shown in Table E3-32. Among those counted, 332 of 784 individuals (42.3 percent) identified as Hispanic/Latino.

Table E3-32 Homelessness by Ethnicity, Merced County (2023) Ethnicity Sheltered Unsheltered Total
Hispanic/Latino (any race) 186 146 332
Percent 23.7 18.6 42.3
Other 208 244 452
Percent 26.5 31.1 57.7
Source: Merced City and County Continuum of Care, Point-in-Time Count (2023).

The 2023 point-in-time count only provides specific demographic data for unsheltered residents in the cities of Merced and Livingston.

Resources for Persons Experiencing Homelessness
While Livingston does not have any emergency housing facilities, the City of Atwater has a center located approximately seven miles away. Operated by Community Social Model Advocate, the Tranquility Village is a women’s program offering 8 family units with 57 total beds. It also houses women with children, offering treatment and child services. While Atwater does not have transitional housing for men, Community Social Model Advocate does operate a male program in Merced called the Hobie House. It is approximately 16 miles from Livingston and offers 25 individual beds for those recovering from substance abuse.

350
302
300
250
200
150
100 66 58
50 0 I
Black or Africa~ White
American
5 5 7 12
- 2 2 12
-
63 Asian American Indian Natiwe Hawaiian Multiple Races or Ala1ka Native or Other Pacific
lslancle;r
■ Shell te red ■ Unsheltered
672 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-23
The lack of resources for the unhoused in Livingston indicates a need for more accessible emergency and transitional housing for those experiencing homelessness. The City will implement Program 1 and Program 6 to provide resources and housing for people experiencing homelessness.

E3.10 Housing Stock Characteristics
A community’s housing stock is defined as the collection of all housing units located within the jurisdiction. The characteristics of the housing stock, including growth, type, age, condition, tenure, vacancy rates, housing costs, and affordability are important in determining the housing needs for the community. The following sections detail the housing stock characteristics of Livingston to identify how well the current housing stock meets the needs of current and future residents.

Housing Growth
Table E3-33 summarizes the growth in the housing stock in Livingston by providing the total number of units constructed each decade from 1980 and 2020. The largest growth rate occurred between 1990 and 2000 with a 42.5 percent increase during this ten-year period, followed by a 35.6 percent increase between 2000 and 2010. Between 2010 and 2020, however, the number of housing units in the city increased by just 4.6 percent.

Table E3-33 Total Housing Units Over Time (1980 to 2020) Jurisdiction 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Livingston 1,382 1,719 2,449 3,320 3,472
Percent Change 24.4% 42.5% 35.6% 4.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980(STF1:T65), 1990(STF1:H1), 2000(SF1:H1); ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25001.

Housing Type and Tenure
Table E3-34 identifies the total housing units by type in Livingston, Merced County, and California. In Livingston, single detached homes account for the largest percentage of the housing stock at 86.2 percent of total units. This is more than the county with 73.8 percent and the state with 57.6 percent. The second most common housing type is housing with 10- 19 units, providing 3.1 percent of the total units in the city. This is higher than the county (1.9 percent) but lower than the state (5.0 percent). The third largest housing type in Livingston is two-unit complexes, comprising 2.6 percent of the total units in the city. This is lower than the county (3.2 percent) but like the state (2.4 percent). Livingston has no housing with 50 or more units. 673 Page 356 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-24
Table E3-34 Total Housing Units by Type
Jurisdiction Total
1,
Detached
1,
Attached 2 3 or 4 5 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 49 50 or more
Mobile
Home
Boat, RV,
Van, etc.

Livingston 3,407 2,936 55 88 64 53 105 52 0 50 4
Percent 86.2% 1.6% 2.6% 1.9% 1.6% 3.1% 1.5% 0.0% 1.5% 0.1% Merced
County
86,767 64,045 1,908 2,785 4,172 3,876 1,634 801 1,649 5,775 122 Percent 73.8% 2.2% 3.2% 4.8% 4.5% 1.9% 0.9% 1.9% 6.7% 0.1% California 14,328,539 8,248,814 1,031,608 340,666 777,600 842,158 721,058 713,636 1,121,470 514,764 16,765 Percent 57.6% 7.2% 2.4% 5.4% 5.9% 5.0% 5.0% 7.8% 3.6% 0.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table C24050. 674 Page 357 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-25
Table E3-35 indicates housing units by tenure. In Livingston, 57 percent of units are owner-occupied compared to 43 percent renter-occupied housing units. This is greater than the county (51.6 percent owner-occupied) and the state (55.5 percent).

Table E3-35 Housing Units by Tenure
Jurisdiction Total Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Livingston 3,299 1,881 1,418
Percent 57.0% 43.0%
Merced County 81,618 42,146 39,472
Percent 51.6% 48.4%
California 13,217,586 7,335,247 5,882,339
Percent 55.5% 44.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25042.

Vacancy Rate
Table E3-36 provides data on vacancy status by type for the total vacant units. Of the total vacant units in Livingston (108), “Other Vacant” units make up the largest percentage of total vacant units.

These units make up 50 percent of total vacant units in the city, greater than both the county (39.4 percent) and state (28.3 percent). The City has no vacant units identified as unoccupied rented units, for seasonal workers, or for migrant workers, indicating high demand for these types of rental units.
675 Page 358 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-26
Table E3-36 Vacancy Status by Type for Total Vacant Units Jurisdiction
Total Vacant
Units For Rent
Rented, Not
Occupied For Sale Only
Sold, Not
Occupied
For Seasonal,
Recreational, or
Occasional Use
For Migrant
Workers Other Vacant
Livingston 108 39 0 0 15 0 0 54
Percent 3.3% 36.1% 0.0% 0.0% 13.9% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%
Merced County 5,149 1,298 112 377 553 556 202 2,051
Percent 5.9% 25.2% 2.2% 7.3% 10.7% 10.8% 3.9% 39.8%
California 1,110,953 240,840 53,537 73,319 54,970 370,908 2,992 314,387 Percent 7.8% 21.7% 4.8% 6.6% 5.0% 33.4% 0.3% 28.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25004. 676 Page 359 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-27
Housing Unit Size
Table E3-37 provides housing unit size data for Livingston, Merced County, and California. In Livingston, three-bedroom units (54.7 percent) are the most common housing type, followed by four-bedroom (23.5 percent) and two-bedroom units (12.9 percent). This is similar to the countywide and statewide housing unit size trend; however, there is a notably larger stock of threebedroom units in Livingston and Merced County when compared to the state.

Table E3-37 Housing Unit Size
Jurisdiction Total Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 5 of More
Bedroom
Livingston 3,299 6 24 425 1,803 774 267
Percent 0.2% 0.7% 12.9% 54.7% 23.5% 8.1%
Merced County 81,618 1,883 4,320 16,306 38,451 17,656 3,002 Percent 2.3% 5.3% 20% 47.1% 21.6% 3.7%
California 13,217,586 564,387 1,691,491 3,539,857 4,451,995 2,373,268 596,588 Percent 4.3% 12.8% 26.8% 33.7% 18% 4.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25042.

Age and Condition of Housing Stock
Table E3-38 provides data on the total occupied housing units by year built. The city saw the most growth between 2000 to 2009. During this period, 870 units were constructed, representing 26.4 percent of the housing stock at the time. Merced County saw similar growth, with 16,856 units being constructed between 2000 to 2009. In contrast, the largest percentage of units were constructed in the 1970s, with 17.4 percent. Notably, in Livingston, only 59 units have been constructed and occupied since 2010. Of all total 3,299 occupied housing units, 1,233 units are more than 40 years old. This accounts for 37.4 percent of the total occupied housing units today. 677 Page 360 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-28
Table E3-38 Total Occupied Housing Units by Year Built
Jurisdiction Total
2020 or
later
2010 to
2019
2000 to
2009
1990 to
1999
1980 to
1989
1970 to
1979
1960 to
1969
1950 to
1959
1940 to
1949
1939 or
earlier
Livingston 3,299 0 59 870 769 368 521 156 289 201 66
Percent 0.0% 1.8% 26.4% 23.3% 11.2% 15.8% 4.7% 8.8% 6.1% 2.0% Merced
County 81,618 44 3,229 16,856 11,846 11,034 14,718 7,585 7,356 5,007 3,943 Percent 0.1% 4.0% 20.7% 14.5% 13.5% 18% 9.3% 9.0% 6.1% 4.8% California 13,217,586 15,877 634,508 1,451,946 1,438,264 1,980,874 2,295,943 1,728,569 1,755,123 753,750 1,162,732 Percent 0.1% 4.8% 11.0% 10.9% 15.0% 17.4% 13.1% 13.3% 5.7% 8.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25036. 678 Page 361 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-29
Table E3-39 provides information on substandard housing units. In Livingston, there are no units lacking plumbing facilities or kitchen facilities. By contrast, approximately 0.4 percent of units in the county and state lack plumbing facilities, and 0.4 percent in the county and 1.1 percent in the state lack kitchen facilities.

The City’s Code Enforcement Division estimates that approximately 10 units require major rehabilitation and fewer than 2 units citywide are beyond the point of repair. Concentrated areas of substandard housing in the city are in central eastern Livingston. Enforcement staff regularly distribute information about the City’s home rehabilitation program to property owners undergoing enforcement.

Table E3-39 Substandard Housing Units
Jurisdiction Total Lacking Plumbing Facilities Lacking Kitchen Facilities Livingston 3,299 0 0
Percent 0.0% 0.0%
Merced County 81,618 298 357
Percent 0.4% 0.4%
California 13,217,586 53,643 149,252
Percent 0.4% 1.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25049.

Housing Costs
Median Home Sale Price
Table E3-40 provides information on the median housing value in Livingston from 1980 to 2020. As shown, increases in home values fluctuated from 1980 to 2020, with a large increase in value of 165.3 percent from 2000 to 2010. Increases in value have slowed since 2010, with a negative growth rate of 6.0 percent between 2010 and 2020. Notably, Livingston was the only jurisdiction to have a decrease in median housing value between 2010 and 2020. According to Zillow, the average house prices were $298,599 in 2020 and $407,139 in 2024.
679 Page 362 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-30
Table E3-40 Median Housing Value Over Time (1980 to 2021) Jurisdiction 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Livingston $43,400 $71,900 $92,300 $244,900 $231,100
Percent Change 65.7% 28.4% 165.3% -6.0%
Merced $57,700 $90,300 $103,200 $223,500 $251,500
Percent Change 56.5% 14.3% 116.6% 11.1%
Atwater $56,000 $89,400 $99,900 $214,600 $251,100
Percent Change 59.6% 11.7% 114.8% $232,700
Dos Palos $44,300 $66,900 $88,500 $179,800 22.7%
Percent Change 51.0% 32.3% 103.2% 14.5%
Gustine $50,800 $96,000 $111,400 $183,700 $273,500
Percent Change 89.0% 16.0% 64.9% 32.8%
Los Banos $49,000 $110,100 $138,200 $248,900 $315,500
Percent Change 124.7% 25.5% 80.1% 21.1%
Unincorporated County $53,100 $90,100 $110,900 $241,000 $268,800 Percent Change 69.7% 23.1% 117.3% 10.3%
Note: Data are not inflation-adjusted to 2022 dollars.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980 (ORG STF1), 1990(STF3), 2000 (SF3); ACS 06-10, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25077.

Table E3-41 provides information on the median housing value in Livingston over the past five years.

As shown, housing values in Livingston have steadily risen over this time period, with the greatest increase in value occurring between 2017 and 2018 (18.6 percent). The lowest growth occurred between 2019 and 2020 (0.5 percent). Other jurisdictions in the county experienced a similar trend, where the highest increase in median housing value occurred between 2017 and 2018 and lower increases were experienced between 2019 and 2020.

Table E3-41 Median Housing Value from 2017 to 2021
Jurisdiction 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Livingston $187,500 $222,400 $229,900 $231,100 $242,400 Percent Change – 18.60% 3.40% 0.50% 4.90%
Merced $185,700 $212,100 $237,500 $251,500 $268,600
Percent Change – 14.20% 12.00% 5.90% 6.80%
Atwater $179,400 $207,800 $229,400 $251,100 $265,200
Percent Change – 15.80% 10.40% 9.50% 5.60%
Dos Palos $134,000 $183,500 $194,500 $232,700 $252,800
Percent Change – 36.90% 6.00% 19.60% 8.60%
Gustine $157,600 $195,000 $222,700 $273,500 $322,300
Percent Change – 23.70% 14.20% 22.80% 17.80%
Los Banos $226,700 $265,500 $293,400 $315,500 $340,800
Percent Change – 17.10% 10.50% 7.50% 8.00%
Merced County $196,200 $229,500 $252,700 $268,800 $288,400 Percent Change – 17.00% 10.10% 6.40% 7.30%
Note: Data are not inflation-adjusted to 2022 dollars.

Source: ACS 2017-2021 (5-year Estimates), Table B25077. 680 Page 363 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-31
E3.11 Distribution of Owner-Occupied Units
Table E3-42 compares data on the number of owner-occupied housing units by race In Livingston, Merced County, and California. In Livingston, most owner-occupied units are occupied by residents that identify as Some Other Race (39 percent). This is higher than in Merced County (22.8 percent) and California (5.7 percent).

Considering ethnicity, 62.3 percent of all owner-occupied units are occupied by Hispanic/Latino residents of any race. This is higher than in Merced County (43.5 percent) and California (24.1 percent). Given that 73.8 percent of the entire population of Livingston identifies as Hispanic/Latino of any race, this group is underrepresented in the housing market.

Table E3-42 Owner-Occupied Units by Race
Jurisdiction White Black
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native Asian
Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
Some
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic/
Latino of
any Race
Livingston 510 – 38 470 0 734 129 1,172
Percent 27.1% 0.0% 2.0% 25.0% 0.0% 39.0% 6.9% 62.3%
Merced
County 25,012 1182 436 2,801 43 9,588 3,084 18,848
Percent 59.4% 2.8% 1% 6.7% 0.1% 22.8% 7.3% 43.5%
California 4,660,216 287,300 53,643 1,150,895 18,216 633,875 531,102 1,807,053 Percent 62.1% 3.8% 0.7% 15.3% 0.2% 8.4% 7.1% 24.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25003.

E3.12 Housing Rents
According to the 2017-2021 ACS, the median contract rent in Livingston was $888 per month (Figure E3-4). By comparison, the median rent was lower in Livingston than in the county ($923) and significantly lower than in California ($1,547). Rental market trend data from Apartments.com in September 2024 shows that the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is around $1,033 and a two-bedroom apartment in Livingston is around $1,668.6 The median rental price for all bedroom and property types listed on Zillow.com was $2,490.7
6 Rental Market Trends. Apartments.com. Accessed September 2024. https://www.apartments.com/rent-market-trends/livingston-ca 7 Zillow Rental Manager: Livingston, CA Rental Market. Accessed September 2024. https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/markettrends/atwater-ca 681 Page 364 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-32
Figure E3-4 Median Contract Rent
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25058.

Table E3-43 below provides data on median gross rent from 1980 to 2020. Median gross rent has grown from $207 per month in 1980 to $1,111 in 2020. Between 1980 and 1990 rents in the city grew by 104.8 percent, followed by a 26.9 percent increase from 1990 to 2000. Between 2000 and 2010, rent costs increased significantly by 71.4 percent, however from 2010 to 2020, rents increased at a slower rate of 20.5 percent.

Table E3-43 Median Gross Rent Over Time, Livingston
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Livingston $207 $424 $538 $922 $1,111
Percent Change 104.8% 26.9% 71.4% 20.5%
Source: Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980 (ORG STF3), 1990 (STF3), 2000 (SF3); ACS 06-10, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25064
Table E3-44 provides an overview of median rent for rental housing by number of bedrooms based on 2021 ACS data. The median rent data shows the estimated rent in Livingston is $747 for a two bedroom and $1,133 for a three-bedroom unit. The median rent in Livingston for four-bedroom units is higher than Merced County, but lower for all other unit sizes.

Table E3-44 Median Rent by Number of Bedrooms
Jurisdiction Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Livingston N/A N/A $747 $1,182 $1,559
Merced County $708 $795 $989 $1,234 $1,548
California $1,293 $1,450 $1,737 $1,948 $2,326
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25031. $888 $923
$1,547
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
Livingston Merced County California
682 Page 365 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-33
E3.13 Housing Affordability
Housing affordability levels are calculated using the median household income. Affordable monthly housing costs are calculated by taking 30 percent of the annual income and dividing it by 12 months.

The rental utility allowance is a fixed number provided for each household size by the Merced County Housing Authority. Taxes, insurance, and homeowners’ association fees are calculated as 20 percent of the monthly affordable rent. Affordable monthly rent is calculated by subtracting affordable monthly housing costs and the rental utility allowance. Affordable home prices assume a 30-year fixed mortgage with a seven percent interest rate and 10 percent down payment. Taxes, insurance, and homeowners’ association fees only apply to homeowners.

Table E3-45 shows the maximum amount that a household can pay for housing each month without incurring a cost burden (overpayment) for Livingston. A summary of each income category’s ability to pay for housing is provided below the table.

Table E3-45 Housing Affordability Matrix – Livingston (2021) Annual
Income
Limits
Affordable
Monthly
Housing Costs
Rental Utility
Allowance
(2020)
Taxes, Insurance,
Homeowners
Association Fees
Affordable
Rent
Affordable
Home Price
Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI)
1-Person (Studio) $14,500 $363 $192 $34 $171 $48,432
2-Person (1 BR) $16,550 $414 $233 $36 $181 $55,280
3-Person (2 BR) $18,650 $466 $236 $46 $230 $62,294
4-Person (3 BR) $20,700 $518 $257 $52 $261 $69,141
5-Person (4 BR) $22,350 $559 $279 $56 $280 $74,653
Very Low Income (30-50% AMI)
1-Person $24,150 $604 $192 $82 $412 $80,665
2-Person $27,600 $690 $233 $91 $457 $92,189
3-Person $31,050 $776 $236 $108 $540 $103,712
4-Person $34,500 $863 $257 $121 $606 $115,236
5-Person $37,250 $931 $279 $130 $652 $124,421
Low Income (50-80% AMI)
1-Person $38,650 $966 $192 $155 $774 $129,098
2-Person $44,150 $1,104 $233 $174 $871 $147,468
3-Person $49,700 $1,243 $236 $201 $1,007 $166,006
4-Person $55,200 $1,380 $257 $225 $1,123 $184,377
5-Person $59,600 $1,490 $279 $242 $1,211 $199,074
Median Income (80-100% AMI)
1-Person $48,300 $1,208 $192 $203 $1,016 $161,330
2-Person $55,200 $1,380 $233 $229 $1,147 $184,377
3-Person $62,100 $1,553 $236 $263 $1,317 $207,424
4-Person $69,000 $1,725 $257 $294 $1,468 $230,472
5-Person $74,500 $1,863 $279 $317 $1,584 $248,843
683 Page 366 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-34
Annual
Income
Limits
Affordable
Monthly
Housing Costs
Rental Utility
Allowance
(2020)
Taxes, Insurance,
Homeowners
Association Fees
Affordable
Rent
Affordable
Home Price
Moderate Income (100-120% AMI)
1-Person $57,950 $1,449 $192 $251 $1,257 $225,823
2-Person $66,250 $1,656 $233 $285 $1,423 $258,167
3-Person $74,500 $1,863 $236 $325 $1,627 $290,316
4-Person $82,800 $2,070 $257 $363 $1,813 $322,660
5-Person $89,400 $2,235 $279 $391 $1,956 $348,380
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B19113.

Extremely Low-income Households
ELI households earn 30 percent or less of the county median income. Extremely low-income households have an annual income of $14,500 or below for a one-person household and $22,350 or below for a five-person household. ELI households cannot afford market-rate rental or ownership housing in Livingston.

Very- Low-income Households
Very low-income households earn between 31 and 50 percent of the county median income – up to $24,150 for a one-person household and up to $37,250 for a five-person household in 2022. A very low-income household can generally afford homes offered at prices between $80,665 and $124,421, adjusting for household size. After deductions for utilities, a very low-income household can afford to pay approximately $412 to $652 in monthly rent, depending on household size. Given the cost of housing in Livingston, very low-income households could not afford to purchase a home or rent an adequately sized unit.

Low-income Households
Low-income households earn between 51 and 80 percent of the county median income – up to $38,650 for a one-person household and up to $59,600 for a five-person household in 2022. A lowincome household can generally afford homes offered at prices between $129,098 and $199,074, adjusting for household size. After deductions for utilities, a low-income household can afford to pay approximately $774 to $1,211 in monthly rent, depending on household size. Finding appropriately sized market-rate rental housing can be challenging to households in this income group.

Median-Income Households
Median-income households earn between 80 and 100 percent of the county’s median income – up to $48,300 for a one-person household and up to $74,500 for a five-person household in 2022. The affordable home price for a median-income household ranges from $161,330 to $248,843. After deductions for utilities, a one-person median-income household could afford to pay up to $1,016 in rent per month and a five-person low-income household could afford to pay as much as $1,584.

Finding appropriately sized market-rate rental housing can be challenging to households in this income group.
684 Page 367 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-35
Moderate-Income Households
Moderate-income households earn between 100 and 120 percent of the county’s median income – up to $57,950 for a one-person household and up to $89,400 for a five-person household in 2022.

The maximum affordable home price for a moderate-income household is $225,823 for a oneperson household and $348,380 for a five-person family. Moderate-income households in Livingston could afford to purchase the median priced home; however, finding an affordable adequately sized home could present a challenge for households earning incomes at the lower end of the middle/upper category. The maximum affordable rent payment for moderate-income households is between $1,257 and $1,956 per month. Appropriately sized market-rate rental housing is generally affordable to households in this income group.

Workforce Housing
Federal guidelines define workforce housing as housing that is affordable to households earning incomes within the range of 60 to 120 percent of the median income (Livingston, that range is $41,400 to $82,800 for a household of four). A broader definition of workforce housing is housing that is affordable to people who work in the county. A four-person household with an annual income of $69,000 could afford monthly rent of $1,468 for a three-bedroom housing unit and a home purchase price of $230,472 without being burdened by housing costs. As noted in Table E3-44, the average monthly rental price for a three-bedroom unit is $1,182, which is above the median income in Livingston.

Cost Burden
Table E3-46 and Table E3-47 identify cost-burdened households by tenure over time in Livingston.

There has been a decrease in the number of owner-occupied cost-burdened households from 551 households in 2010 to 368 in 2020. Cost-burdened renter-occupied households also show a decline, as cost burdened households decreased from 598 units in 2010 to 509 units in 2020.

Table E3-46 Cost Burdened Owner-Occupied Households Over Time Jurisdiction 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Livingston 63 106 307 551 368
Percent 68.3% 189.6% 79.5% -33.2%
Note: Data are not inflation-adjusted to current 2024 dollars.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980 (ORG STF1), 1990 (STF3), 2000 (SF3); ACS 06-10, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25077.

Table E3-47 Cost Burdened Renter-Occupied Households Over Time Jurisdiction 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Livingston 141 152 268 598 509
Percent 7.8% 76.3% 123.1% -14.9%
Note: Data are not inflation-adjusted to current 2023 dollars.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980(ORG STF1), 1990(STF3), 2000(SF3); ACS 06-10, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25077. 685 Page 368 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-36
CHAS data provided by HUD provides information on cost burden by income category based on the HAMFI. This data is included in Table E3-48 below. While the totals do not align exactly with 2020 ACS data presented above, the CHAS data gives insight into which income categories are currently experiencing cost burdens in the city. As shown, ELI and very low-income households experienced a high rate of cost burden greater than 30 percent, including 345 of 405 ELI households and 369 of 513 very low-income households.

Table E3-48 Cost Burden by Income and Tenure
Row Labels
OwnerOccupiedRenterOccupiedGrand
Total
Household income is <= to 30% of HAMFI (extremely low income) 60 345 405 Housing cost burden is <= to 30% 10 50 60
Housing cost burden > 30% but <= to 50% 15 25 40
Housing cost burden is > 50% 35 270 305
Income is greater than 30% but <= to 50% of HAMFI (very low income) 254 259 513 Housing cost burden is <= to 30% 104 40 144
Housing cost burden is > 30% but <= to 50% 105 170 275
Housing cost burden is > 50% 45 49 94
Income is > 50% but <= to 80% of HAMFI (low income) 369 545 914 Housing cost burden is <= to 30% 210 370 580
Housing cost burden is > 30% but <= to 50% 155 130 285
Housing cost burden is > 50% 4 45 49
Income is > 80% <= to 100% of HAMFI (median income) 320 25 345 Housing cost burden is <= to 30% 190 25 215
Housing cost burden is > 30% but <= to 50% 115 - 115
Housing cost burden is > 50% 15 - 15
Income is greater than 100% of HAMFI (moderate income) 905 515 1420 Housing cost burden is <= to 30% 880 515 1395
Housing cost burden is > 30% but <= to 50% 10 – 10
Housing cost burden is > 50% 15 – 15
Grand Total 1908 1689 3597
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) dataset, 2015-19 (5-Year Estimates), Table 6, Table 7.
686 Page 369 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-37
E3.14 Assisted Housing Units
Assisted housing units are those that are restricted for use by occupants with limited household incomes. These units are assisted under federal, state, and/or local programs, including HUD programs, state and local bond programs, former redevelopment agency (RDA) programs, density bonus, or direct assistance programs.

At-Risk Housing Units
The California Housing Partnership maintains an affordable housing database to monitor changes in affordable housing and to identify units or housing developments that are at risk of converting to market-rate uses. Assisted units in the preservation data base are classified by the following risk categories:
 Low Risk: affordable housing units that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.  Moderate Risk: affordable housing units that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.  High Risk: affordable housing units that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Table E3-49 shows assisted units in Livingston by estimated affordability end date. As shown, there are 181 assisted units in the city, and none of which are at risk of conversion by 2033. 687 Page 370 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-38
Table E3-49 Inventory of Public Assisted Complexes – Livingston Name Address City Zip
Affordable
Units
Total
Units
Active
Program(s)
Estimated Affordability
End Year/Date Risk Level
Harvest Garden Apartments 1429 Nut Tree Road Livingston 95334 43 44 LIHTC; USDA 2074 Low Casitas Del Sol 1001 B Street Livingston 95334 35 36 LIHTC; HCD 2055 Low Vintage West Apartments 1000 Front Street Livingston 95334 55 55 USDA 2039 Low The Orchards on Newcastle 1972 Main Street Livingston 95334 48 49 LIHTC; USDA 2067 Low Note: All locally assisted or restricted developments may not be included in this list.

Source: California Housing Partnership, Publicly Assisted Housing Units, 2023. 688 Page 371 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-39
Funding Sources for Assisted Housing
HUD Section 8 Program
Under the HUD Section 8 program, which is administered by the Housing Authority of the County of Merced, participating building owners are entitled to receive HUD Fair Market Rents (FMRs) for units with Section 8 contracts. For Section 8 units, HUD makes up the difference between 30 percent of a household’s monthly income and the FMRs.

Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
Created in 1986 by the Federal government, the LIHTC program offers tax incentives to encourage the development of affordable housing. The LIHTC is jointly administered by the IRS and State Housing Credit Agencies (HCA) and have funded over eight billion annual tax credit units nationwide. California’s HCA is the State Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC).

California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA)
CalHFA uses approved private lenders and purchases loans that meet CalHFA standards to support very low, low, and moderate income assisted units. CalHFA partners with jurisdictions, developers, and other organizations to provide a variety of resources including loan assistance programs for homebuyers and renters aimed at increasing housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents.

Housing Rehabilitation Program
The Housing Rehabilitation Program provides financing to repair income-eligible and owneroccupied homes in need of essential health and/or safety repairs. The Housing Rehabilitation program is funded by the State Department of Housing and Community Development grant programs. Common home repairs include roofing, plumbing, electrical, heating, cooling, insulation, foundation, windows, and handicap assessable modifications. Participating property must be owner-occupied and located within city limits.
689 Page 372 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-40
This page intentionally left blank.
690 Page 373 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-1
Housing Constraints Analysis
Constraints to the development of adequate and affordable housing include market, governmental, infrastructure, and environmental factors. These constraints may result in housing that is not affordable to low- and moderate-income households and may render residential construction economically infeasible for developers. Constraints to housing production significantly impact households with low and moderate-incomes and special needs.

According to Government Code Section 65583, local governments are required to analyze governmental and non-governmental constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of all income levels and those with special needs and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as part of a housing element update. Where constraints to housing production are related to the City’s regulations or land use controls, the City must identify appropriate programs to mitigate these constraints, particularly ones that impact the production of affordable housing or housing for special needs populations.

The following chapter outlines non-governmental, governmental, environmental and infrastructure constraints and was used in the development of specific policies and actions included in the Housing Plan to remove barriers to housing and to incentivize housing production, specifically targeting housing production at all income levels and housing for persons with special needs.

E4.1 Summary of Local Housing Constraints
 The costs associated with developing housing, including land costs and construction costs, are rising rapidly. There is a lack of federal, state, and local funding and the funding that is available is increasingly competitive. The time and effort needed to identify, compete for, and layer affordable housing funds is a major constraint to development of affordable housing.  Although Livingston’s development regulations allow for a variety of densities throughout the city, development standards are not sufficiently flexible. Height restrictions for affordable developments and permitting requirements single-room occupancy units potentially constrain the development of a variety of housing types.
 Livingston does not allow residential care facilities with seven or more persons in residential zoning districts as a permitted land use, which could pose a constraint to housing for individuals with special needs. A Use Permit is presently required for care facilities serving seven to 14 persons in residential districts. Additionally, use permit regulations for emergency shelters in certain zoning districts could pose a constraint on housing access for unsheltered individuals.

E4.2 Non-Governmental Constraints
The availability of housing is affected by a complex set of interrelated market factors including but limited to cost of land, cost of construction, and availability of financing. These factors contribute to determining a new home’s sale price or the rents required to make a project feasible. Nongovernmental constraints include factors outside of direct governmental control that directly impact housing prices. The cost of construction and the availability of financing contribute to the cost of housing and can hinder the production of affordable housing. The following analysis accounts for these non-governmental constraints.

E4
691 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-2
E4.2.1 Land Costs
The cost of land can impede the production of affordable housing. Land costs are influenced by many variables, including land scarcity and developable density (both of which are indirectly controlled through governmental land use regulations), location, site constraints, and the availability of public utilities.

Table E4-1 summarizes land prices for properties available for sale in July 2023. Data indicates that the price per acre for small parcels was significantly higher than large parcels. There was only one small parcel listed (0.57 acres) priced at $296,491 per acre. Large parcels range from 13 to 418.08 acres in size and had an average listed price of $90,340 per acre. The average list price for small and large parcels is $119,790 per acre.

Table E4-1 Listed Land Prices – Livingston
Lot Size Average Price Per Acre (Listed)
Less than 10 acres $296,491.23
10 or more acres $90,340.56
Average $/acre $119,790.66
Source: Zillow, Inc., 2023.

Table E4-2 includes the average prices paid for land per acre in the Livingston in 2022. When compared to prices for currently listed land, average prices for land sold were generally less. There were two parcels sold within the last 12 months, one small parcel and one large parcel. The small parcel was 1.2 acres and had a sales price of $291,666 per acre. The large parcel was 40.74 acres and had a sales price of $36,818 per acre. The average list price for both parcels was $164,242 per acre.

Table E4-2 Sold Land Prices – Livingston
Lot Size Average Price Per Acre (Listed)
Less than 10 acres $291,666.67
10 or more acres $36,818.85
Average $/acre $164,242.76
Source: Zillow, Inc., 2023.

Conclusion
The housing market (vacant and developed land) in Livingston can vary depending on location, allowable density, availability of improvements, and proposed land use of the site. In general, entitled single-family subdivisions with infrastructure extension plans command higher prices than raw undeveloped land.

While land costs increase over time, these raw costs are not necessarily a constraint to housing. In general, land costs in Merced County are lower compared to coastal counties, and comparable in price to other nearby counties such as Madera and Fresno counties. Land costs in Livingston are consistent with neighboring cities. As a result, raw land costs are not considered a constraint to the development of housing.
692 Page 375 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-3
Recommended Action
None required.

E4.2.2 Construction Costs
Construction costs include the price of land, site improvement costs, development impact fees and construction costs. The availability of water and sewer capacity is a major factor affecting the price of land, as well as the type of amenities included in the residential unit.

Another major cost component of new housing is labor. The cost of labor in Merced County is comparatively low because the area’s cost of living is relatively low compared to other areas in California. However, labor for government subsidized housing work is additionally costly for the Central Valley, as wages are rooted in the required state labor standards based on higher northern and southern California prevailing wages.

Based on recent affordable multi-family projects, the cost of construction in the county is estimated to be between $400,000 and $675,000 per unit.1 The estimate includes direct and indirect (e.g., insurance, permits, utilities, plans) construction costs, including material, labor, and equipment costs, the price of land, development impact fees, and administrative costs.

Table E4-3 shows the estimated typical development costs in Livingston for a single-family home, assumed to be 1,600 square feet, and a 10-unit multi-family development with 800 square foot units. This includes the price of land, site improvement costs, construction costs, and permit and development impact fees; however, this does not include financing or marketing costs by the developer. As shown in the table below, the typical cost of an individual single-family development is an estimated $772,779, while the development cost of a multi-family unit is an estimated $367,556.

Table E4-3 Estimated Construction Cost
Cost Type Single-Family1 Multi-family2
Home Price3 $480,000 $2,400,000
Site Improvement Cost $8,000 $20,000
Construction Cost $267,790 $1,198,400
Permit and Impact Fees $16,989 $57,160
Total Cost $772,779 $3,675,560
Cost per Unit $772,779 $367,556
(1) Assumed to be a 1,600 sq. ft. single-family home.
(2) Assumed to be a 10-unit multi-family complex of 800 sq. ft. units. (3) Land price based on average price per square foot provided by the city at $300 per square foot There is little that municipalities can do to mitigate the impacts of high construction costs except by avoiding local amendments to uniform building codes that unnecessarily increase construction costs without significantly adding to health, safety, or construction quality. 1 Central Valley Voice, City of Merced Affordable Housing Project Update, October 1, 2022, https://centralvalleyvoice.com/2023/02/22/city-of-merced-affordable-housing-project-update/ accessed June 2023. 693 Page 376 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-4
Conclusion
Although the cost of construction constrains affordable housing development, construction costs are similar across jurisdictions in Merced County, illustrating that the constraints are market driven rather than an impact of local policy.

Recommended Action
None required.

E4.2.3 Availability of Financing
Mortgage interest rates have a large influence over housing affordability. Higher interest rates increase a homebuyer’s monthly payment and decrease the range of housing that a household can afford. Lower interest rates result in a lower cost and lower monthly payments for the homebuyer.

When interest rates rise, the market typically compensates by decreasing housing prices. Similarly, when interest rates decrease, housing prices begin to rise. There is often a lag in the market, causing housing prices to remain high when interest rates rise until the market catches up. Lower-income households often find it most difficult to purchase a home during this period.

High interest rates can also affect the cost of development. Where financing is available, construction capital seems to be directed at the best transactions—those with large, established, and well-capitalized sponsors. Given recent trends of increasing interest rates, the availability of financing is likely to be more of a constraint on new housing construction during this Housing Element planning period than it has been in the recent past.

E4.2.3.1 Market-Rate Development Financing
As discussed in Land Costs and Construction Costs, above, market-rate development is generally financed by investors, and the cost to build a project must be recovered by revenue from sales or rents, which drives up the ultimate rent or sales prices of new housing as the component costs increase. A market in which housing supply is limited and demand is high can support higher housing prices, but lower-income segments of the community are priced out. Therefore, it is difficult for the private sector, for-profit developers, and market-rate housing to meet the housing needs of all community members.

E4.2.3.2 Affordable Housing Financing
A description of available funding sources for affordable development is provided in Chapter E3, Housing Needs Assessment.

E4.2.3.3 Mortgage and Rehabilitation Financing
The availability of financing affects the ability of residents to purchase or improve a home. Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions are required to disclose information on the disposition of loan applications and the income, gender, and race of loan applicants. The primary purpose of reviewing the lending activity is to determine whether home financing is available to city residents. The data presented in this section includes the disposition of loan applications submitted to financial institutions for home mortgages, home improvement, and refinance loans.
694 Page 377 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-5
Lending activity data provides information regarding home financing availability for city residents.

The most recent data set available for the County of Merced from 2022 shows that 10,760 households applied for a home financing loan which includes loans for home purchase, home improvement, and refinancing. As discussed in Chapter 3, Regional Housing Constraints, of the total applications received for home purchase, 47.7 percent of the loans originated while 15.7 percent were denied.

Conventional loans are made by the private sector (banks, mortgage companies, etc.) and are not guaranteed or insured by the U.S. government. Conversely, government-backed loans, such as those issued by the Federal Housing Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Rural Housing Services/Farm Service Agency, are completely or partially insured by the U.S. government. Within the county, 8,028 of the applications received were for conventional loans and 2,732 were for government backed loans. As discussed in Chapter 3, Regional Housing Constraints, 37 percent of the conventional loans originated, and 12.6 percent of the applications were denied.

Additionally, 10.7 percent of the government backed loans originated and 3.1 percent of the applications were denied.

County data shows that of the loans originated, Hispanic/Latino applicants comprised approximately 50 percent of approvals, white, non-Hispanic/Latino comprised approximately 30 percent, Asian American represented 16 percent, Black/African American applications represented three percent, and American Indian/Alaskan Native comprised less than one percent of approved applications.

American Indian/Alaskan Native and Black/African American residents were the only racial populations that were representative for mortgage applications relative to proportion of population.

Hispanic/Latino residents were underrepresented for mortgage applications (50 percent of applications, 61 percent of population). White, Non-Hispanic residents were overrepresented for mortgage applications approvals relative to proportion of population (30 percent of approvals, 26 percent of population), as were Asian American residents (16 percent of approvals, eight percent of population). Of application denials, Black/African American residents were overrepresented in application denials (four percent of denials, three percent of the population).

E4.2.3.4 Construction Financing Timing
The timing between project approval and requests for building permits affects project viability.

Project delays may result from developers’ inability to secure financing for construction. In Livingston, the average time between project approval and request for building permit is typically three to nine months but varies by type of project. Some projects take years to pull building permits and secure financing. Single-family homes usually experience the least delay (three to nine months).

Multi-family housing construction tends to be more complex and usually requires more time between entitlement and building permit issuance (six to twelve months).

E4.2.3.5 Conclusion
Although discrimination in mortgage lending is prohibited by the federal Fair Housing Act, other factors may contribute to a potential homebuyer’s ability to secure safe financing, such as credit history, savings, and education regarding the home-buying process. Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) HMDA data, by itself, does not provide insight into these other factors.

Therefore, it is important that the City supports housing education and opportunities for all residents.
695 Page 378 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-6
E4.2.3.6 Recommended Action
The City shall continue to implement goals and policies to support homeownership opportunities and home-buying education, particularly for racial and ethnic groups underrepresented in the homebuying market. The city will implement Program 11 to identify resources to assist moderate and lower-income homebuyers. Through this program, Livingston will promote the availability of Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) which offer affordable, decent, and safe housing in open market rentals selected by Voucher holders. In addition, Livingston is also implementing Program 13 which will help support homeownership opportunities and home-buying education by partnering with local organizations to distribute information on fair housing services and homebuyer education programs including flyers, local event presence, social media campaigns, and educational workshops in both English and Spanish.

E4.2.4 Requests for Lower Development Densities
The City has not received any requests for lower development densities.

E4.3 Governmental Constraints
Although local governments have little influence on market factors, such as interest rates, local policies and regulations can still impact where, how much, and what type of residential development is built. Land use controls, site improvement requirements, fees and exactions, and permit processing procedures, among other policies and regulations, may constrain the maintenance, development, and improvement of housing.

E4.3.1 Land Use Controls
Land use controls provided in the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance influence housing production in several ways. The permitted and conditionally permitted uses in each district guide new development and provide both developers and the public with an understanding of how vacant land will develop in the future. This includes the density of development that will occur within a particular zone, the compatibility of planned uses in each area, and the range and type of buildings and uses that will be located throughout the city or the county.

E4.3.1.1 General Plan
Livingston’s current General Plan was prepared in 1999. The City updated the General Plan in 2006, however it was invalidated by the Court. Currently, the City is in the process of updating its General Plan, but it will not be completed until after this Housing Element is published. Due to this, this section will be evaluating the Livingston 1999 General Plan Land Use Element. The Land Use Element sets forth the vision, goals, and policies for the City’s urban form and land use patterns, including residential development. The Land Use Element includes land use categories which define the use and building intensity throughout the city.

The General Plan Land Use Element establishes land use categories that define the allowable uses and building densities/intensities throughout the city. The various types of housing units allowed in the city include single-family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, and mobile homes. Livingston’s land use designations allow for a range of 1 to 29 dwelling units per acre. 696 Page 379 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-7
The Livingston General Plan contains the following residential land use designations:
 Low/Estate Density Residential: has a density range of 1.0 to 7.5 units per acre  Medium Density Residential: has a density range of 7.6 to 11.9 units per acre  High Density Residential: has a density range of 12 to 29 units per acre Low/Estate density residential uses are generally located throughout the city, with the majority located south of F Street, and some located in the northeastern part of the city. While mediumdensity residential uses are seen throughout the city, they are concentrated near the downtown and along North Main Street. High-density residential uses are generally located near commercial uses, and in a few areas near downtown with this designation.

According to the 1999 General Plan, residential land use categories comprise 20 percent of Livingston’s land area. Commercial land use categories cover 1 percent, agricultural uses 44 percent, industrial uses 6 percent, and public and open space 9 percent. Due to the agricultural history of the central valley, the percentage of land designated for agricultural uses in Livingston is similar to other cities in Merced County and the Northern San Joaquin Valley.

Conclusion
The General Plan includes three residential land use designations with density ranges from 1 to 29 dwelling units per gross acre. Since the General Plan is outdated, additional residential uses mentioned in the Municipal Code should be added to the updated General Plan, including but not limited to mixed-use and accessory dwelling units (ADU). However, the density is sufficiently high to allow the development of affordable housing for all income levels. Minimum densities are included to maximize residential development on a limited supply of land as well as achieve a balance and variety of housing types.

Recommended Action
The City will implement Program 7 to update the General Plan to include additional residential units in commercial zones for the encouragement of mixed-use development and include discussion on ADUs to ensure compliance with state law.

E4.3.1.2 Zoning Ordinance
The City regulates the type, location, density, and scale of residential development through the Zoning Ordinance. In general, the City’s zoning regulations are designed to provide affordable housing opportunities for all income groups and protect the health and safety of residents. This section is informed by the Zoning Ordinance.

Livingston’s Zoning Ordinance allows residential uses in the following districts:
 Estate Residential (R-E): The R-E district is intended to provide living areas within the city where development is limited to low-density concentrations of single-family dwellings with large lot sizes, generally between 10,000 to 12,500 square feet. This zone is appropriately used to promote larger lot homes and when the overall density of an area should be limited due to public facility, safety, or aesthetic concerns.
 Low Density Residential (R-1): The R-1 district is intended to provide living areas within the city where development is limited to low density concentrations of single-family dwellings and where regulations are designed to promote and encourage a suitable environment for living, 697 Page 380 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-8
provide space for community facilities needed to compliment urban residential areas and provide for the safety, health, and general welfare of its inhabitants.  Medium Density Residential (R-2): The R-2 district is intended to provide living areas within the city where the development provides for medium-density concentrations of two-family dwelling units. These designations are typically integrated throughout the community and occur adjacent to transportation, community services, and commercial developments.  High Density Residential (R-3): The R-3 district is intended to provide living areas within the city where development provides for high-density concentrations of dwelling units in various housing types and styles with provisions for on-site recreational amenities.  Downtown Commercial District (DTC): The DTC district is intended to recognize the unique differences of the downtown area from the other commercial areas to create a mixed-use area that attracts businesses and residents to locate Downtown and provides a transition area between commercial areas and residential neighborhoods. Allow a mix of commercial, service, office, and residential uses that do not adversely impact one another in a significant way.  Neighborhood Commercial (C-1): The C-1 district allows for residential uses (boarding houses, mixed-use, and residence/manager/owner) with a Use Permit.  Planned Development Overlay District (PD): The PD district is intended to encourage a desired level of preplanning for the development or redevelopment of land and to establish innovative design solutions while retaining good land use relationships and compatibility with adjoining property. The land in this district can include residential uses.

In Livingston, minimum residential lot sizes are required in some zones. Table E4-4 provides the minimum lot area per dwelling unit standard by zone.

Table E4-4 Site Area Per Dwelling Unit
District Lot Area
R-E 10,000 square feet
R-1 6,000 square feet
R-2 5,500 square feet with 2,750 square feet per dwelling unit R-3 6,500 square feet with 1,500 square feet per dwelling unit DTC 6,000 square feet
C-1 10,000 square feet
PD Determined by PD Overlay Permit
Source: Livingston Zoning Ordinance
Conclusion
The City’s Zoning Ordinance provides for a range of densities and a variety of housing types and is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designations.

Recommended Action
None required.
698 Page 381 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-9
E4.3.2 Residential Development Standards
Table E4-5 shows the development standards for residential zones. The minimum parcel area for residential zones ranges from 5,500 square feet to 10,000 square feet. Maximum site coverage ranges from 40 to 55 percent of the lot area.

The minimum front setback requirement is 25 feet for R-E, 20 feet for R-1, and 15 feet for all R-2 and R-3 districts. The minimum side setback requirement is 10 feet for R-E and R-1 districts, 15 feet for R-2 and R-3 districts. Minimum rear setback requirement is 20 feet for R-E, 5 feet for the first floor and 15 feet for the second floor for R-1, and 15 feet for R-2 and R-3 districts.

Maximum height requirements are 30 feet for all districts, with the exception of the R-3 and DTC districts where the maximum height is 40 feet and 50 feet respectively. Maximum density ranges from 4.4 units per gross acre in the R-E district to 29 units per acre in the R-3 and DTC districts.

Table E4-5 Residential Development Standards
Zoning
District
Minimum
Parcel Area
Minimum Setback (in feet)
Maximum
Height
(feet)
Maximum
Height
(Accessory
Structure)
Maximum
Site
Coverage
(percent
of lot)
Maximum
Density
Front Side Rear (du/acre)
R-E1 10,000 sq. ft. 25 10 20 30 15 N/A 4.4
R-1 6,000 &
7,000 sq. ft.2
20 10 5
(first floor)
15 (second floor)
30 15 0.55 7.3
R-2 5,500 sq. ft.
(2,750 sq.
ft. per dwelli
ng unit)
15 53 15 30 15 0.40 11.9
R-3 6,500 sq. ft.
(1,500 sq.
ft. per dwelli
ng unit)
15 54 15 40 15 0.40 29
DTC 6,000 sq. ft. N/A5 N/A6 N/A6 507 20 N/A 29
1 In zone R-E setback requirements shall include a 40-foot minimum garage setback. 2 In zone R-1 for lots located in the old section of the city, bounded by the railroad tracks on the north, 9th Street on the west, Peach Avenue on the south, and Prusso Street on the east, lot configurations shall remain at the 6,000 square feet minimum lot size; legally conforming lots in this area shall remain legally conforming lots after the adoption of the updated zoning ordinance on July 19, 2005. 3 In zone R-2 in no instance shall residence on adjoining R-2 lots be closer than 8 feet, except on the side next to a street on a corner lot, which shall be 15 feet deep; if a garage is present, or if developing on a reverse corner lot, street side yard setback shall be 20 feet. 4 In zone R-3 each interior lot shall have a minimum side yard of 5 feet; corner lots shall have 15 feet, except in the case of a reverse corner lot or a garage; then it shall be 20 feet.
5 Unless abutting residential, then minimum front setback is the same as residential district. 6 Unless abutting residential, then minimum setback is 15 feet. 7 In zone DTC an additional 10 feet in height may be permitted with site plan/design review approval.

PD zone development standards are determined by the PD Overlay permit.

Source: Livingston Municipal Code, Title 5, Zoning Regulations, adopted November 2022. 699 Page 382 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-10
Conclusion
Development standards related to parcel area, setbacks, site coverage, and density do not constrain residential development. Limiting site coverage to 0.4 in the high-density R-3 multi-family zone may make it difficult to achieve maximum density and therefore is a potential constraint to affordable housing development.

Recommended Action
The City will implement Program 6 to amend the Zoning Ordinance to increase the maximum site coverage to 0.6 in the R-3 zone to allow for more flexibility in achieving maximum density.

E4.3.2.1 Parking
According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, parking can cost $25,000 to $75,000 per space to construct. However, given the age of data and the increased cost of land and construction costs discussed above, the costs per parking space are likely much higher.2 Parking provided in underground or structured parking facilities, or if required to be covered or enclosed, can significantly increase the cost of housing and could affect the feasibility of various housing projects in the city. In addition, requirements for parking space locations and maximum distances from dwelling units may also increase the cost of housing and affect the feasibility of housing projects. Requiring less parking not only reduces the project budget but can allow for more space to build additional housing units.

Table E4-6 provides Livingston’s residential parking requirements. Two off-street parking spaces are required for most residential units. These spaces may be in a garage or carport, but do not have to be covered. For apartment complexes with seven or more units, one space is required per unit. For large apartment complexes, an additional one space for every 10 units is required for visitor parking.

For mobile homes, two spaces are required for each mobile home unit. Homeowners can convert covered or enclosed parking spaces for living purposes if they provide replacement covered parking on-site.

Table E4-6 Residential Parking Requirements
Residential Use Required Parking Spaces
Single-family Units 2 per unit
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) 1 per unit
Duplex 2 per unit
Multi-family units Three to six units 2 per unit
Seven or more 1 per unit
Visitor parking 1 per 10 units
Mobile Home/ Manufactured Housing 2 per unit
Second Unit 1 for each bedroom unit
Boarding Houses 1 for every 2 occupants
Residential Care Facilities 1 per employee
Rest Home 1 per 3 beds
Source: Livingston Zoning Ordinance, adopted September 2022. 2 Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, 2016. Available at: http://ternercenter2.berkeley.edu/proforma/ 700 Page 383 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-11
Conclusion
Livingston’s parking requirements are based on the size of the project, not the size of the unit.

These requirements pose a constraint to housing development as requiring more than one parking space for smaller units, including mobile homes, senior citizen housing, one-bedroom units, and studios can be cost prohibitive for developers and may pose site design challenges.

Recommended Action
The City will implement Program 6 to revise the Zoning Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for mobile homes, senior citizen housing, one-bedroom units, and studios to require no more than one space per unit.

E4.3.2.2 Open Space and Park Requirements
Only projects in a planned development overlay are subject to open space requirements. This zone allows for residential units if the underlying general plan designation is residential.

Private open space requirement is a minimum of 300 square feet of private open space per unit and shall be provided for all ground-level dwelling units.

Conclusion
Open space and park requirements are not a constraint to the development of housing as they are only applicable to a small number of projects.

Recommended Action
None required.

E4.3.2.3 Density Bonus
California law requires local jurisdictions to provide density bonuses (generally ranging from five to 80 percent) and development incentives or concessions for housing developments that include housing units that are affordable to lower- and moderate-income households or senior housing or the donation of land for housing within the local jurisdiction (Government Code Section 65915- 65918). Certain housing development projects may be granted unlimited density if they meet certain conditions, including projects where 100 percent of units are affordable units (including density bonus units) with no more than 20 percent of units for moderate-income households and the project is located within on-half mile of a major transit stop as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. An unlimited density bonus means there is no cap on the total number of residential units per acre permitted on the site; however, there are other restrictions, such as height limits, that have a practical limiting effect on the number of units that can be built. Development incentives or concessions are reductions or modifications to site development standards or architectural design requirements that result in cost reductions, such as setbacks, parking requirements, and maximum building height.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915, the City shall grant a density bonus with a minimum 20 percent increase and with a maximum 35 percent increase to qualifying projects (no project can be granted more than three density bonuses), as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. Livingston does not have an inclusionary housing ordinance, so the City relies on state law. In order to be eligible for a density bonus and other incentives a proposed residential development shall consist of five or 701 Page 384 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-12
more dwelling units, eligibility applies for projects which propose to construct any one of the following:
 Lower-Income Units. Ten percent of the total units of a housing development are affordable to lower-income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.  Very Low-Income Units. Five percent of the total units of a housing development are affordable to very low-income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code.  Senior Citizen Housing Development. If a housing development qualifies as a Senior Citizen Housing Development, as defined in Section 51.3 of the Civil Code.  Moderate-Income Units in Condominium and Planned Use Developments. Ten percent of the total dwelling units in a condominium project, as defined in Subdivision (f) of, or in a Planned Development, as defined in Subdivision (k) of Section 1351 of the Civil Code, are affordable to persons and families of moderate-income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.

Conclusion
Recently passed state legislation includes new updates for density bonuses. Assembly Bill (AB) 571 prohibits local governments from charging affordable housing impact fees (including inclusionary zoning fees, public benefit fees, and in-lieu fees) on deed-restricted affordable units that are part of a project eligible for a density bonus under state Density Bonus Law. AB 491 requires common entrances to amenities for affordable housing units and market-rate housing units in mixed income multi-family structures. AB 2345 amended the state Density Bonus Law to increase the maximum density bonus from 35 percent to 50 percent and the levels of bonus density between 35 percent and 50 percent are granted on a sliding scale. AB 1287 requires that additional density bonuses are to be administered when housing development conforms to specified requirements.

Recommended Action
The City will implement Program 6 to revise the City’s density bonus requirements to comply with state law. In addition, Program 8 will establish density bonus standards and density increases under the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance. Standards for this include an expedited and streamlined project application review for housing for very low-income households, large families, persons with disabilities or developmental disabilities, and farmworkers. Under this program, the Zoning Ordinance will be amended by January 31, 2025, to establish density bonuses for the housing types listed above.

E4.3.3 On- and Off-Site Improvement Standards
The typical improvements required by local jurisdictions for subdivision and development of property include reasonable off-site and on-site improvements for the parcels being created, including those that are necessary for public health and safety and/or a necessary prerequisite for the orderly development of the surrounding area. The City of Livingston requires that developers provide on-site improvements such as grading and the installation of water, sewer, storm drainage, and other utilities. As stated in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) study of Subdivision Requirements as a Regulatory Barrier, such requirements can reasonably be considered regulatory barriers to affordable housing if Livingston determines that the requirements are greater 702 Page 385 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-13
(and hence, more costly) than those necessary to achieve health and safety requirements in the community.3

Required off-site improvements for projects in Livingston typically include the installation of streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, street lights, and traffic signals as appropriate in order to ensure healthy and safe conditions in the city. As conditions of approval, Livingston requires housing developers to construct various on- and off-site improvements as described below. The City’s Zoning Ordinance details the following off-site improvements that may be required for a subdivision:
 Full street improvements and utility connections including, but not limited to, curbs, gutters, relocation of existing public utility facilities, street paving, traffic control devices, street trees and sidewalks to the dedicated land;
 Fencing along the property lines of the subdivision which are contiguous to the park;  Improve the drainage through the park site;
 Provide minimal physical improvements, not including recreational facilities, building, or equipment, which the city determines are necessary for acceptance of the land for park and recreational purposes;
 Provide access from the park and recreational facilities to an existing or proposed public street, unless the city determines that such access is unnecessary for maintenance of the park area or use of the park by the residents of the area; and
 Water, sewer, grading and drainage improvements in addition to those grading, drainage, irrigation and planting improvements required under other city ordinances. All land to be dedicated and improvements to be made should be approved by the city prior to the approval or disapproval of a subdivision.

Other potential on- and off-site improvements requirements for a development may include the following:
 Street improvements
 Street trees per the City’s street tree ordinance (one per single family residential parcel; a minimum of two trees per multi-family residential parcel  Sidewalk improvements
 Walls along lots that abut expressways, arterial and collector streets  Sanitary sewer lines
 Water connection to city water system
 Fire hydrants
 Surface and storm water drainage facilities
 Removal of abandoned wells and pipelines
 Traffic and road signs, including street name signs, warning signs, regulatory signs, markers, barricades, and other safety and public convenience facilities  Streetlights
 Bikeways
3 U.S. HUD. 2007. Study of Subdivision Requirements as a Regulatory Barrier. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/commdevl/subdiv_report.html 703 Page 386 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-14
The City’s regulations for off-site improvements are similar to other jurisdictions and do not present a constraint to the development of affordable housing. Although improvements contribute to the overall cost of housing projects, developers have not expressed them to be a constraint to development. Furthermore, off-site improvements beyond the subject parcel are cost-accounted on a fair share basis.

E4.3.3.1 Improvement Standards
In accordance with the City's 1999 General Plan, the street improvements generally serving residential projects consist of local residential streets. Local residential streets consist of a 60-footwide right-of-way, which includes two travel lanes, bike/parking lane, landscape strip, and sidewalk.

These improvements supplement and implement California's Subdivision Map Act.

In addition to street improvements, residential development must be connected to the City’s water and sewer infrastructure. Residential development is also subject to water and sewer connection fees. When infrastructure is lacking or inadequate to serve proposed development, improvements (such as the installation of sewer or water lines or other related facilities) have been set as conditions of approval. In addition, for those developments in areas without infrastructure, new wells that are connected to the City's system have been required to serve the new development and maintain adequate water pressure, and meet daily and peak water demands, and fire flow.

Site improvements typically represent about 10 percent of the total cost of a finished lot with a home (excluding land costs). While these improvements add to the cost of housing, they are necessary in order to provide services to new residents and are typical of many other small jurisdictions in the area.

Typical engineering standards and approximate values for each standard are listed below.  Local Street – 60-foot right-of-way comprised of a 40-foot-wide asphalt concrete (AC) pavement (two inches of AC over six inches of compacted aggregate) to support two travel lanes and two parking lanes, plus curb and gutter, five-foot-wide sidewalk, and a five-foot-wide landscaped parkway strip.
 Curb and Gutter – 30 inches from asphalt pavement to back of curb, 7.5 inches of concrete over compacted native soil.
 Sidewalk – Four inches of concrete over compacted native soil.  Sewer Lateral – Four-inch PVC (dependent upon depth) with minimum slope of ¼-inch per foot.

One-inch Water Service – One inch copper tube size polyethylene pipe, meter boxes, bronze saddles, straps, and bolts.

E4.3.3.2 Conclusion
On- and off-site improvement standards for Livingston are typical of small cities and comparable to surrounding jurisdictions in the region. The City does not consider the requirements and associated development costs of on- and off-site improvements to be greater than those necessary to achieve health and safety requirements. The required on- and off-site improvements are not a constraint to development.

E4.3.3.3 Recommended Action
None required.
704 Page 387 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-15
E4.3.4 Provision of a Variety of Housing Types
State Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65583(c)(1) and 65583.2(c)) requires that local governments analyze the availability of sites that will facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multi-family rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for farmworkers and employees, emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing, single-room occupancy (SRO) units, group homes and residential care facilities, and accessory dwelling units. Table E4-7 summarizes the housing types permitted and conditionally permitted for Livingston.

Table E4-7 Residential Use Matrix
Residential Use R-E8 R-18 R-27,8 R-37,8 C-112 DTC7,8
Single-Family P P C
Multi-family C2 P3 C
Duplex C1 P
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit5 P P
Daycare, residential P P P
Housing, Boarding C C C
Housing, Farm Labor6 P P P P P
Mobilehome P4 P4
Mobilehome Park C C
Shipping container accessory structure C C C C C C
Licensed community care facility9 P11 P11 C C
Mixed Use10 C C
Emergency Shelter C P
P = permitted; C= Use Permit
1 General plan provisions for low density residential allow for innovative designs, which utilize clustering, duplexes or halfplexes on corner lots, zero lot line or planned development features, in the R-1 Zone. 2 Multi-family or group dwellings are permitted in R-2 Districts on corner lots, subject to a use permit, provided that in no case shall any dwelling contain more than 4 living units; multi-family dwellings in the R-2 District shall meet development standards of Section 5-3-16. 3 Projects in excess of 25 units or with a density in excess of 24 units per gross acre on R-3 lots require a use permit. 4 See Section 5-5-3-1 for mobilehomes on private lots.
5 See Section 5-5-6 for accessory dwelling unit provisions. 6 Farm labor housing that serves 6 or fewer persons shall be treated as a single-family unit and is permitted by-right in all R-E, R-1, R-2, R-3 and DTC Districts.
7 Site plan/design review is required for all uses involving new construction, significant exterior alterations to existing structures or significant site plan alterations in the R-2, R-3, C-1, DTC, C-2, C-3, M-1 and M-2 Zones. 8 Transitional and supportive housing are permitted in all zones subject to normal requirements and restrictions; see Chapter 7, Definitions, of this title.
9 The adopted housing element allows facilities serving 7 or more persons in single-family R-1 Zones, subject to a use permit. 10 Mixed-use development is permitted in DTC and C-1 Zones, subject to securing a use permit, and shall encourage projects that contain affordable housing units; development standards in these districts shall allow for a maximum density of 29 du/ac for residential units above ground floor commercial.
11 A use permit shall be required for care facilities serving 7 to 14 persons in residential districts; facilities serving 15 or more persons shall not be permitted at all in single-family residential districts. 12 Site plan/design review is required for all uses involving new construction, significant exterior alterations to existing structures, or significant site plan alterations in the R-2, R-3, C-1, DTC, C-2, C-3, M-1 and M-2 Zones.

Source: Livingston Zoning Ordinance Section 5-3-15
705 Page 388 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-16
E4.3.4.1 Manufactured Housing
Manufactured homes are permitted as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and are allowed in any residential zone, only if they are installed on permanent foundations. To be consistent with the California Health and Safety Code Sections 18007 and 18008 definitions, mobile home is included in the definition of manufactured home in the Livingston Municipal Code, where uses are only permitted in areas zoned for single-family dwelling district.

Manufactured homes shall be designed and operated in compliance with the following standards:
 General Requirements. A mobile home or manufactured home, under certain conditions, may be placed on a foundation system on a private lot in the city’s areas zoned for single-family dwellings (R-1 District).
 Design Review Requirements. The following requirements for a manufactured home to be placed upon a permanent foundation on a single-family residential lot must be met:
 The manufactured home is five years old or newer on the day of application, and bears the insignia of approval by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and has not been altered in violation of applicable codes.
 The application is determined compatible with the residential area in which the manufactured home is proposed to be located.
 Occupancy is only a residential type use.
 Subject to all provisions of the zoning ordinance applicable to residential structures.  Be attached to a permanent foundation that complies with all building regulations.  Have a minimum width of 24 feet.
 The exterior covering material shall extend to the ground, except where a solid concrete or masonry perimeter foundation is used, the exterior covering material must extend at least to the top of the foundation. Exterior wall materials shall be limited to stucco, wood, brick, stone, decorative concrete block, or other materials commonly used in the area. No shiny or reflective materials shall be permitted which are more reflective than semigloss paint.  Have a roof with a pitch of not less than two-inch vertical use for every 12-inch of horizontal seen and consisting of composition shingles, shake shingles, rock or concrete or adobe tile, or similar other materials commonly used in the area. No shiny or reflective materials shall be permitted which are more reflective than semigloss paint.  Have a minimum of 12-inch eave overhang on all four sides.  All windows, doors and gable ends shall be architecturally treated with a trim, with materials no more reflective than semigloss paint.
 Fascia boards shall be used on all sides of the structure to screen exposed rafters, vents and the like to give the roof a finished edge.
 Two enclosed or covered off-street parking spaces of compatible wall materials and roofing materials of dwelling unit.
 Screening shall be provided for all mechanical and electrical equipment so that they are not visible from the public right-of-way.
706 Page 389 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-17
Conclusion
Manufactured housing is subject to the same development and design standards as single-family homes. Additionally, manufactured homes must be permitted in the same manner and in the same zones as conventional structures are permitted according to Government Code Section 65852.3. The Zoning Ordinance complies with state law and is not a constraint to the development of mobile homes.

Recommended Action
None required.

E4.3.4.2 Accessory Dwelling Units
An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) is an additional selfcontained living unit either attached to or detached from the primary residential unit on a single lot.

It has cooking, eating, sleeping, and full sanitation facilities. ADUs can be an important source of affordable housing since they can be constructed relatively cheaply and have no associated land costs. They can also provide supplemental income to the homeowner, allowing the elderly to remain in their homes or moderate-income families to afford a home.

In recent years, several bills have added requirements for local governments related to 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 JADU to be built on a single-family 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 multi-family 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.

To encourage ADUs and JADUs, state law requires cities and counties to adopt an ordinance authorizing ADUs to be allowed ministerially and by-right in any zoning district which allows either single-family or multi-family residential uses. Local governments are precluded from prohibiting ADUs in residentially zoned areas or zones which allow either single-family or multi-family 707 Page 390 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-18
residential uses. The City permits the construction of ADUs in all residential zoning districts, including permitted residential uses in the Planned Development Overlay Districts and JADUs is residential estate and single-family residential zones. An accessory dwelling unit shall be located, developed, and operated in compliance with Section 5-5-6 Specific Use Regulations and the following standards:
 Permitted locations and types.
 ADUs are permitted in all zoning districts allowing single-family or multi-family residential uses on lots with existing or proposed dwellings.
 An ADU may be established in the following methods:
− Attached to, or located within, an existing or proposed primary dwelling; − As a new detached structure, or located within or attached to an accessory structure, including garages, storage areas or similar structures; − As a conversion of existing attached or detached accessory structures, including garages, storage areas or similar structures; or
− As a reconstruction of an existing structure or living area that is proposed to be converted to an ADU, or a portion thereof, in the same location and to the same dimensions and setbacks as the existing structure.
 One ADU and one JADU may be established per lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling if all of the following apply:
− The ADU or JADU is within the proposed space of a single-family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure and may include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the accessory structure. An expansion beyond the physical dimensions of the existing accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress; − The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling; − The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety access; or − The JADU complies with the requirements of Cal. Gov’t Code Section 65852.22.  One JADU may be established within the space of an existing or proposed single-family residence only on a lot that is zoned to allow single-family residential uses. A JADU may be established within the space of the primary dwelling in combination with the construction of one detached, new construction ADU not exceeding 1,200 square feet and a height of 16 feet with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks.
 ADUs shall be permitted only on residentially zoned lots developed with existing multifamily dwellings subject to the following provisions:
− A minimum of one ADU may be constructed, or up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units, within non-livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, passageways, attics, basements or closets, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings.
− The construction of two detached ADUs shall have a maximum height of 16 feet and four-foot side and rear setbacks. In this case, only two detached ADUs are permitted on lots developed with existing multi-family dwellings.
708 Page 391 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-19
 Development Standards.
 ADU type, location and size.
− Attached. An ADU attached to an existing primary dwelling shall not exceed 50% of the total existing or proposed living area of the primary dwelling, except that a one bedroom attached ADU shall be allowed up to 850 square feet, and 1,000 square feet for attached ADUs with more than one bedroom pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code Section 65852.2(c)(2)(B).
− Detached. An ADU structurally independent and detached from the existing or proposed primary dwelling shall not exceed 1,200 square feet.  JADU location and size. A JADU shall be constructed entirely within an existing or proposed primary dwelling and shall not exceed 500 square feet. JADUs shall have an independent exterior entrance from the primary dwelling but may also include shared access between two units. A JADU, at a minimum, shall include an efficiency kitchen that includes a cooking facility with appliances, and a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU.
− The property owner shall reside in either the principal dwelling unit or the junior accessory dwelling unit.
− Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the JADU, the property owner shall file with the City a deed restriction for recordation with the County Recorder, which shall run with the land and include provisions listed in Government Code Section 65852.22 and state the following: “The property contains an approved ADU pursuant to Chapter 5 of the Livingston Municipal Code and is subject to the restrictions and regulations set forth in that chapter. These restrictions and regulations generally address development regulations, owner occupancy, and lease requirements, limitations on the size of the ADU, and parking requirements. Current restrictions and regulations may be obtained from the City of Livingston Planning Division. These restrictions and regulations shall be binding upon any successor in ownership of the property”.
 Setback standards. The minimum setback for an ADU is four feet from the side and rear lot lines, 10 feet from the street side lot line and 20 feet from the front lot line. No setback shall be required for an existing living area or accessory structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure that is converted to an ADUor to a portion of an ADU, and a setback of no more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an ADU that is not converted from an existing structure or a new structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. Where feasible, setbacks from other structures on the lot shall be consistent with the City-adopted building code for new construction ADUs, except for a legally established, existing structure that is converted to an ADUor to a portion of an ADU.  Utilities and impact fees. Adequate roadways, public utilities and services shall be available to serve the ADU. ADUs shall not be considered a new residential use for the purpose of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for sewer and water. Installation of a separate direct connection between an ADU contained within an existing structure and the utility shall not be required. ADUs not within an existing structure shall be required to install a new or separate utility connection and be charged a connection fee and/or capacity charge. These charges shall be proportionate to the burden imposed by the ADU on the 709 Page 392 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-20
water or sewer system on either its size or the number of plumbing fixtures as determined by the City. No impact fee shall be imposed for an ADU less than 750 square feet. Any impact fees charged for an ADU of 750 square feet or more shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.  Provisions for development. Permits for ADUs and JADUs shall be in compliance with underlying zoning requirements and regulations, except as may be provided in this section.  An ADU shall not be considered a new residential use unless it is built concurrently with the new construction of a single-family unit or multi-family building.  An ADU shall not count towards density requirements on the lot.  An ADU shall not count towards determining the building square footage in calculating the maximum lot coverage percentage.
 ADUs shall have independent exterior access from the primary dwelling. No passageway to the primary dwelling shall be required.
 ADUs shall be in compliance with applicable building, fire and other health and safety codes.

Fire sprinklers shall not be required for an ADU if sprinklers are not required for the primary dwelling unit.
 ADUs are required to provide solar panels if the unit(s) is a newly constructed, nonmanufactured, detached ADU. Per the California Energy Commission (CEC), the panels can be installed on the ADU or the primary dwelling unit. ADUs that are constructed within existing space, or as an addition to existing homes, including detached additions where an existing detached building is converted from non-residential to residential space, are not subject to the Energy Code requirement to provide solar panels.  Off-street parking. One additional off-street parking space for the ADU or per bedroom, whichever is less. The parking can be tandem, uncovered, and located in the front yard if all yard requirements are met. If a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to an ADU, those off-street parking spaces are not required to be replaced.
 Off-street parking exemption. Off-street parking shall not be imposes if: The ADU is located within one half mile walking distance to public transit; the ADU located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district; the ADU is part of the existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure; when on-street parking permits are required, but not offered to the occupant of the ADU; and when there is a car-share vehicle located within one block of the ADU.
 Owner occupancy. If the owner occupies the primary residential unit, the owner may rent the ADU to one party. If the owner occupies the ADU, the owner may rent the primary residence to one party. The owner may rent both the primary residential unit and the ADU together to one party who may further sublease any unit(s) or portion(s) thereof. The owner shall be a signatory to any lease for the rented unit, for which the City may reasonably require a copy to verify compliance with this chapter and shall be the applicant for any permit issued under this chapter.

Owner occupancy for the primary dwelling or the ADU is not required for ADUs approved between January 2020 and January 2025. The rental of the ADU shall be longer than 30 days.  The ADU shall not be sold or held under a different legal ownership than the primary residence, nor shall the lot containing the ADU be subdivided, except as provided in Government Code Section 65852.26.
710 Page 393 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-21
 Process and timing. An ADU or JADU is considered and approved ministerially, without discretionary review or hearing, if it meets the minimum standards in this chapter. The City must act on a building permit application to create an ADU or JADU within 60 days from the date that the City receives a completed permit application, unless either:
 The applicant requests a delay, in which the 60-day time period is tolled for the period of the request delay; or
 If the building permit application to create an ADU or JADU is submitted is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the City may delay acting on the permit application for the ADU or the JADU until the City acts on the permit application to create the new single-family dwelling, but the application to create the ADU or JADU unit shall still be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing.

Conclusion
The City of Livingston’s ADU Ordinance was last amended in June of 2022. 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 ADU laws through Program 5.

E4.3.4.3 Multi-Family
Multi-family housing is permitted by-right in the R-3 district, whereas the R-2 and DTC districts require a use permit, as displayed in Table 10.8. In the R-2 zone on corner lots, multi-family housing development is further regulated, only allowed provided that in no case shall any dwelling contain more than 4 living units and meet the required development standard for this district. Additionally, projects in the R-3 district that are more than 25 units or with a density in excess of 24 units per gross acre require a use permit.

Conclusion
While multi-family housing is allowed in zones across the city, this type of development is constrained by the need for a use permit in the R-2, R-3, and DTC zones, and the additional development standards that apply to corner lots in the R-2 zone.

Recommended Action
The City will implement Program 6 to revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow additional by-right development of multi-family housing and remove use permit requirements for multi-family development with more than 25 units or with a density in excess of 24 units per gross acre in the R-2, R-3, and DTC zones.

E4.3.4.4 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.

Group homes or residential care facilities of six or fewer persons are considered residential uses and are permitted by-right in the R-1 and R-2 districts. However, in the R-1 and R-2 districts a use permit 711 Page 394 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-22
is required for care facilities serving seven to 14 persons; facilities serving 15 or more persons are not permitted at all in single-family residential districts. The City’s Zoning Ordinance permits residential care facilities serving more than six persons in the R-3 and DTC districts with a use permit.

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.

Conclusion
Currently, the City of Livingston allows residential care facilities and group homes with six or fewer residents “by-right” in the R-1 and R-2 zones. The City does not comply with AB 2126 to allow residential care facilities for seven or more residents in all zones that allow housing. This can be considered a constraint to residential care facilities and group homes.

Recommended Action
The City will implement Program 6 to revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow care facilities of seven or more residents in all zones that permit housing, approved with objectivity and certainty, and subject only to the requirements of residential uses of similar type and form.

E4.3.4.5 Emergency Shelters
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 Zoning designations identified to allow emergency shelters as a permitted use without a discretionary permit must allow residential uses. The City permits emergency shelters in the PF zone and DTC zone (which allows multi-family residential use) by-right and in the R-3 zoning districts with a use permit, which does not comply with state laws. The Zoning Ordinance also doesn’t provide development standards for emergency shelters.
712 Page 395 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-23
State law requires that sites that permit emergency shelters by-right must also have a minimum area of 200 square feet per unsheltered person to accommodate the number of people experiencing homelessness. The Merced County Point-in-time count estimated that 855 unhoused individuals in Merced County in 2022, including 35 in Livingston. This indicates that the City must permit emergency shelters in at least one zone that has at least 7,000 square feet of land that meets the requirements of AB 2339. As shown in Table E4-8, Livingston has the potential capacity for 283 individuals in emergency shelters in the R-3, DTC and P-F zones. These sites in all zones are in close proximity to the Merced Transit Authority L commuter line (bus service) allowing access to amenities and services.

Table E4-8 Emergency Shelter Capacity Analysis
APN Acreage Realistic Capacity (beds)
024-171-011 0.18 39
024-141-005 0.26 56
024-112-005 0.26 56
024-141-002 0.26 56
024-191-039 0.35 76
Total 1.31 283
Source: City of Livingston Planning Staff
In 2019, AB 101 was passed requiring that Low-Barrier Navigation Centers be a use by-right in mixed-use zones and nonresidential zones 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 Ordinance to explicitly allow the development of Low-Barrier Navigation Centers, by-right, in mixed-use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses.

Conclusion
Emergency shelter requirements require a conditional use permit in the R-3 zone and therefore poses a constraint to emergency shelter development. Emergency shelters are permitted by-right in the P-F and DTC zones, The DTC zone allows multi-family residential uses with a conditional use permit.

The City’s Zoning Ordinance is also inconsistent with state law requiring Low-Barrier Navigation Centers to be allowed by-right in areas zoned for mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses.

Recommended Action
The City will implement Program 6 to revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow low-barrier navigation centers by-right in mixed-use and nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses and to allow emergency shelters by right in the R-3 zone. The City will revise the Zoning Ordinance to establish development and parking standards for emergency shelters pursuant to state law. 713 Page 396 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-24
E4.3.4.6 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.

The Livingston Zoning Ordinance currently allows transitional and supportive housing in all zoning districts that allow residential uses, including nonresidential zones that allow residential use, subject to the same requirements and restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.

Conclusion
The City does not impose additional requirements on transitional and supportive housing types.

However, the Zoning Ordinance does not currently comply with AB 2162, where parking standards for residential care facilities do not exempt parking requirements for supportive housing developments located within 0.5-mile of a public transit stop.

Recommended Action
Program 6 will revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow transitional and supportive housing meeting the specifical requirements under AB 2162 to revise parking standards for supportive housing located within a half mile of a public transit stop.

E4.3.4.7 Farmworker and 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 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.

Livingston permits agricultural uses only in P/OS Parks And Open Space districts with a use permit.

While farm labor housing in all zoning districts that allow residential uses, farm labor housing is not permitted in P/OS districts, which does not comply with the Employee Housing Act. 714 Page 397 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-25
Conclusion
The City’s Zoning Ordinance does not comply with state law regarding farmworker/employee housing.

Recommended Action
The City will implement Program 6 to revise the Zoning Ordinance amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit employee housing for six or fewer employees as a single-family use and employee housing containing up to 36 beds or 12 single-family units 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 and 17021.8).

E4.3.4.8 Single-Room Occupancy Units
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Unit refers to a living or efficiency unit, as defined by California Health and Safety Code section 17958.1, intended or designed to be used as a primary residence by not more than two persons for a period of more than 30 consecutive days and having either individual bathrooms and kitchens or shared bathrooms and/or kitchens. SRO units can provide affordable private housing for lower-income individuals, seniors, and persons with disabilities. These units can also serve as an entry into the housing market for formerly homeless people.

Single-room occupancy units are not mentioned in Livingston’s Municipal Code or in the General Plan.

Conclusion
An SRO zoning ordinance standard does not currently exist in Livingston, potentially constraining the development of a variety of housing units.

Recommended Action
The City will implement Program 6 to revise the Zoning Ordinance to encourage and facilitate SRO units and to allow the development of SROs in residential zones allowing multi-family uses and/or commercial zones allowing hotel and motel uses.

E4.3.5 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 people with disabilities. This is to ensure that persons with either physical or mental disabilities are provided 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 Livingston impose any constraints on persons with disabilities accessing appropriate and adequate housing in the city. 715 Page 398 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-26
E4.3.5.1 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.

The City of Livingston’s definition of family is as follows:
 One or more persons occupying a dwelling unit and living as a single housekeeping unit, and distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house, lodging house, motel or hotel.

Conclusion
The City’s definition of “family” is not restrictive.

Recommended Action
None required.

E4.3.5.2 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.

In April 2016, the City adopted its current reasonable accommodation process. The ordinance can be found in Chapter 6, titled “Administration” under Section 5-6-12. This section authorizes Staff to work with developers to accommodate specific concessions to achieve reasonable accommodation adjustments protected by state or federal law. Reasonable accommodation forms are available at the and availability of requests is prominently displayed. The Reasonable Accommodation procedures are as follows:

A request for reasonable accommodation shall be submitted on an application form provided by the Community Development Department or in the form of a letter to the Director of the Community Development Department, and shall contain the following information:

The applicant’s name, address and telephone number;
Address of the property for which the request is being made;

1. 2.
716 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-27
The current use of the property;
A brief description of the disability or impairment that requires reasonable accommodation; The zoning code provision, regulation or policy from which reasonable accommodation is being requested;
Why the reasonable accommodation is necessary to eliminate barriers to housing opportunities; and
Any information submitted as part of a reasonable accommodation application shall be kept confidential and shall be retained in a manner so as to respect the privacy rights of the applicant and shall not be made available for public inspection.

A request for reasonable accommodation shall be reviewed by the Director of the Community Development Department or concurrently with any requested discretionary approval. A written determination within 25 days of the application being deemed complete and either grant, grant with modifications, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation.

The following factors are considered in approving a request for reasonable accommodation:

A. Whether the housing in the request will be used by a person with a disability under the acts; B. Whether the request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to a person with a disability under the acts; C. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would impose an undue financial, administrative or enforcement burden on the city;
D. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a city program or law, including, but not limited to, land use and zoning; E. Potential impact on surrounding uses; and
F. Physical attributes of the property and structures.

A request for reasonable accommodation submitted for concurrent review with another discretionary land use application shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The written determination on whether to grant or deny the request for reasonable accommodation shall be made by the Planning Commission in compliance with the applicable review procedure for the discretionary review.

Conclusion
While, the City of Livingston provides a procedure for reasonable accommodation with timing that is comparable to other similar jurisdictions, the determination of whether a request for reasonable accommodation would result in “potential impact on surrounding uses” is subjective. Subjective findings can add costs, make it challenging for projects to meet approval criteria, and can be a constraint to housing for persons with disabilities. In addition, information regarding the procedure or additional assistance is not posted on the City website.

Recommended Action
The City will implement Program 6 to revise the Zoning Ordinance to remove subjective criteria in the determination requirements for reasonable accommodation requests, specifically the determination regarding “potential impact on surrounding uses.” The City will implement Program 13 to update the City’s website to provide a link to the City’s Reasonable Accommodations policy on

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 717 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-28
the Housing Division page and add contact information for City Staff who oversee the application process.

E4.3.6 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 Livingston are reasonable in comparison to other jurisdictions in the state and region. Table E4-9 describes some of the residential development planning fees for both single- and multi-family development.

Table E4-9 Residential Development Planning Fees
Fee Title Amount
Annexation Process $3,270 + planning & engineering deposit Preliminary Subdivision Review $715 + engineering deposit Tentative Subdivision Map Review $3,445 + engineering deposit Final Subdivision Map Review $1,260 + planning & engineering deposit Parcel Map $1,2335 + planning & engineering deposit
Final Parcel Map $940 + engineering deposit
Lot Line Adjustment $1,080 + engineering deposit
Certificate of Compliance $810 + engineering deposit
Site Plan & Design Review (Existing Structure) $1,350 + engineering deposit Site Plan & Design Review (New Construction) $1,560 + engineering deposit General Plan Amendment $2,560 + engineering deposit
Rezoning $2,565 + engineering deposit
Initial Environmental Study $3,670 + planning & engineering deposit, plus County and state recording fees
Environmental Impact Report $2,300.00 + all costs + planning & engineering deposit plus County and state recording fees
Categorical Exemption $390 + County & state recording fees Use Permit (Residential) $1,505 + engineering deposit
Source: City of Livingston Schedule of Development Fees, Effective 2022.

Development in the city is typically required to pay a range of development fees, including, water service fee, sewer service fee, and transportation impact fee, as shown in Table E4-10. In Livingston, development impact fees average about $20,804 for a single-family home and about $55,601 per structure for a multi-family project (assumed to be a 10-unit multi-family complex or around $5,561per unit).
718 Page 401 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-29
Table E4-10 Residential Development Fees
Impact Fee Single-Family Unit Multi-family Unit
Building Permit $1,324 $614
Plan Check $993 $461
Site Plan and Design Review (for new construction) -- $156 Administrative Fee (15% of planning and permit fees) $960 $763 SMI Tax $21 $9
Municipal Facility $2,992 $1,496
Water Connection $1,771 $177
Sewer Connection line $1,892 $189
Water Meter $114 $11
Police Mitigation $448 $448
Fire Mitigation $428 $37
General Plan $794 $356
Park-In-Lieu $576 $332
Livingston Union School District $5,376 $269
Regional Transportation Fee $3,115 $243
Total $20,804 $5,561
Source: City of Livingston Schedule of Development Fees, Effective 2022.

Single-family development fees in Livingston are slightly lower than for similarly sized cities in the same county. Fees for a single-family unit range are approximately $20,804 in Livingston but range from $12,326 to $32,961 in the cities of Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, Los Banos, and Merced.

However, fees for multi-family are much lower, fees for a multi-family unit are approximately $5,561 per multi-family unit in Livingston but range from $8,997 to $26,423 per unit in other cities.

Table E4-11 shows a comparison of development fees in other Merced County jurisdictions.

Table E4-11 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
Conclusion
Planning and development fees are slightly lower than similarly sized cities in the region and are not considered a constraint to development.
719 Page 402 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-30
Recommended Action
None required.

E4.3.7 Permit Types
The City of Livingston 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 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.

E4.3.7.1 Site Plan and Design Review
The City’s site plan and design review process are discretionary actions, subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and require a recommendation from the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. Site plan and design review projects are referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation once the application is deemed complete by the City Staff. Livingstons’ site plan and design review process consists of review by the City Staff, evaluating the project’s consistency with the General Plan, applicable specific plans, design standards, and the Zoning Ordinance. City staff also ensures that the site plan, building layout, size, shape, scale, mass, height, architectural design, architectural components, materials, colors, landscaping, on- and offsite parking and traffic circulation, and other aspects of the physical plan for development projects are compatible with neighboring developments, are adequate and appropriate for the site, achieve the highest level of design that is feasible for the project; and that City services are adequate and available to the project. City Staff issues an advisory recommendation to the Planning Commission and recommended conditions to be imposed on the project. The project is presented to the Planning Commission as a public hearing item for evaluation for project consistency which all applicable standards, compatibility with existing and proposed development in the project vicinity, and design compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission, based on the information presented and public testimony received, makes a recommendation to City Council to either approve or deny project. The project is then presented to City Council as a public hearing item for evaluation and determination. Site plan review takes an average of five to seven months after the application is deemed complete, or longer if environmental review is required.

Residential housing projects subject to the City’s site plan and design review process include any project requiring a discretionary permit, including subdivisions, use permits, and variances.

Residential projects including five or more units or an addition to an existing project that would result in five or more units is subject to the City’s site plan and design review process. Projects consisting solely of individual owner, custom-built lots and homes are exempt from this requirement. The design requirements for approval include:
 The provision for benches, telephones and shaded areas at major transit destinations shall be determined based upon necessity with city approval during a site plan review procedure.  The height and scale of new commercial and industrial development should be compatible with that of surrounding buildings where an established pattern or character is apparent. New development shall provide a transition from the height of adjacent structures to the maximum height of new development.
720 Page 403 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-31
 All roof equipment shall be screened from a horizontal line of sight. Ground or interior mounted mechanical equipment with appropriate screening is encouraged as an alternative to roof mounting.
 Entries shall be protected from the elements and shall create a focus or sense of entry for the building. Use of wall recesses, roof overhangs, canopies, arches, signs, and similar architectural features shall be integral elements of the building’s design.  Buildings, landscaping, parking, and other development features shall be arranged in a manner that is compatible with the size, scale, and appearance of nearby development.  Site planning shall emphasize a strong relationship to the adjoining street(s) and encourage pedestrian circulation and access. Pedestrian access shall be separate from vehicular access, where feasible.
 Site plans shall provide safe and well-defined pedestrian connections from buildings to parking areas, from buildings to the adjoining street(s), and among buildings on the same site.

Pedestrian connections between commercial development and surrounding residential neighborhoods should also be provided.
 Buildings, sidewalks, and parking lots shall be located to minimize conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular circulation on a site.
 On-site circulation shall be designed to provide safe and efficient access for delivery vehicles, visitors and employees, and pedestrians.
 Loading and trash facilities shall be located where they may be adequately screened from view, generally at the rear of the structures, away from the street.  Long expanses of fence shall be offset and architecturally designed to prevent monotony.

Landscaped pockets and limited openings are encouraged.  Where industrial development abuts nonindustrial uses, appropriate buffering techniques shall be employed such as setbacks or screening landscaping.

These requirements may be considered subjective.

E4.3.7.2 Administrative Permits
The administrative permitting process involves project review by the Community Development Director to determine conformance with applicable standards in the Zoning Ordinance. If the Community Development Director determines that the project may be objectionable to property owners within the vicinity of the site, the applicant is instructed to show project maps and information to those property owners and request consent or objective to the proposed project.

These comments are considered by the Community Development Director during consideration of project approval. Project determination on an administrative permit request by the Community Development Director usually takes about one month, once the application is deemed complete.

E4.3.7.3 Use Permits
All projects subject to a use permit are discretionary projects, subject to CEQA requiring a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission makes findings on the project’s consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and evaluates the project based on subjective requirements such as compatibility with adjacent and nearby uses and whether the project would adversely affect nearby uses such as religious facilities, schools, and recreational uses.

Project determination on a use permit request by the Planning Commission takes five to seven 721 Page 404 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-32
months after the application is deemed complete, or longer if environmental review is required.

Findings for approval include the following:
 The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping and other features required by the applicable zoning district;
 The site for the proposed use is served by streets and highways adequate to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use;
 Public facilities are currently adequate to serve the proposed use or improvements are included in an approved capital improvement plan or otherwise will be complete prior to the issuance of building permits;
 The proposed development is consistent with the general plan. If granted, it should be made subject to those conditions necessary to preserve the general welfare, not the individual welfare, of any particular applicant; and
 The proposed development must not be unreasonably incompatible with permitted uses in the area considering damage and nuisance from light sources, noise, smoke, odor, dust or vibration, hazard resulting from unusual volume or character of traffic, or congestion of a large number of persons or vehicles.

These findings may be considered subjective.

E4.3.7.4 Variances
Projects requesting a waiver of any Zoning Ordinance requirement are subject to a variance which requires a public hearing and approval by the Planning Commission. The project must be found to be consistent with the General Plan to receive approval. Project determination on a variance request by the Planning Commission takes four to five months after the application is deemed complete. The criteria for a variance include:
 There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the land, building and/or use referred to in the application which do not generally apply to other land, buildings and/or uses in the same district;
 Granting of such variance will not adversely affect the general plan of the city;  Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district denied to the property in question; and
 The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity.

Findings that refer to “preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property,” “materially detrimental to public welfare of injurious to the property” are subjective and can be a constraint to requesting a variance. However, variances are rare.
722 Page 405 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-33
E4.3.7.5 General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes
Projects that are not consistent with the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance may require approval of a General Plan amendment, zone change, Zoning Ordinance amendment, or specific plan amendment. Approval of these types of proposals are discretionary, subject to CEQA, and require recommendations from the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. A simple General Plan amendment typically takes six to nine months to complete, while more complicated projects that require environmental review and additional applications may take 12 to 18 months.

Conclusion
Several development review processes require subjective determinations from the reviewing authority. This is a constraint to the development of housing.

Recommended Action
The City will implement Program 6 to remove subjective judgement from the site plan and design review, administrative permits, and use permits, in accordance with SB 330, and provide objectives with regard to what constitutes an impairment to the integrity and character of the zoning district, thereby streamlining the review of multi-family projects and improving approval certainty.

E4.3.8 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 Community Development Department, which includes the Planning and Building Divisions, and the Public Works and Engineering Departments, are responsible for most permit processing in Livingston. In general, development of a residential unit on an appropriately zoned lot requires a building permit. The application for the permit must be filed with the Building Division. After approximately two to three days, the application is typically forwarded to the Planning Division, Engineering, and the Fire Departments to ensure that the development conforms with the required setbacks and other standards for that district. The Building Division, after its technical review, then issues the permit to the developer. For subdivision maps and site plan and design review, it is usually a four-to-six-month process, which includes Planning Commission review and recommendation, and City Council review and approval. Improvement plan review takes about two to three weeks and final maps usually take 60 to 90 days. After the City’s approval of an entitlement, applicants typically submit building plans within one to three months. In some cases, building plans are submitted prior to the City’s land use approval which risks needing a secondary submittal depending on the final approved entitlement but can shorten the overall time to development.

Engineering plans are typically reviewed within six to eight weeks. Building permit issuance usually takes one to two weeks. The most common housing applications and permit processing times are indicated in Table E4-12.
723 Page 406 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-34
Table E4-12 Timelines for Permit Procedures
Type of Approval or Permit Typical Processing Time
Use Permit 120 - 150 Days
Variance 120 Days
Planned Unit Development 8 to 10 Months
Subdivision Map and Site Plan/Design 4-6 Months
Improvement Plan Draft 2-3 weeks
Final 60-90 days
Building Permit 1-2 weeks
General Plan Amendment 6 to 9 months
Zone Change 4 to 6 months
Table E4-13 shows the typical processing procedures by project type for Livingston. As shown, single-family units have the shortest estimated processing times (two to four weeks) while subdivisions have the longest (34 to 43 weeks, or 8 to 10 months).

Table E4-13 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 (3-6) Design Review (2-4) Site Plan (2 - 4) Site Plan (6-8) Site Plan (6-8)
Tentative Map (12-15) Use Permit (6-9) Use Permit (6-9) Environmental
Assessment (12)
Environmental
Assessment (12)
Environmental
Assessment (12)
Final Map (10)
Total 2-4 Weeks 34-43 Weeks 26-33 Weeks 26-33 Weeks
E4.3.8.1 Building Permits
Building permit review timelines for all projects are as follows depending on complexity and scope of work:
 First review: 1 to 10 working days
 Second review: 1 to 5 working days
 Third review: 1 to 5 working days
 Fourth review: 1 to 5 working days
 Fifth review: 1 to 5 working days
E4.3.8.2 Conclusion
Permit procedures and processing times are not considered a constraint to development. The time between receiving approval for a housing development and building permit application depends on the project details and the applicant rather than the City, but the City does not perceive this to a constraint to the development of housing.
724 Page 407 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-35
E4.3.8.3 Recommended Action
None Required.

E4.3.9 State Streamlining
Under the 5th Cycle Housing Element reporting period (2015-2023), the City of Livingston made insufficient progress toward its above moderate-income RHNA and is subject to SB 35 streamlining provisions for projects that include at least 10 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 re-used in the 6th cycle and identified to accommodate lower-income units (very low-income and low-income) be subject to by-right approval if projects include 20 percent affordable units for lower-income households on-site. No projects have been approved through SB 35 ministerial approval. The City has not adopted procedures for processing SB 35 applications and has not created a checklist for SB 35 applications.

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.

E4.3.9.1 Conclusion
The City should amend the Zoning Ordinance to address updates to SB 35 and SB 330 and create written procedures for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process.

E4.3.9.2 Recommended Action
The City will implement Program 6 to amend the Zoning Ordinance to address updates to SB 35 and remove subjective judgement from the site plan review, administrative permits, and use permits and provide objective standards for what constitutes an impairment to the integrity and character of the zoning district, in accordance with SB 330. Additionally, under Program 3, the City will create written procedures for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process. 725 Page 408 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-36
E4.3.10 Transparency in the Development 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 webpage4 provides connections to the Building Division, Engineering Division, Housing Division, and Planning Division’s pages. Within these pages users can access links to planning and building permit resources, including the City’s zoning and land use maps, permit application forms, development fee schedule, and Staff contacts. However, links to the municipal code are not under this webpage, rather are located under the City Council webpage. The overall layout does not provide a comprehensive view as to what is within the webpage, the search function is necessary to find what you are looking for.

E4.3.10.1 Conclusion
While the City’s website provides information on permit processing and zoning, links to some resources should be included within the main webpage.

E4.3.10.2 Recommended Action
The City will implement Program 13 to evaluate its compliance with the new transparency requirements per Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(1) and make changes as necessary. Update links on the City’s Community Development Department webpage to connect to the most recent versions of each resource and document.

E4.3.11 Short-Term Housing Rentals
The City of Livingston does not regulate short-term rental housing in the city. As of August 2023, per listing services VRBO and Airbnb, there were four active rentals in the city. There were two listings that rented the entire house and two listings that rented a private room within a housing unit.

These short-term rentals are not concentrated in a particular area of the city. Due to the small number of listings, short-term rentals are not likely to contribute to a reduced availability of longterm rental housing, especially if concentrated in one area of the city.

E4.3.11.1 Conclusion
There are no regulations related to short-term rental housing that constrain housing in the city.

Short-term rentals are not considered a constraint to development.

E4.3.11.2 Recommended Action
None required.

E4.3.12 Code Enforcement
The City’s Building Division is responsible for enforcing the Building Code, Fire Code and other building codes adopted by the City. This division also investigates and responds to complaints and building code violations. The City’s Building Division entered into a contract with CSG Consultants, Inc., to provide personnel for residential, commercial and industrial plan checks and building and fire inspection services. They maintain a telephone-based inspection request system that provides 4 Livingston Community Development webpage. https://www.cityoflivingston.org/commdev 726 Page 409 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-37
next-day inspection service. Turnaround time for minor residential remodels, single-family dwellings, and large tenant improvements will be five to ten working days.

Code Enforcement Staff responds to complaints in coordination with the City. The City's typical response process is as follows:

Complaint received and filed.

If hazardous or unsafe, Building Staff will red flag the structure as unsafe to occupy and notify the property owner.

If the structure is deemed safe, then Code Enforcement Staff investigate property information and reach out to property owner within a week and an inspection appointment is then set up within two weeks depending on owner availability.

After an inspection is conducted, then the owner is provided with a timeframe to come into compliance or face further legal action by the City.

City staff will offer suggestions to remedy the code violation and will often work with the owner to come up with a compliance timeframe. Owners that fail to comply with City code enforcement efforts may have a Notice and Order filed on the property to document the existence of an unsafe or unpermitted condition existing on the property.

The City of Livingston uses the California Building Code (CBC), 2022 Edition. All new buildings or structures, and any additions, modifications, alterations, or repairs of existing buildings shall comply with the requirements of the Livingston Municipal Code and the CBC as amended, including securing of all permits and inspections required by such code. Any application for a planning permit of any kind is not allowed to be accepted, processed, or issued for parcels in violation of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. If an approved permit is deemed to be out of compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, the permit is considered void.

Any building or structure that is set up, erected, constructed, altered, enlarged, converted, moved, or maintained in violation of the regulations stated in the Municipal Code is deemed unlawful and constitutes a public nuisance. Upon the City Council's order, the City Attorney shall initiate immediate legal action for the abatement and removal of such violations, seeking injunctions as provided by law. The City Attorney will take all necessary steps and approach the appropriate courts to obtain the required relief, which may include the abatement and removal of the building or structure and restraining any person from engaging in such activities that violate the code. The party who received a notice and order for violations that do not pose an immediate danger to the health or safety will be given at least five calendar days to correct or address the violation. Once a building has been declared unsafe, the building official may issue notice that the structure be repaired, vacated, or demolished within a reasonable amount of time and with the appropriate permits.

The enforcement of building codes in the city is centered on the inspection of new construction and remodels or renovations requiring building permits. However, for existing structures, City Staff prioritize code enforcement complaints according to the severity of the violation on the community and individuals. Situations that appear to pose a serious risk to health and safety are given top priority; others are pursued in the order in which they are received, as resources are available. In most cases for non-emergency complaints, a warning letter or courtesy notice is sent to the alleged violator to verify the status of the potential compliant and to obtain compliance.

1. 2.

3. 4.
727 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-38
E4.3.12.1 Conclusion
The City of Livingston uses the most recent CBC (2022 edition) and is therefore up to date. 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 do not negatively impact the construction of affordable housing.

E4.3.12.2 Recommended Action
None required.

E4.4 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 Livingston.

E4.4.1 Flood
Official floodplain maps are maintained by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

FEMA determines areas subject to flood hazards and designates these areas by relative risk of flooding on a map for each community, known as the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The 100- year flood is defined as the flood event that has a one percent chance of occurring in any given year.

The flooding problems in Livingston are in the northern part of the city, closest to the Merced River.

There is a small section of the city that has a one percent annual chance of flood hazard. This area is in a Zone A Flood Hazard area, this designation was determined using approximate methodologies because detailed hydraulic analyses have not been performed.

All sites in the Site Inventory are located outside of Zone A and are located in Zone X, which are areas of minimal flood hazards and do not pose any constraints on development. However, in portions of Zone A residential development can occur. Since no residential development is proposed in Zone A at this time, this condition is not a constraint to housing.

E4.4.2 Seismic Zones
While Livingston is in proximity to major California fault lines, there is no specific threat or hazard from seismic ground shaking to residential development within the county and all new construction must comply with current state building code requirements related to seismic retrofitting. Between the minimal historical hazard of earthquakes in the city and the use of the most current building codes and construction techniques, earthquakes pose a less-than-significant danger to residential development.
728 Page 411 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element E4-39
E4.4.3 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.

Livingston is not considered to be a fire-prone city; structural fires pose a greater risk to life and property than wildland fires. The City of Livingston requires all new development and subdivisions to meet or exceed the California Fire Code provisions, which address topography, geology, climate, and development conditions. However, there is always a risk of wildland fires, since there are rural areas surrounding Livingston (crops and grasses) that are classified as low fuel loading areas by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Based on CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones, there are no areas in Livingston classified as within a Fire Hazard Zone and the surrounding rural areas have Moderate or no Fire Hazard Zones.

E4.4.4 Conclusion
Environmental constraints in Livingston are not considered a constraint to development.

E4.4.5 Recommended Action
None required.
729 Page 412 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-40
This page intentionally left blank.
730 Page 413 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-1
E5 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
(AFFH)
E5.1 Introduction
This section of the Housing Element analyzes issues relating to fair housing for the City of Livingston.

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 5, Regional Assessment of Fair Housing.

E5.2 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, farmworker housing needs, 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 5, 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 three neighborhoods: North Livingston, Central Livingston, and South Livingston (Figure E5-1) and are discussed further in Chapter E6, Housing Resources. Most of the geographic analysis of fair housing issues in Livingston is based on the AFFH Data Viewer described in Chapter 5, Regional Assessment of Fair Housing. The AFFH Data Viewer relies on information provided by the U.S. Census and other data sources at the census tract and block group level.

State Route 99 runs diagonally through the city and divides North Livingston from Central and South Livingston. The City is comprised of three census tracts, with some tracts spanning areas outside of the city boundary. This can skew the data presented in the analysis and have noted where this may apply. The neighborhoods and census tracts that make up Livingston include:
 North Livingston: Consists of one census tract (Census Tract 3.01). The residential units in this census tract within the city boundaries are much newer and in better condition than the 731 Page 414 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-2
residential units located in the unincorporated areas. As a result, the data in North Livingston may be skewed by factors in this census tract outside of Livingston and may not provide a complete picture of this neighborhood. The western portion of North Livingston, west of North Main Street contains very few residential units. The majority of this land is comprised of industrial, commercial, and agricultural land.
 Central Livingston: Consists of two census tracts (Census Tract 3.05 and Census Tract 3.06).

These census tracts include land outside the city’s boundary, but the small portion of unincorporated land within these census tracts contains very few residential units and will not significantly impact the data. Central Livingston contains land zoned low-, medium-, and highdensity residential as well as various commercial uses and Public/Quasi-Public uses. Most of the land zoned for commercial and medium- and high-density residential uses are located in Central Livingston.
 South Livingston: Consists of two census tracts (Census Tract 3.05 and Census Tract 3.06). These census tracts include land outside the city’s boundary, but the small portion of unincorporated land within these census tracts contains very few residential units and will not significantly impact the data. South Livingston primarily contains land zoned for low-density residential uses with some areas zoned for high-density residential, open space, and Public/Quasi-Public uses.

The majority of housing in South Livingston located west of Prusso Street consists of newer housing developments constructed within the past 20 years.

Additionally, the City contains one noncontiguous parcel to the west within its jurisdiction.

However, the Livingston sewage treatment plan is located on this parcel and does not contain residential uses. As a result, this area is excluded from this analysis.

E5.3 Data Sources
To conduct this analysis, the City utilized data from a variety of sources discussed in Chapter 5, 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. In August 2025, City staff were interviewed on local knowledge and other relevant factors.

E5.4 Summary of AFFH Analysis Findings
The racial and ethnic composition of Livingston’s population is predominantly Hispanic/Latino. The percentage of non-white residents is higher than most of Merced County and the median incomes are higher than those observed in the county. There are high rates of poverty in the eastern portion of Central and South Livingston, and a high percentage of Low- and Moderate-Income residents in Central Livingston. The northern portion of the city is characterized as high-resource, or with 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. The southern portion of the city is characterized as moderate-resource. There is very limited transit access within the city, as well as a moderate pollution burden. A large percentage of renters in Livingston are experiencing housing cost burden (spending more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs), particularly renters in North Livingston, but the majority of residents are at low risk of displacement.
732 Page 415 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-3
Figure E5-1 Livingston Neighborhoods
Source: Rincon Consultants, 2023.

[I 1) Livingston City Boundary
Neighborhoods
- Central Livingston
North Livingston
LJ South Livingston
Fresno County Dept. PWP, Merced County Association of Gov, Ca/1fornia State Parks, Esri, HERE. Garmin, SafeGroph, Geo Technologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, ACS 2015-2019, HCD, PlaceWorks 2021, HUD Region 9 2021, UC Berkley Urban Dispfacemenr Project, TCAC 2022, CaJEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021 ff
0 L

0.2 0.4 N
Miles A
A> H
yB
733 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-4
E5.5 Fair Housing Resources
Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity relates to the ability of a local jurisdiction and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and education to assure community members are informed of fair housing laws and tenants’ rights. In addition, enforcement and outreach capacity includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing. Organizations providing fair housing services throughout Merced County are discussed in the regional AFFH analysis. There are no active or recent fair housing lawsuits, settlements, or legal cases in the city of Livingston. Program 13 in the Housing Plan emphasizes the need for fair housing outreach and enforcement. Through this program the City of Livingston works with the Housing Authority of the County of Merced (HACM) to provide fair housing information and resources to residents and housing providers.

As outlined in this Housing Element, the City has committed to meaningful actions to promote the development of housing for special needs populations, including lower income housing. Further, this Housing Element includes actions to affirmatively further fair housing through strategies related to housing mobility, new housing opportunities in high resource areas, fair housing enforcement and outreach, place-based strategies for neighborhood improvement, and tenant protection. The City continues to coordinate with HACM to implement the CDBG program contracting with the Central California Legal Services (CCLS) to ensure housing discrimination complaints are properly addressed and fair housing resources and services are offered to residents.

E5.6 Compliance with Fair Housing Laws
E5.6.1 Fair Housing Laws
The following shows applicable fair housing laws and the City’s compliance:
 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.
 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 unhoused, are not discriminatory.

Programs are included in this Housing Element to facilitate housing for all households, including protected classes (e.g., programs regarding residential care facilities, emergency shelters, and reasonable accommodations).
734 Page 417 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-5
 Government Code Section 8899.50 – This section of this Housing Element 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 and Risk Management departments.  Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) – the City implements density bonus provisions in compliance with the Density Bonus Law.
 Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5) – the City has documented compliance with the HAA.
 No-Net-Loss Law (Government Code Section 65863) – the City has documented compliance with sufficient capacity for 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 and are 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.

Livingston has not encountered any lawsuits, consent decrees, judgements, or any other legal matters regarding fair housing.

E5.7 Ability to Address Complaints
The City refers fair housing complaints to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). According to HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), between 2013 and 2022, no fair housing complaints were filed with the FHEO in Livingston.

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 10 and 13.

E5.8 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
Race and Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino residents comprise the largest racial/ethnic group at 74 percent of the City’s residents, while white residents comprise of approximately five percent of the population. Asian American/Pacific Islander residents comprise 21 percent of the population. The percent of Hispanic/Latino residents is higher than observed trends across Merced County (62 percent).

Livingston also has a higher percentage of non-white residents compared to the county. Throughout Livingston, the non-white population ranges between 77 and 96 percent in each census block group (Figure E5-2). The north central portion of North Livingston is the least diverse, with 61 to 80 percent of the population being non-white, while the rest of the city has a non-white population 735 Page 418 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-6
over 81 percent. However, the eastern part of South Livingston (east of Main Street) has the highest percentage of non-white population (96 percent). The area east of Main Street in Central and South Livingston has the highest percentage of Hispanic/Latino residents (between 81 and 89 percent). In contrast, the western part of South Livingston has the highest percentage of non-Hispanic/Latino white residents (between 9 and 11 percent) and Asian American/Pacific Islander residents (between 33 and 38 percent). This is similar to the rest of the western part of Merced County, and the City of Merced where between 80 and 100 percent of the population are non-white.

From 2011 to 2021, the racial diversity in Livingston remained comparable. During this time period, the percent of Hispanic/Latino residents increased by approximately two percent, while the percentage of white residents decreased by approximately four percent. The percentage of Asian American/Pacific Islander residents increased by four percent, while Other or Multiple race residents decreased one percent. The City’s small population of black/African American or Native American/Native Alaskan residents decreased to zero in 2021 (Table E5-1). Hispanic/Latino residents remained the largest racial/ethnic group in the county, comprising almost three quarters of the total population. This is higher than the Northern San Joaquin Valley (SJV) region, where Hispanic/Latino residents made up approximately 47 percent of the population.

Table E5-1 Population by Racial Group (City of Livingston) Percent of Population
Race 2011 2021
Hispanic/Latino (of any race) 71.5% 73.8%
Not Hispanic/Latino
White 8.3% 4.7%
Asian American/Pacific Islander 17.4% 21.0%
Other or Multiple Races 1.3% 0.6%
Black/African American 0.8% 0.0%
Native American/Native Alaskan 0.7% 0.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Data (2007-2011, 2017-2021), Table DP05.

The 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. The entirety of the city has a predominant Hispanic/Latino majority (Figure E5-3).

According to Othering and Belonging Institute (OBI) racial segregation/integration data, North Livingston has low to medium levels of racial segregation (Figure E5-4), similar to the majority of Merced County and the Northern SJV region. Central and South Livingston does not have racial segregation data available.
736 Page 419 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-7
Figure E5-2 Percent of Total Non-White Population (City of Livingston) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

tfJ 71 --\YlJml:m:0:ilBf>
~ : :1 Neighborhoods
Racial Demographics 2020 (Block
Group)
Percent of Total Non-White
Population
- 41% -60%
- 61%-80%
- > 81%
Fresno County Dept. PWP, Merced County Association of Gov, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, Geo Technologies, Irie, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, ACS 2017•2021, HCD, Place Works, HUD Region 9, UC Berkley UDP, TCAC 2022, Co/EnviroScreen 4,0, 2021, CAL FIRE, OEHHA, FEMA 0 0.2 0.4 N
Miles A
Fl
737 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-8
Figure E5-3 Predominant Populations (City of Livingston) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

I
\YJtT;l'lr,l;J14\n
[I II Livingston City Boundary
~ .=- .=-1 Neighborhoods
Predominant Race (ACS
2017-2021) - Tract Level
- Hispanic or Latino
0 - 13
13 - 97
97 -100
Fresno County Dept. PWP, Merced County Association of Gov, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SofeGraph, Geo Technologies, Inc, METf/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, ACS 2017-2021, HCD, Pf ace Works, HUD Region 9, UC Berkley UDP, TCAC 2022, CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021, CAL FIRE, OEHHA, FEMA 1r
0 0.2 0.4 N
Miles A
738 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-9
Figure E5-4 Neighborhood Segregation (City of Livingston) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

Ii JI Livingston City Boundary
~ : :, Neighborhoods
Racial Segregation/Integration
(OBI, 2020) - Tract
- Low-Medium Segregation
A =---=---.c= j
l
Fresno County Dept, PWP, Merced Countv Association of Gov, California 5tote Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, Geo Technologies, Inc, METJ/NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, ACS 2017-2021, HCD, PlaceWarks, HUD Region 9, UC Berkley UDP, TCAC 2022, CalEnviraScreen 4.0, 2021, CAL FIRE, OEHHA, FEMA IL
======
0 0.2 0.4 N
Miles A
739 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-10
Persons with Disabilities
As referenced in Chapter E3, Housing Needs Assessment, approximately 14 percent of the total population in Livingston (1,985 residents) is living with one or more disabilities. This is similar to the Northern SJV region, where approximately 13 percent of residents are living with one or more disabilities. The most common disability in the city is cognitive difficulty, followed by ambulatory difficulty (Figure E5-5). Disabilities are most prevalent among senior residents. Approximately 35 percent of residents aged 65 and over are living with a disability.

Figure E5-5 Disability by Type (City of Livingston)
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, ACS 5-Year Data (2017-2021), Table S1810.

Within Livingston, between 10 and 20 percent of residents are living with 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 of individuals living with a disability within the city (Figure E5-6), and the City has not identified any specific neighborhoods where requests for reasonable accommodations or accessibility improvements are heightened.

There are two residential elderly care facilities in Livingston: one in the northeast area and one in the southwest area, as shown in Figure E5-7. The location of these facilities in different parts of the city ensures they are accessible to most Livingston residents.

3.1%

4.2%

5.7%

5.4%

1.3%

3.8%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%
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

I
740 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Draft Housing Element 5-11
Figure E5-6 Percent of Population with a Disability (City of Livingston) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

Jf
(
tfjL
71 ~
II II Livingston City Boundary
~ ~ ~ 1 Neighborhoods
Population With a Disability
(Tract) - ACS (2017-2021)
c::::J < l0%
10% -20%
I
Ii
/j
North Livingsto
I
ii
Fresno County Dept. PWP, Merced County Association of Gov, California Seate Porks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, Geo Technologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Manogemenr, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, ACS 2017-2021, HCD, PlaceWorks, HUD Region 9, UC Berkley UDP, TCAC 2022, CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021, CAL FIRE, OEHHA, FEMA 1r
I
j
r

0.2 Miles
r
I ___,L___

0.4 N
A
741 of 912