Agenda packet, fourth session — Livingston City Council, August 18, 2026

330 of 912
331 of 912
332 of 912
333 of 912
334 of 912

STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing – General Plan Amendment Application No. GPA 2025- 05, Rezone Application No. REZ 2025-05 – A request to amend the Land Use Designation of 1018 Peach Avenue on the City of Livingston General Plan Land Use Diagram and the City of Livingston Zoning Map.

MEETING DATE: August 18, 2026
PREPARED BY: Jailah Smith, Contract City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Jose Ramirez, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2026-XX, approving General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-05; and introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 2026-XX, approving Rezone No. REZ 2025-05.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:

The Housing Element is one of the seven mandatory elements of a city's General Plan and serves as the City’s strategy to plan for existing and projected housing needs. Under California Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.11, every city and county is required to update its Housing Element on a regular eight-year planning period established by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The current 6th Cycle covers the planning period of 2023–2031 for Livingston.

As required by State Law, the City of Livingston is in the process of updating the Housing Element.

As discussed below, the City of Livingston has been allocated 1,097 new housing units to plan for the 6th Cycle. To adequately meet this number of units, the City will need to re-designate and rezone properties to accommodate higher density residential development.

A core requirement of the Housing Element is demonstrating how the City will accommodate its assigned share of regional housing needs, known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). For the 6th Cycle, the City of Livingston must identify sufficient sites with appropriate zoning to accommodate its RHNA number of housing unit and across a range of income levels from very-low to above-moderate-income households.

Failure to implement these changes within the statutory deadlines may result in the Housing Element being found out of compliance with state law. This can lead to significant consequences, including the loss of eligibility for various state grants and funding programs.

The Merced County Association of Government (MCAG) prepared the Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan, which was adopted on November 17, 2022.

The City of Livingston was allocated 1,097 units for the 6th Housing Element Cycle. The following table shows the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation by income category.

Income Category Unit Allocation
Extremely Low-Income (<30% of AMI) 137
Very Low-Income (30% - 50% of AMI) 174
Low-Income (50% - 80% of AMI) 213
Moderate-Income (80% - 120% of AMI) 169
Above Moderate-Income (>120% of AMI) 404
Total 1,097
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone involves a parcel identified in the Draft Housing Element as a “candidate site” to meet RHNA requirements. These actions will update the City’s General Plan land use designations and zoning maps to ensure consistency with state housing law and support the development of housing across all income levels. This effort reflects the City’s commitment to promoting housing opportunities, ensuring compliance with state mandates, and planning for future growth in a manner that is equitable and sustainable.

ANALYSIS:

The following site has been identified to accommodate higher density housing.

Site Location APN Acres
4 1018 Peach Avenue, south side Peach Avenue
at Emerald Drive
047-310-019 6.80
This property is underutilized with a ranchette home and irrigation lateral, and is zoned as R-1 Low Density Residential, with a land use designation of LD Low Density Residential. The City is proposing to rezone the parcel to R-3 High Density Residential and change the land use designation to High Density Residential. This rezone and General Plan Amendment would allow this property to accommodate 145 additional units to meet the City’s RHNA for the 2024-2032 Housing Element cycle.

The landowner of the subject site has been contacted by staff and is not opposed to land use redesignation proposed by the City.

ISSUES
Staff did not identify any issues with the general plan amendment and rezone. 336 of 912

GENERAL PLAN
Notable 1999 General Plan Policies applicable to the Proposed Project include:
• Policy 3.1(A)(4): General Plan amendments shall be processed concurrently with the appropriate rezoning and/or other appropriate special permit application. • Policy 3.2 (A): Designate and allow for the development of a wide range of residential housing types in the City including housing for middle and upper income families to meet the needs of all Livingston residents.

In addition, because the Proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment, and in accordance with Senate Bill 18, tribal consultation notices were distributed on August 12, 2025.

The City did not receive any formal consultation requests from Native American Tribes.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

An Addendum to the 2000 General Plan EIR was prepared to analyze potential changes in environmental effects associated with the Housing Element 2024-2032, Zoning Text Amendments, and compares the potential environmental impacts to the environmental impacts analyzed in the 2000 General Plan EIR. The Addendum is available at:
https://www.cityoflivingston.org/commdev/page/city-livingston-housing-element-update.

The focus of the analysis in the Addendum is changes in residential units and associated population that could occur as a result of the Housing Element 2024-2032, Zoning Text Amendments, and Zoning Map Amendments. As noted in the Addendum, the population growth resulting from the amendments would be within the assumed population buildout of 68,528 people analyzed in the 2000 General Plan EIR. The Addendum concludes that there are no substantial changes that will require major revisions to General Plan EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

A CEQA environmental assessment will be conducted for each property at the time an application for development is submitted for consideration by the City.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on August 11, 2026, to consider this General Plan Amendment and Rezone. Staff attended the meeting to present the staff-initiated proposal and answer questions from the Commission. At the conclusion of the public comments, the Commission on a vote of 3-1, approved Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-XX, recommending approval of this General Plan Amendment and Rezone to the City Council, subject to findings contained in the Resolution.

PUBLIC NOTICE
A public hearing notice of the proposed general plan amendment and rezoning was published in the Merced Sun Star on July 29, 2026. In addition, a public hearing notice was mailed to landowners located within a five-hundred-foot distance away from the subject site. 337 of 912
FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff time was used to prepare and process this General Plan Amendment and Rezone.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council take the following actions:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-XX, approving General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-05, redesignating the subject property to High Density Residential; and

2. Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 2026-XX, approving Rezone No. REZ 2025-05, amending the Official Zoning Map to rezone the subject property from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (High Density Residential), and set the Ordinance for second reading and adoption at the next regular meeting of the City Council.

A general plan amendment is adopted by resolution, while a rezone is a zoning ordinance amendment that must be adopted by ordinance pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65853 through 65857. Accordingly, the rezone is presented for introduction and first reading of an ordinance concurrently with the general plan amendment.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City Council Resolution 2026-XX (General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-05)

2. City Council Ordinance No. 2026-XX (Rezone No. REZ 2025-05)

3. Planning Commission Resolution 2026-XX

4. Aerial Location Map

5. Existing and Proposed Land Use Designation and Zoning Maps 338 of 912
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2026-XX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 2025-05 RE-DESIGNATING A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1018 PEACH AVENUE (APN 047-310-019) FROM LOW DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 5, Chapter 6, Section 2(B)(4) of the Livingston Municipal Code (LMC), the City Planner, by the authority of the City Manager, has initiated General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-05 for a property within the City of Livingston located at 1018 Peach Avenue, on the south side of Peach Avenue at Prusso Street (APN 047-310-019), consisting of approximately 6.80 acres (the "Subject Property"); and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-05 would amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to re-designate the Subject Property from Low Density Residential (LD) to High Density Residential (HD), and is proposed to implement the City's 2024-2032 (6th Cycle) Housing Element by enabling the Subject Property to accommodate a portion of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 1,097 units; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-05 is being processed concurrently with Rezone No. REZ 2025-05, which amends the Official Zoning Map to rezone the Subject Property from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (High Density Residential) and which is adopted by separate ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed general plan amendment at a duly noticed public hearing on August 11, 2026, and fully considered all comments, whether oral or written, regarding the proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in a vote of 3-1, adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the general plan amendment, subject to the findings contained in the Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 18, 2026, regarding the proposed general plan amendment, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, LMC Section 5-6-2(A) provides that City zoning regulations shall be consistent with the General Plan in accordance with California Government Code Section 65860, and the City Council finds that General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-05 is consistent with the Livingston General Plan, including General Plan Land Use Policy 3.2(A), "Designate and allow for the development of a wide range of residential housing types in the City including housing for middle and upper income families to meet the needs of all Livingston residents"; and WHEREAS, the City of Livingston, as the lead agency, has prepared an Addendum to the 2000 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to analyze potential changes in environmental effects associated with General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-05 and Rezone No. REZ 2025-05, and comparing the potential environmental impacts to the environmental impacts analyzed in the 2000 General Plan EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum concludes that there are no substantial changes that will require major revisions to the 2000 General Plan EIR due to the involvement of significant new 339 of 912
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, in accordance with Senate Bill 18, formal consultation requests were distributed to Native American Tribes on August 12, 2025, for a 90-day period ending on November 10, 2025, and the City did not receive any formal requests for consultation; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was advertised in the Merced Sun Star, a newspaper of general circulation, on July 29, 2026. In addition, the Public Notice was emailed to the City's Public Hearing subscribers and interested parties on July 29, 2026, and posted at Livingston City Hall and on the City's website, locations accessible to the public; and WHEREAS, the City Council has exercised its own independent judgment in considering the information contained in this Resolution and its attachments, the staff report and attachments and other exhibits, and the written and oral testimony presented during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Livingston hereby finds and resolves as follows:

Section 1. The City Council finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. The City Council finds that the Addendum to the 2000 General Plan EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164; determines that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR are present; and adopts the Addendum.

Section 3. The City Council finds that General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-05 maintains the internal consistency of the General Plan pursuant to California Government Code Section 65300.5 and is consistent with the goals and policies of the Livingston General Plan.

Section 4. The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-05, amending the General Plan Land Use Diagram to re-designate the Subject Property, identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 047-310-019 and consisting of approximately 6.80 acres located at 1018 Peach Avenue, from Low Density Residential (LD) to High Density Residential (HD), as depicted on the existing and proposed land use maps attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 5. The re-designation approved by this Resolution shall become effective concurrently with the effective date of the ordinance approving Rezone No. REZ 2025-05, so that the General Plan Land Use Diagram and the Official Zoning Map are amended consistently.

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026-___ is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Livingston at a regular meeting thereof duly held on the 18th day of August 2026, by the vote recorded as follows:

AYES:
340 of 912
NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

By: ___________________________
Jose A. Moran, Mayor
of City of Livingston
ATTEST
_____________________________
Monica Cisneros, Deputy City Clerk
of the City of Livingston

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
________________________
City Attorney or Assistant City Attorney
of City of Livingston
341 of 912

Page 1 of 3 ends

ORDINANCE NO. XXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON TO REZONE A 6.80-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 1018 PEACH AVENUE (APN 047-310-019) FROM R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3 (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) (REZONE NO. REZ 2025- 05)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 5, Chapter 6, Section 2(B)(4) of the Livingston Municipal Code (LMC), the City Planner, by the authority of the City Manager, has initiated General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-05 and Rezone No. REZ 2025-05 for a property within the City of Livingston located at 1018 Peach Avenue, on the south side of Peach Avenue at Prusso Street (APN 047-310-020), consisting of approximately 6.80 acres (the "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is currently designated Low Density Residential (LD) on the General Plan Land Use Diagram and zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential), and the City proposes to re-designate the Subject Property to High Density Residential (HD) and to rezone it to R-3 (High Density Residential); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is identified in the City's 2024-2032 (6th Cycle) Housing Element as a site to accommodate a portion of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 1,097 units, and the rezone to R-3 would enable the Subject Property to accommodate up to 145 additional dwelling units across a range of income levels; and WHEREAS, Rezone No. REZ 2025-05 is adopted concurrently with, and to implement, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-05, which re-designates the Subject Property to High Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed general plan amendment and rezone on August 11, 2026, in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65090, 65091, and 65854, and fully considered all comments, whether oral or written, regarding the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, following its hearing and in accordance with California Government Code Section 65855, the Planning Commission, in a vote of 3-1, adopted a Resolution setting forth its written recommendation that the City Council approve the general plan amendment and rezone, together with the reasons for the recommendation and the relationship of the proposed amendment to the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed general plan amendment and rezone on August 18, 2026, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65856, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, LMC Section 5-6-2(A) provides that City zoning regulations shall be consistent with the General Plan in accordance with California Government Code Section 65860, and the City Council finds that the rezone of the Subject Property to R-3 is consistent with the Livingston General Plan, as amended by GPA 2025-05, including General Plan Land Use Policy 3.2(A), "Designate and allow for the development of a wide range of residential housing types in the City including housing for middle and upper income families to meet the needs of all Livingston residents"; and
342 of 912

Page 2 of 3 ends

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston, as the lead agency, has prepared an Addendum to the 2000 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to analyze potential changes in environmental effects associated with General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-05 and Rezone No. REZ 2025-05, and comparing the potential environmental impacts to the environmental impacts analyzed in the 2000 General Plan EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum concludes that there are no substantial changes that will require major revisions to the 2000 General Plan EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, in accordance with Senate Bill 18, formal consultation requests were distributed to Native American Tribes on August 12, 2025, for a 90-day period ending on November 10, 2025, and the City did not receive any formal requests for consultation; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Merced Sun Star, a newspaper of general circulation, on July 29, 2026, not less than 20 days before the hearing as required by California Government Code Section 65854, mailed to the owners of property located within 300 feet of the Subject Property and to the applicant, and posted at Livingston City Hall and on the City's website, locations accessible to the public; and WHEREAS, the City Council has exercised its own independent judgment in considering the information contained in this Ordinance and its attachments, the staff report and attachments and other exhibits, and the written and oral testimony presented during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference as findings of the City Council.

Section 2. Environmental Review. The City Council finds that the Addendum to the 2000 General Plan EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164; determines that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR are present; and adopts the Addendum.

Section 3. Amendment of the Official Zoning Map. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Livingston is hereby amended to reclassify the Subject Property, identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 047-310-019 and consisting of approximately 6.80 acres located at 1018 Peach Avenue, on the south side of Peach Avenue at Prusso Street, from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (High Density Residential), as depicted on the existing and proposed zoning maps attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 4. General Plan Consistency. The City Council finds that the R-3 (High Density Residential) zoning classification established by this Ordinance is consistent with the Livingston General Plan, as amended by General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-05, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65860 and LMC Section 5-6-2(A). 343 of 912

Page 3 of 3 ends

Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.

The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36937.

Section 7. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be published and/or posted in the manner required by California Government Code Section 36933 within fifteen (15) days after its adoption.

Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance will become effective 30 days after adoption.

Introduced:

Passed and Adopted:

_____________________________
JOSE MORAN, Mayor
of the City of Livingston

ATTEST:

State of California )
County of Merced )
City of Livingston )

I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly introduced at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Livingston on the ____ day of August 2026, and was passed and adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Livingston on this _____day of September 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

______________________________________
Monica Cisneros, Deputy City Clerk
of the City of Livingston

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM

___________________________________
City Attorney or Assistant City Attorney
Of City of Livingston
344 of 912
ATTACHMENT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2026-11

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

LIVINGSTON RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL

OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE TO A PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1018 EAST PEACH AVENUE (APN: 047-310-019)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 5, Chapter 6, Section 2 (B) 4 of the Livingston Municipal Code (LMC), the City Planner, by the Authority of the City Manager, has prepared a general plan amendment and rezone to a property within the City of Livingston; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, has reviewed the proposed general plan amendment and rezone at a duly noticed special public hearing on August 11, 2026, and has fully considered all comments whether orally or in writing regarding the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, LMC Section 5-6-2 (A) states that City zoning regulations shall be consistent with the General Plan in accordance with California Government Code, Section 65860 and the Planning Commission determines that the proposed general plan amendments and rezones are consistent with the 1999 Livingston General Plan Objective A, “Designate and allow for the development of a wide range of residential housing types in the City including housing for middle and upper income families to meet the needs of all Livingston residents”; and WHEREAS, the City of Livingston, as the lead agency, has prepared an Addendum to the 2000 General Plan EIR to analyze potential changes in environmental effects associated with the Housing Element 2024-2032 and compares the potential environmental impacts to the environmental impacts analyzed in the 2000 General Plan EIR; and WHEREAS, the addendum concludes that there are no substantial changes that will require major revisions to General Plan EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Livingston Planning Commission hereby adopts Resolution 2026-11, recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram and Zoning Map.

The foregoing resolution was introduced and moved for adoption on August 11, 2026, by Commissioner Jatinder Mann, and being duly seconded Vice-Chair Jose Flores, was passed by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioner Jatinder Mann, Alternate Commissioner Mohinder Kanda and Vice-Chair Jose Flores
NOES: Commissioner Steve Bassi
ABSENT: Commissioner Jasneil Singh and *Chair Renee Mendonca ABSTAIN: None
345 of 912
*Note- Chair Renee Mendonca resigned as of August 11, 2026 via email.

ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________________ Jose Flores, Miguel Galvez,
Vice Chair Secretary of the Planning Commission

Commission
346 of 912
347 of 912
348 of 912
349 of 912
350 of 912
351 of 912

STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing – General Plan Amendment Application No. GPA 2025- 06, Rezone Application No. REZ 2025-06 – A request to amend the Land Use Designation of 1154 Peach Avenue on the City of Livingston General Plan Land Use Diagram and the City of Livingston Zoning Map.

MEETING DATE: August 18, 2026
PREPARED BY: Jailah Smith, Contract City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Jose Ramirez, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2026-XX, approving General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-06; and introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 2026-XX, approving Rezone No. REZ 2025-06.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:

As required by State Law, the City of Livingston is in the process of updating the Housing Element.

To comply with state law, cities must ensure that adequate sites are not only identified in the Housing Element but also zoned appropriately to allow for residential development by right, especially for lower-income housing. Where existing zoning or land use designations do not support the required density or housing types, the City is obligated to make timely changes through General Plan Amendments and Rezoning to bring its planning documents into compliance.
352 of 912
Failure to implement these changes within the statutory deadlines may result in the Housing Element being found out of compliance with state law. This can lead to significant consequences, including the loss of eligibility for various state grants and funding programs.

The Merced County Association of Government (MCAG) prepared the Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan, which was adopted on November 17, 2022.

The City of Livingston was allocated 1,097 units for the 6th Housing Element Cycle. The following table shows the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation by income category.

ANALYSIS:

The following site has been identified to accommodate higher density housing.

Site Location APN Acres
5 1154 Peach Avenue, south side of Peach
Avenue at Prusso Street
047-310-020 3.0
This property is currently underutilized with a ranchette home and irrigation lateral, and is zoned as R-1 Low Density Residential, with a land use designation of LD Low Density Residential. The City is proposing to rezone the parcel to R-3 High Density Residential and change the land use designation to High Density Residential. This rezone and General Plan Amendment would allow this property to accommodate 65 additional units to meet the City’s RHNA for the 2024-2032 Housing Element cycle.

The landowner of the subject site has been contacted by staff and is not opposed to land use redesignation proposed by the City.

ISSUES
Staff did not identify any issues with the general plan amendment and rezone.

GENERAL PLAN
Notable 1999 General Plan Policies applicable to the Proposed Project include:
353 of 912
• Policy 3.1(A)(4): General Plan amendments shall be processed concurrently with the appropriate rezoning and/or other appropriate special permit application. • Policy 3.2 (A): Designate and allow for the development of a wide range of residential housing types in the City including housing for middle and upper income families to meet the needs of all Livingston residents.

In addition, because the Proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment, and in accordance with Senate Bill 18, tribal consultation notices were distributed on August 12, 2025.

The City did not receive any formal consultation requests from Native American Tribes.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

A CEQA environmental assessment will be conducted for each property at the time an application for development is submitted for consideration by the City.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on August 11, 2026, to consider this General Plan Amendment and Rezone. Staff attended the meeting to present the staff-initiated proposal and answer questions from the Commission. At the conclusion of the public comments, the Commission on a vote of 4-0, approved Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-XX, recommending approval of this General Plan Amendment and Rezone to the City Council, subject to findings contained in the Resolution.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff time was used to prepare and process this General Plan Amendment and Rezone.

RECOMMENDATION:
354 of 912
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council take the following actions:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-XX, approving General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-06, redesignating the subject property to High Density Residential; and

2. Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 2026-XX, approving Rezone No. REZ 2025-06, amending the Official Zoning Map to rezone the subject property from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (High Density Residential), and set the Ordinance for second reading and adoption at the next regular meeting of the City Council.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City Council Resolution 2026-XX (General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-06)

2. City Council Ordinance No. 2026-XX (Rezone No. REZ 2025-06)

3. Planning Commission Resolution 2026-XX

4. Aerial Location Map

5. Existing and Proposed Land Use Designation and Zoning Maps 355 of 912
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2026-XX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 2025-06 RE-DESIGNATING A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1154 PEACH AVENUE (APN 047-310-020) FROM LOW DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 5, Chapter 6, Section 2(B)(4) of the Livingston Municipal Code (LMC), the City Planner, by the authority of the City Manager, has initiated General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-06 for a property within the City of Livingston located at 1154 Peach Avenue, on the south side of Peach Avenue at Prusso Street (APN 047-310-020), consisting of approximately 3.0 acres (the "Subject Property"); and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-06 would amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to re-designate the Subject Property from Low Density Residential (LD) to High Density Residential (HD), and is proposed to implement the City's 2024-2032 (6th Cycle) Housing Element by enabling the Subject Property to accommodate a portion of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 1,097 units; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-06 is being processed concurrently with Rezone No. REZ 2025-06, which amends the Official Zoning Map to rezone the Subject Property from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (High Density Residential) and which is adopted by separate ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed general plan amendment at a duly noticed public hearing on August 11, 2026, and fully considered all comments, whether oral or written, regarding the proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in a vote of 4-0, adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the general plan amendment, subject to the findings contained in the Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 18, 2026, regarding the proposed general plan amendment, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, LMC Section 5-6-2(A) provides that City zoning regulations shall be consistent with the General Plan in accordance with California Government Code Section 65860, and the City Council finds that General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-06 is consistent with the Livingston General Plan, including General Plan Land Use Policy 3.2(A), "Designate and allow for the development of a wide range of residential housing types in the City including housing for middle and upper income families to meet the needs of all Livingston residents"; and WHEREAS, the City of Livingston, as the lead agency, has prepared an Addendum to the 2000 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to analyze potential changes in environmental effects associated with General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-06 and Rezone No. REZ 2025-06, and comparing the potential environmental impacts to the environmental impacts analyzed in the 2000 General Plan EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum concludes that there are no substantial changes that will require major revisions to the 2000 General Plan EIR due to the involvement of significant new 356 of 912
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, in accordance with Senate Bill 18, formal consultation requests were distributed to Native American Tribes on August 12, 2025, for a 90-day period ending on November 10, 2025, and the City did not receive any formal requests for consultation; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was advertised in the Merced Sun Star, a newspaper of general circulation, on July 29, 2026. In addition, the Public Notice was emailed to the City's Public Hearing subscribers and interested parties on July 29, 2026, and posted at Livingston City Hall and on the City's website, locations accessible to the public; and WHEREAS, the City Council has exercised its own independent judgment in considering the information contained in this Resolution and its attachments, the staff report and attachments and other exhibits, and the written and oral testimony presented during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Livingston hereby finds and resolves as follows:

Section 1. The City Council finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 3. The City Council finds that General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-06 maintains the internal consistency of the General Plan pursuant to California Government Code Section 65300.5 and is consistent with the goals and policies of the Livingston General Plan.

Section 4. The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-06, amending the General Plan Land Use Diagram to re-designate the Subject Property, identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 047-310-020 and consisting of approximately 3.0 acres located at 1154 Peach Avenue, from Low Density Residential (LD) to High Density Residential (HD), as depicted on the existing and proposed land use maps attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 5. The re-designation approved by this Resolution shall become effective concurrently with the effective date of the ordinance approving Rezone No. REZ 2025-06, so that the General Plan Land Use Diagram and the Official Zoning Map are amended consistently.

AYES:
357 of 912
NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

By: ___________________________
Jose A. Moran, Mayor
of City of Livingston
ATTEST
_____________________________
Monica Cisneros, Deputy City Clerk
of the City of Livingston

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
________________________
City Attorney or Assistant City Attorney
of City of Livingston
358 of 912

Page 1 of 3 ends

ORDINANCE NO. XXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON TO REZONE A 3.0-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 1154 PEACH AVENUE (APN 047-310-020) FROM R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3 (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) (REZONE NO. REZ 2025-06) WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 5, Chapter 6, Section 2(B)(4) of the Livingston Municipal Code (LMC), the City Planner, by the authority of the City Manager, has initiated General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-06 and Rezone No. REZ 2025-06 for a property within the City of Livingston located at 1154 Peach Avenue, on the south side of Peach Avenue at Prusso Street (APN 047-310-020), consisting of approximately 3.0 acres (the "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is currently designated Low Density Residential (LD) on the General Plan Land Use Diagram and zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential), and the City proposes to re-designate the Subject Property to High Density Residential (HD) and to rezone it to R-3 (High Density Residential); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is identified in the City's 2024-2032 (6th Cycle) Housing Element as a site to accommodate a portion of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 1,097 units, and the rezone to R-3 would enable the Subject Property to accommodate up to 65 additional dwelling units across a range of income levels; and WHEREAS, Rezone No. REZ 2025-06 is adopted concurrently with, and to implement, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-06, which re-designates the Subject Property to High Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed general plan amendment and rezone on August 11, 2026, in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65090, 65091, and 65854, and fully considered all comments, whether oral or written, regarding the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, following its hearing and in accordance with California Government Code Section 65855, the Planning Commission, in a vote of 4-0, adopted a Resolution setting forth its written recommendation that the City Council approve the general plan amendment and rezone, together with the reasons for the recommendation and the relationship of the proposed amendment to the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed general plan amendment and rezone on August 18, 2026, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65856, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, LMC Section 5-6-2(A) provides that City zoning regulations shall be consistent with the General Plan in accordance with California Government Code Section 65860, and the City Council finds that the rezone of the Subject Property to R-3 is consistent with the Livingston General Plan, as amended by GPA 2025-06, including General Plan Land Use Policy 3.2(A), "Designate and allow for the development of a wide range of residential housing types in the City including housing for middle and upper income families to meet the needs of all Livingston residents"; and
359 of 912

Page 2 of 3 ends

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston, as the lead agency, has prepared an Addendum to the 2000 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to analyze potential changes in environmental effects associated with General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-06 and Rezone No. REZ 2025-06, and comparing the potential environmental impacts to the environmental impacts analyzed in the 2000 General Plan EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum concludes that there are no substantial changes that will require major revisions to the 2000 General Plan EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, in accordance with Senate Bill 18, formal consultation requests were distributed to Native American Tribes on August 12, 2025, for a 90-day period ending on November 10, 2025, and the City did not receive any formal requests for consultation; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Merced Sun Star, a newspaper of general circulation, on July 29, 2026, not less than 20 days before the hearing as required by California Government Code Section 65854, mailed to the owners of property located within 300 feet of the Subject Property and to the applicant, and posted at Livingston City Hall and on the City's website, locations accessible to the public; and WHEREAS, the City Council has exercised its own independent judgment in considering the information contained in this Ordinance and its attachments, the staff report and attachments and other exhibits, and the written and oral testimony presented during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference as findings of the City Council.

Section 3. Amendment of the Official Zoning Map. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Livingston is hereby amended to reclassify the Subject Property, identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 047-310-020 and consisting of approximately 3.0 acres located at 1154 Peach Avenue, on the south side of Peach Avenue at Prusso Street, from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (High Density Residential), as depicted on the existing and proposed zoning maps attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 4. General Plan Consistency. The City Council finds that the R-3 (High Density Residential) zoning classification established by this Ordinance is consistent with the Livingston General Plan, as amended by General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-06, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65860 and LMC Section 5-6-2(A). 360 of 912

Page 3 of 3 ends

Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36937.

Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance will become effective 30 days after adoption.

Introduced:

Passed and Adopted:

_____________________________
JOSE MORAN, Mayor
of the City of Livingston

ATTEST:

State of California )
County of Merced )
City of Livingston )

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

______________________________________
Monica Cisneros, Deputy City Clerk
of the City of Livingston

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM

___________________________________
City Attorney or Assistant City Attorney
Of City of Livingston
361 of 912
ATTACHMENT 6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2026-12

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

LIVINGSTON RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL

OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE TO A PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1154 EAST PEACH AVENUE (APN: 047-310-020)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 5, Chapter 6, Section 2 (B) 4 of the Livingston Municipal Code (LMC), the City Planner, by the Authority of the City Manager, has prepared a general plan amendment and rezone to a property within the City of Livingston; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, has reviewed the proposed general plan amendment and rezone at a duly noticed special public hearing on August 11, 2026, and has fully considered all comments whether orally or in writing regarding the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, LMC Section 5-6-2 (A) states that City zoning regulations shall be consistent with the General Plan in accordance with California Government Code, Section 65860 and the Planning Commission determines that the proposed general plan amendments and rezones are consistent with the 1999 Livingston General Plan Objective A, “Designate and allow for the development of a wide range of residential housing types in the City including housing for middle and upper income families to meet the needs of all Livingston residents”; and WHEREAS, the City of Livingston, as the lead agency, has prepared an Addendum to the 2000 General Plan EIR to analyze potential changes in environmental effects associated with the Housing Element 2024-2032 and compares the potential environmental impacts to the environmental impacts analyzed in the 2000 General Plan EIR; and WHEREAS, the addendum concludes that there are no substantial changes that will require major revisions to General Plan EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Livingston Planning Commission hereby adopts Resolution 2026-12, recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram and Zoning Map.

The foregoing resolution was introduced and moved for adoption on August 11, 2026, by Commissioner Jatinder Mann, and being duly seconded by Vice-Chair Jose Flores, was passed by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioner Jatinder Mann, Commissioner Steve Bassi, Alternate Commissioner Mohinder Kanda and Vice-Chair Jose Flores
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Jasneil Singh and *Chair Renee Mendonca ABSTAIN: None
362 of 912
*Note- Chair Renee Mendonca resigned as of August 11, 2026 via email.

ATTEST:
__________________________ ________________________________ Jose Flores, Miguel Galvez,
Vice Chair Secretary of the Planning Commission

363 of 912
364 of 912
365 of 912
366 of 912
367 of 912
368 of 912

STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing – General Plan Amendment Application No. GPA 2025- 07, Rezone Application No. REZ 2025-07 – A request to amend the Land Use Designation of a parcel located on Peach Avenue on the City of Livingston General Plan Land Use Diagram and the City of Livingston Zoning Map.

MEETING DATE: August 18, 2026
PREPARED BY: Jailah Smith, Contract City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Jose Ramirez, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2026-XX, approving General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-07; and introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 2026-XX, approving Rezone No. REZ 2025-07.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:

As required by State Law, the City of Livingston is in the process of updating the Housing Element.

To comply with state law, cities must ensure that adequate sites are not only identified in the Housing Element but also zoned appropriately to allow for residential development by right, especially for lower-income housing. Where existing zoning or land use designations do not support the required density or housing types, the City is obligated to make timely changes through General Plan Amendments and Rezoning to bring its planning documents into compliance.
369 of 912
Failure to implement these changes within the statutory deadlines may result in the Housing Element being found out of compliance with state law. This can lead to significant consequences, including the loss of eligibility for various state grants and funding programs.

The Merced County Association of Government (MCAG) prepared the Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan, which was adopted on November 17, 2022.

The City of Livingston was allocated 1,097 units for the 6th Housing Element Cycle. The following table shows the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation by income category.

ANALYSIS:

The following site has been identified to accommodate higher density housing.

Site Location APN Acres
6 West side of Winton Parkway, north of Peach
Avenue
022-050-009 16.8
This property is currently vacant with an irrigation lateral and zoned as R-1 Low Density Residential, with a land use designation of LD Low Density Residential. The City is proposing to rezone the parcel to R-3 High Density Residential and change the land use designation to High Density Residential. This rezone and General Plan Amendment would allow this property to accommodate 365 additional units to meet the City’s RHNA for the 2024-2032 Housing Element cycle.

The landowner of the subject site has been contacted by staff and is not opposed to land use redesignation proposed by the City.

ISSUES
Staff did not identify any issues with the general plan amendment and rezone.

GENERAL PLAN
Notable 1999 General Plan Policies applicable to the Proposed Project include:
370 of 912
• Policy 3.1(A)(4): General Plan amendments shall be processed concurrently with the appropriate rezoning and/or other appropriate special permit application. • Policy 3.2 (A): Designate and allow for the development of a wide range of residential housing types in the City including housing for middle and upper income families to meet the needs of all Livingston residents.

In addition, because the Proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment, and in accordance with Senate Bill 18, tribal consultation notices were distributed on August 12, 2025.

The City did not receive any formal consultation requests from Native American Tribes.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

A CEQA environmental assessment will be conducted for each property at the time an application for development is submitted for consideration by the City.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATION:

FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff time was used to prepare and process this General Plan Amendment and Rezone.

RECOMMENDATION:
371 of 912
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council take the following actions:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-XX, approving General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-07, redesignating the subject property to High Density Residential; and

2. Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. 2026-XX, approving Rezone No. REZ 2025-07, amending the Official Zoning Map to rezone the subject property from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (High Density Residential), and set the Ordinance for second reading and adoption at the next regular meeting of the City Council.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City Council Resolution 2026-XX (General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-07)

2. City Council Ordinance No. 2026-XX (Rezone No. REZ 2025-07)

3. Planning Commission Resolution 2026-XX

4. Aerial Location Map

5. Existing and Proposed Land Use Designation and Zoning Maps 372 of 912
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2026-XX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 2025-07 RE-DESIGNATING A PROPERTY

LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF WINTON PARKWAY, NORTH OF PEACH AVENUE (APN 022-050-009) FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 5, Chapter 6, Section 2(B)(4) of the Livingston Municipal Code (LMC), the City Planner, by the authority of the City Manager, has initiated General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-07 for a property within the City of Livingston located on the west side of Winton Parkway, north of Peach Avenue (APN 022-050-009), consisting of approximately 16.8 acres (the "Subject Property"); and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-07 would amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to re-designate the Subject Property from Low Density Residential (LD) to High Density Residential (HD), and is proposed to implement the City's 2024-2032 (6th Cycle) Housing Element by enabling the Subject Property to accommodate a portion of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 1,097 units; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-07 is being processed concurrently with Rezone No. REZ 2025-07, which amends the Official Zoning Map to rezone the Subject Property from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (High Density Residential) and which is adopted by separate ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed general plan amendment at a duly noticed public hearing on August 11, 2026, and fully considered all comments, whether oral or written, regarding the proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in a vote of 3-1, adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the general plan amendment, subject to the findings contained in the Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 18, 2026, regarding the proposed general plan amendment, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, LMC Section 5-6-2(A) provides that City zoning regulations shall be consistent with the General Plan in accordance with California Government Code Section 65860, and the City Council finds that General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-07 is consistent with the Livingston General Plan, including General Plan Land Use Policy 3.2(A), "Designate and allow for the development of a wide range of residential housing types in the City including housing for middle and upper income families to meet the needs of all Livingston residents"; and WHEREAS, the City of Livingston, as the lead agency, has prepared an Addendum to the 2000 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to analyze potential changes in environmental effects associated with General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-07 and Rezone No. REZ 2025-07, and comparing the potential environmental impacts to the environmental impacts analyzed in the 2000 General Plan EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum concludes that there are no substantial changes that will require major revisions to the 2000 General Plan EIR due to the involvement of significant new 373 of 912
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, in accordance with Senate Bill 18, formal consultation requests were distributed to Native American Tribes on August 12, 2025, for a 90-day period ending on November 10, 2025, and the City did not receive any formal requests for consultation; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was advertised in the Merced Sun Star, a newspaper of general circulation, on July 29, 2026. In addition, the Public Notice was emailed to the City's Public Hearing subscribers and interested parties on July 29, 2026, and posted at Livingston City Hall and on the City's website, locations accessible to the public; and WHEREAS, the City Council has exercised its own independent judgment in considering the information contained in this Resolution and its attachments, the staff report and attachments and other exhibits, and the written and oral testimony presented during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Livingston hereby finds and resolves as follows:

Section 1. The City Council finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 3. The City Council finds that General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-07 maintains the internal consistency of the General Plan pursuant to California Government Code Section 65300.5 and is consistent with the goals and policies of the Livingston General Plan.

Section 4. The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-07, amending the General Plan Land Use Diagram to re-designate the Subject Property, identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 022-050-009 and consisting of approximately 16.8 acres located on the west side of Winton Parkway, north of Peach Avenue, from Low Density Residential (LD) to High Density Residential (HD), as depicted on the existing and proposed land use maps attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 5. The re-designation approved by this Resolution shall become effective concurrently with the effective date of the ordinance approving Rezone No. REZ 2025-07, so that the General Plan Land Use Diagram and the Official Zoning Map are amended consistently.

AYES:
374 of 912
NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

By: ___________________________
Jose A. Moran, Mayor
of City of Livingston
ATTEST
_____________________________
Monica Cisneros, Deputy City Clerk
of the City of Livingston

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
________________________
City Attorney or Assistant City Attorney
of City of Livingston
375 of 912

Page 1 of 4 ends

ORDINANCE NO. XXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON OF A 16.8-ACRE PARCEL OF

PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF WINTON PARKWAY, NORTH OF PEACH AVENUE (APN 022-050-009) FROM R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3 (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) (REZONE NO. REZ 2025-07)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 5, Chapter 6, Section 2(B)(4) of the Livingston Municipal Code (LMC), the City Planner, by the authority of the City Manager, has initiated General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-07 and Rezone No. REZ 2025-07 for a property within the City of Livingston located on the west side of Winton Parkway, north of Peach Avenue (APN 022-050- 009), consisting of approximately 16.8 acres (the "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is currently designated Low Density Residential (LD) on the General Plan Land Use Diagram and zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential), and the City proposes to re-designate the Subject Property to High Density Residential (HD) and to rezone it to R-3 (High Density Residential); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is identified in the City's 2024-2032 (6th Cycle) Housing Element as a site to accommodate a portion of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 1,097 units, and the rezone to R-3 would enable the Subject Property to accommodate up to 365 additional dwelling units across a range of income levels; and WHEREAS, Rezone No. REZ 2025-07 is adopted concurrently with, and to implement, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-07, which re-designates the Subject Property to High Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed general plan amendment and rezone on August 11, 2026, in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65090, 65091, and 65854, and fully considered all comments, whether oral or written, regarding the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, following its hearing and in accordance with California Government Code Section 65855, the Planning Commission, in a vote of 3-1, adopted a Resolution setting forth its written recommendation that the City Council approve the rezone, together with the reasons for the recommendation and the relationship of the proposed amendment to the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed rezone on August 18, 2026, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65856, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, LMC Section 5-6-2(A) provides that City zoning regulations shall be consistent with the General Plan in accordance with California Government Code Section 65860, and the City Council finds that the rezone of the Subject Property to R-3 is consistent with the Livingston General Plan, as amended by GPA 2025-07, including General Plan Land Use Policy 3.2(A), "Designate and allow for the development of a wide range of residential housing types in the City including housing for middle and upper income families to meet the needs of all Livingston residents"; and
376 of 912

Page 2 of 4 ends

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston, as the lead agency, has prepared an Addendum to the 2000 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to analyze potential changes in environmental effects associated with Rezone No. REZ 2025-07, and comparing the potential environmental impacts to the environmental impacts analyzed in the 2000 General Plan EIR; and WHEREAS, the Addendum concludes that there are no substantial changes that will require major revisions to the 2000 General Plan EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, in accordance with Senate Bill 18, formal consultation requests were distributed to Native American Tribes on August 12, 2025, for a 90-day period ending on November 10, 2025, and the City did not receive any formal requests for consultation; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Merced Sun Star, a newspaper of general circulation, on July 29, 2026, not less than 20 days before the hearing as required by California Government Code Section 65854, mailed to the owners of property located within 300 feet of the Subject Property and to the applicant, and posted at Livingston City Hall and on the City's website, locations accessible to the public; and WHEREAS, the City Council has exercised its own independent judgment in considering the information contained in this Ordinance and its attachments, the staff report and attachments and other exhibits, and the written and oral testimony presented during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference as findings of the City Council.

Section 3. Amendment of the Official Zoning Map. The Official Zoning Map of the City of Livingston is hereby amended to reclassify the Subject Property, identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 022-050-009 and consisting of approximately 16.8 acres located on the west side of Winton Parkway, north of Peach Avenue, from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (High Density Residential), as depicted on the existing and proposed zoning maps attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 4. General Plan Consistency. The City Council finds that the R-3 (High Density Residential) zoning classification established by this Ordinance is consistent with the Livingston General Plan, as amended by General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2025-07, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65860 and LMC Section 5-6-2(A). 377 of 912

Page 3 of 4 ends

Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36937.

Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance will become effective 30 days after adoption.

Introduced:

Passed and Adopted:

_____________________________
JOSE MORAN, Mayor
of the City of Livingston

ATTEST:

State of California )
County of Merced )
City of Livingston )

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

______________________________________
Monica Cisneros, Deputy City Clerk
of the City of Livingston

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM

___________________________________
City Attorney or Assistant City Attorney
Of City of Livingston
378 of 912

Page 4 of 4 ends

379 of 912
ATTACHMENT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2026-13

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

LIVINGSTON RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL

APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE TO A
PROPERTY LOCATED ON PEACH AVENUE (APN: 022-050-009)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 5, Chapter 6, Section 2 (B) 4 of the Livingston Municipal Code (LMC), the City Planner, by the Authority of the City Manager, has prepared a general plan amendment and rezone to a property within the City of Livingston; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, has reviewed the proposed general plan amendment and rezone at a duly noticed public hearing on August 11, 2026, and has fully considered all comments whether orally or in writing regarding the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, LMC Section 5-6-2 (A) states that City zoning regulations shall be consistent with the General Plan in accordance with California Government Code, Section 65860 and the Planning Commission determines that the proposed general plan amendments and rezones are consistent with the 1999 Livingston General Plan Objective A, “Designate and allow for the development of a wide range of residential housing types in the City including housing for middle and upper income families to meet the needs of all Livingston residents”; and
WHEREAS, the City of Livingston, as the lead agency, has prepared an Addendum to the 2000 General Plan EIR to analyze potential changes in environmental effects associated with the Housing Element 2024-2032 and compares the potential environmental impacts to the environmental impacts analyzed in the 2000 General Plan EIR; and WHEREAS, the addendum concludes that there are no substantial changes that will require major revisions to General Plan EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Livingston Planning Commission hereby adopts Resolution 2026-13, recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram and Zoning Map.

The foregoing resolution was introduced and moved for adoption on August 11, 2026, by Vice-Chair Jose Flores, and being duly seconded by Commissioner Jatinder Mann, was passed by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioner Jatinder Mann, Alternate Commissioner Mohinder Kanda and Vice-Chair Jose Flores
NOES: Commissioner Steve Bassi
ABSENT: Commissioner Jasneil Singh and *Chair Renee Mendonca ABSTAIN: None
380 of 912
*Note- Chair Renee Mendonca resigned as of August 11, 2026 via email.

ATTEST:
__________________________ ________________________________ Jose Flores, Miguel Galvez,
Vice Chair Secretary of the Planning Commission

381 of 912
382 of 912
383 of 912
384 of 912
385 of 912
386 of 912

Page 1 of 10 ends

STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing – General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 2024-02 - City of Livingston Sixth Cycle (2024-2032) Housing Element Update.

MEETING DATE: August 18, 2026
PREPARED BY: Jailah Smith, Contract City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Miguel Galvez, Contract City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Jose Ramirez, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution finding that the Addendum to the 2000 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164; Approve General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2024-02, replacing the City’s existing Housing Element with the final 2024-2032 (6th Cycle) Multi-jurisdictional Housing Element, including any revisions made in response to HCD comments; and direct staff to submit the adopted Housing Element and supporting documentation to the California Housing and Community Development Department in accordance with Government Code Section 65585..

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:

CA Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 10.6 [65580 – 65589.11] regulates the use and requirements of housing elements in California. State law mandates that each city and county update their Housing Element every eight (8) years, with specific deadlines being established by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Housing Element is one (1) of eight (8) mandatory elements. The Housing Element evaluates the effectiveness of previous housing goals and programs and assesses the City's existing and future housing needs. It also identifies suitable sites for housing development and sets forth goals and programs to address these housing needs.

During the current sixth-cycle update, the City of Livingston joined Merced County and cities within the County to develop the Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (MJHE) for the sixth-cycle housing element update. The sixth cycle Housing Element covers the period of January 31, 2024, to January 31, 2032. Preparation of the MJHE was contracted with Rincon Consultants by the Merced County Association of Governments.

The proposed Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element demonstrates how the City will accommodate the 2024-2032 (6th Cycle) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) adopted by the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG).

The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) assigns a regional housing needs determination number to the Council of Governments (COG). In this case, MCAG received 387 of 912

Page 2 of 10 ends

the regional number from HCD and allocated a portion to each jurisdiction within the region based on an adopted methodology. For the Sixth Cycle, the City of Livingston was assigned a RHNA number of 1,097 total housing units, as shown in the table below.

HCD REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATION
2024-2032

NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY

HOUSEHOLD INCOME CATEGORIES
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total Housing
Units
311 213 169 404 1,097
The primary goal of the Housing Element is to identify capacity to meet the RHNA goal of 1,097 housing units and develop strategies to facilitate the development of these units during the eightyear cycle. The City’s ability to meet the housing allocation is further described below.

The Merced MJHE update is a comprehensive assessment of current and future housing needs for all residents of the cities of Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, Livingston, Los Banos, Merced, and Merced County, as well as identifying goals, policies, and programs for meeting those needs. The MJHE evaluated housing needs and issues on a regional basis, while developing an individual housing element for each local jurisdiction. Each city will identify and incorporate housing goals, policies, and programs for its own community. Livingston’s proposed Housing Element is incorporated as Appendix E of the Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element. A copy the Housing Element can be found at: https://www.cityoflivingston.org/commdev/page/citylivingston-housing-element-update.

ANALYSIS:

General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2024-02 proposes to amend the City’s General Plan by replacing the existing 2016-2024 (5th Cycle) Housing Element with the Final 2024-2032 (6th Cycle) Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element, including Appendix E applicable to the City. The Housing Element is a mandatory element of the General Plan and serves as the City’s comprehensive policy document addressing existing and projected housing needs.

The City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update has been prepared in accordance with Section 65800 of the State Government Code, and is organized into seven (7) Chapters:

Chapter E1: Review of Past Accomplishments. An evaluation of the City’s 5th Cycle Housing Element, including an analysis of the City’s progress toward achieving its 5th Cycle RHNA objectives and an assessment of the City’s progress toward implementing the programs from the previous Housing Element.

Chapter E2: Public Participation. Documentation of the City’s outreach efforts for the Housing Element Update.

Chapter E3: Housing Needs Assessment. An analysis of demographic and socio-economic conditions, housing conditions, market trends, and other factors to evaluate current and future housing needs in Livingston, including housing needs among lower-income households and populations with special housing needs.

Chapter E4: Housing Constraints Analysis. The constraints analysis addresses governmental constraints to housing development such as zoning, development fees, development standards, 388 of 912

Page 3 of 10 ends

and development review process, as well as non-governmental constraints, such as high land and construction costs, and availability of financing.

Chapter E5: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). AFFH is defined as "taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics." The Housing Element further identifies contributing factors for housing issues and defines the meaningful actions to overcome and address these issues. These meaningful actions have been incorporated into the Housing Plan.

Chapter E6: Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis. The methodology and results of the Site Inventory Analysis conducted to demonstrate the City’s ability to meet its share of the RHNA allocation.

Chapter E7: Housing Plan. A series of goals, policies, and programs to address the City’s housing needs as well as quantified objectives for housing development and preservation during the planning period.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation
As part of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, the City is required to identify available sites to accommodate its RHNA, as determined by HCD and MCAG. In the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan for Merced County, MCAG assigned the City its RHNA for the planning period from January 31, 2024, to January 31, 2032. The Sites Inventory identified approximately 4.59 net acres of land within the City’s existing City Limits that can presently accommodate residential development on unentitled land.

The City has identified six (6) sites for rezoning to higher density residential to accommodate housing units affordable to lower income households. These sites will accommodate 1,021 units.

In total, the inventory of land resulted in the City’s ability to accommodate the development of -1,101 residential units, varying from single-family residential development to multifamily residential development (e.g., apartments, townhouses, etc.). As such, the City has the ability to accommodate the RHNA.

In total, the Sites Inventory has identified sites to accommodate the development of 1,753 housing units, which is sufficient to meet the City’s RHNA and accommodate a buffer of units in the event development does not occur at the assumed densities by the end of the planning period, as shown in the following table.
389 of 912

Page 4 of 10 ends

ADEQUACY OF RESIDENTIAL SITE INVENTORY
Lower-Income
Units
ModerateIncome Units
Above
ModerateIncome Units Total Units
City’s Share of the RHNA 524 169 404 1,097
Planned and Approved
Projects
160 0 485 645
Anticipated ADUs 0 0 8 8
Remaining Share of RHNA 364 169 0 533
Opportunity Sites (North
Livingston)
0 0 3 3
Opportunity Sites (Central
Livingston)
40 35 2 77
Rezone Sites 376 322 323 1,021
Total Units on Sites 416 357 328 1,101
Unit Surplus 52 188 328 568
Percent Buffer over RHNA 10% 111% 81% 52%
Source: Livingston 2024-2032 Housing Element
6th Cycle Housing Goals and Policies
The Housing Element contains new and revised programs to reflect community needs and consistency with State law:

Goal 1: Regional Collaboration. Work collaboratively with jurisdictions in the County to efficiently address housing issues and find regional solutions.

Goal 2: Housing Development. Provide an adequate supply and range of housing types to meet the diverse needs of residents.

Goal 3: Affordable Housing Options. Facilitate the development of affordable housing and protect the existing supply of affordable housing to extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households.

Goal 4: Housing and Neighborhood Preservation. Maintain and improve the City’s existing housing stock.

Goal 5: Housing for Persons with Special Needs. Support and provide housing and services for people with special needs in the community. People with special needs include, but are not limited to, seniors, families with children, people with disabilities, single-parent families, farmworkers, and people who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless.

Goal 6: Resource Conservation and Sustainable Development. Utilize energy conservation and sustainable measures for new and rehabilitated housing.

Goal 7: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Promote housing opportunities and 390 of 912

Page 5 of 10 ends

access for residents regardless of age, race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, disability, or economic level in compliance with local, State, and federal fair housing laws.

Update Highlights
A. Review of past accomplishments

1. No housing units for special needs populations were developed between 2016 and 2024.

2. The City’s housing rehabilitation program was discontinued due to a lack of HUD funding.

3. The City’s down payment assistance program was discontinued due to market constraints limiting the ability for low-income households to qualify for mortgage loans.

4. The City entitled two apartment projects: 1) an 80-unit Tierrasanta Villas Apartments and the 480-unit apartment – the Villages on Main Street apartment project.

5. The City amended its zoning ordinance to allow development of accessory dwelling units.

6. Three Hundred and seventy-four (374) dwelling units were developed.

B. Housing Plan – Implementation Programs

1. Program 1: Regional Collaboration. Collaborate with other jurisdictions in the region on housing efforts, including funding opportunities, best practices, and other efforts to address housing, transit, economic development, and homeless issues in Merced County.

2. Program 2: Adequate Sites for RHNA and Monitoring of No Net Loss. The City is committed to ensuring that adequate sites at appropriate densities remain available during the planning period, as required by law. See Attachment D, a map of the City of Livingston vacant sites inventory.

3. Program 3: By-Right Approval. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2, reusing sites in the City’s past site inventory for lower-income RHNA are subject to byright approval, exempt from CEQA and subject only to design review based on objective standards when a project includes 20 percent of the units affordable to lower-income households and no subdivision is proposed.

4. Program 4: Replacement Housing. Development on sites with existing residential units is subject to replacement requirements, pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 1397.

Specifically, AB 1397 requires sites contained a residential use within the last five years may need replacement of units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on a non-vacant site consistent with those requirements set forth in the State’s Density Bonus Law.

5. Program 5: Accessory Dwelling Units. Consistent with Government Code, Section 65583 and Health & Safety Code, Section 50504.5, the City will continue to encourage the production of ADUs and work to provide affordable units for lower income households.

6. Program 6: Zoning Ordinance Amendments. In order to facilitate a variety of housing 391 of 912

Page 6 of 10 ends

types, especially housing for lower income households and those with special needs, the City will remove constraints to housing development by amending the Zoning Ordinance.

7. Program 7: General Plan Amendments. Update the General Plan to facilitate multifamily residential uses in commercial zones for the encouragement of mixed-use development and include discussion on ADUs to ensure compliance with State law.

8. Program 8: Facilitating Affordable Housing Development. The City is committed to expanding affordable housing options for households of all income levels using development tools such as density bonus provisions, and streamlining the application process. The City will contact local non-profit and private developers to facilitate the production of affordable housing as well as pursue funding opportunities available at the local, regional, state, and federal levels.

9. Program 9: Preservation of At-Risk Housing. The City has 181 housing units that are deed restricted as affordable housing for lower-income households. No units are considered at risk of conversion during this Housing Element planning period.

Nevertheless, the City will work to preserve these units and will proactively monitor all other units to encourage continued affordability beyond existing covenants and work proactively with owners of affordable units to assist in rehabilitation needs.

10. Program 10: Housing Preservation and Rehabilitation. The City will conduct a housing conditions survey, identify where housing rehabilitation needs are heightened, and annually advertise available housing rehabilitation programs.

11. Program 11: Lower-Income and Special Needs Housing. To assist in the development of housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low- and low-income households, the Housing Authority of the County of Merced (HACM) offers the following programs: Housing Choice Vouchers, Public Housing, Project-Based Voucher Program, Migrant Housing Centers.

12. Program 12: Community and Economic Development. Well-maintained infrastructure creates a safe and accessible urban environment, fostering a sense of community and belonging. Moreover, investing in such improvements attracts businesses and investments, contributing to economic growth, and ensuring equal access to essential services. The City will implement the following actions to expand community and economic development citywide.

13. Program 13: Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement. The City of Livingston works with the HACM to provide fair housing information and resources to residents and housing providers. HACM contracts with Central California Legal Services (CCLS) to provide services including the distribution of educational materials to property owners, apartment managers, and tenants, and responding to complaints of discrimination (i.e., in-taking, investigation of complaints, and resolution) by referring the affected party to the appropriate agencies.

14. Program 14: Water and Sewer Service. The City of Livingston is the provider of water and sewer services within city limits. Currently, the City does not have adequate water infrastructure to fully accommodate the RHNA. The City is in the process of renovating and adding water wells to serve future growth.
392 of 912

Page 7 of 10 ends

15. Added Policy 3.3 to Establish permit processing procedures that promote streamlining of affordable housing development projects (Senate Bill (SB) 35 and Assembly Bill (AB) 2011).

16. Identified actions to affirmatively further fair housing including:
 Enhancing housing mobility strategies
 Encouraging development of new affordable housing in high resource areas  Increasing fair housing enforcement and fair housing outreach capacity  Improving place-based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing  Protecting existing residents from displacement
See the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Action Matrix on pages E7-24 through E7-30 for additional information.

Public Participation and HCD Review
The City hosted a community workshop on August 29, 2023, on the Housing Element, which consisted of a PowerPoint presentation on housing sites, a questionnaire about the proposed sites, a Question & Answer session with a public discussion period.

A community survey was made available from March 27 through December 22, 2023, and consisted of 16 questions and used different formats for questions: checkbox, ranking, and openended questions. A total of 172 people responded to the survey, with three respondents either living, working, attending school, or owning a business or property in Livingston.

A series of stakeholder interviews with service providers, residents, and housing developers were held between August 8, 2023, and August 23, 2023, as part of greater regional public participation efforts. Various housing groups and providers that service the needs of Livingston residents were in attendance, including Project Sentinel, Faith in the Valley, United Way of Merced County, and Merced County Workforce Investment. A virtual joint stakeholder interview with the cities of Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, and Los Banos was held on December 18, 2024, to discuss housing needs for low-income households and those with special needs, and fair housing issues.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65585, the draft Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element was made available for public comment for 30-days, from May 13, 2024, to June 12, 2024. No comments were received at this time. The draft Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element was submitted to HCD on July 2, 2024, for a 90-day review period. HCD issued a findings letter on September 30, 2024, identifying revisions to draft Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element that are necessary for HCD to find the element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element law.

The draft Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element with Appendix E was revised and resubmitted to HCD for a 60-day subsequent review on March 14, 2025, following a 7-day public review period from February 24, 2025, to March 3, 2025. No comments were received at this time. HCD issued a second findings letter on May 8, 2025, identifying additional revisions to the Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element with Appendix E that are necessary to find the element in substantial conformance with State Housing Element Law.

The draft Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element with Appendix E was revised and resubmitted to HCD for a 60-day subsequent review on October 13, 2025, following a 7-day public review period 393 of 912

Page 8 of 10 ends

from October 3, 2025, to October 10, 2025. No comments were received during the public review period. Upon receiving preliminary comments from HCD on November 12, 2025, the Housing Element was revised and resubmitted to HCD following a fourth public comment period from December 1, 2025, to December 8, 2025. No comments were received during the public review period.

On December 10, 2025, HCD issued a letter finding the Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element with Appendix E in substantial conformance with State Housing Element Law.

On January 13, 2026, staff presented the 6th Cycle Housing Element to the Planning Commission for recommendation of adoption to the City Council.

At this meeting, several of the Planning Commission members expressed a potential conflict of interest with a few of the sites identified in the Housing Element housing site inventories and with the proposed General Plan and Rezoning agenda item. As the housing sites were addressed under one agenda item, the Planning Commission would not be able to consider each proposed General Plan Amendment and rezoning proposal individually. As a result, the Planning Commission continued consideration of both the Housing Element update and the proposed General Plan and Rezoning of housing sites to the next Regular meeting of February 10, 2026.

Additionally, a petition opposing the re-designation of 480 F Street was submitted and provided to the Planning Commission. Correspondence from a representative of Foster Farms expressed concern with the re-designation of property at 1230-1236 Olive Avenue. There was no opposition to these proposed re-designated housing sites voiced during the advertised public workshops, the advertised housing element public review periods, and the advertised recent revisions in response to HCD comments.

Upon direction from the City Council at the March 3, 2026, City Council meeting, Staff removed these two sites from the Site Inventory. Due to these two properties being removed, the City was short forty to fifty-eight multi-family dwelling units that meet the lower income capacity category.

The Housing Element estimated a surplus of twenty-eight multi-family units in the lower income category from other smaller opportunity sites. Staff worked with Rincon to revise the sites inventory after making contact with additional property owners. Through these communications, Staff was able to identify two additional sites totaling 20 acres to meet this shortfall in the lowerincome category. This revision to the sites inventory was subject to additional public and HCD review and approval.

The draft Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element with Appendix E was revised and resubmitted to HCD for a 60-day subsequent review on June 18, 2026, following a 7-day public review period from June 10, 2026, to June 17, 2026. No comments were received during the public review period. Upon receiving preliminary comments from HCD on June 29, 2026, the Housing Element was revised and resubmitted to HCD on July 8, 2026.

On July 21, 2026, HCD issued a letter determining that the City's revised Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element substantially complies with State Housing Element Law. The proposed Housing Element presented for adoption incorporates the revisions required through the HCD review process. Following local adoption by the City Council, the adopted Housing Element will be transmitted to HCD in accordance with Government Code Section 65585. 394 of 912

Page 9 of 10 ends

ISSUES:

Staff did not identify any issues with the proposed Housing Element Update.

GENERAL PLAN:

Pursuant to Government Code Sections 65300.5 and 65358, General Plan amendments must maintain internal consistency among all elements of the General Plan. Staff has reviewed the proposed Housing Element and finds that the goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives contained therein are compatible with and do not conflict with the remaining elements of the General Plan.

The proposed Housing Element update primarily establishes policies, implementation programs, and housing site inventories necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law and accommodate the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Staff finds that adoption of the Housing Element will maintain the internal consistency of the General Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City must evaluate the environmental impacts of any project that is proposed within City limits. An Addendum to the 2000 General Plan EIR was prepared to analyze potential changes in environmental effects associated with the Housing Element 2024-2032, and compares the potential environmental impacts to the environmental impacts analyzed in the 2000 General Plan EIR. The Addendum is available at:
https://www.cityoflivingston.org/commdev/page/city-livingston-housing-element-update. A printed copy of the addendum is attached as Attachment 8.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 authorizes preparation of an Addendum to a previously certified EIR when only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR are present.

Based upon the analysis contained in the Addendum, staff finds that:
• No substantial changes are proposed that require major revisions to the certified General Plan EIR;
• No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken;
• No new information of substantial importance has become available that would require major revisions to the certified EIR.

Accordingly, preparation of an Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 is the appropriate level of environmental review for the proposed Housing Element Update and related General Plan Amendment.
395 of 912

Page 10 of 10 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on August 11, 2026, to consider this General Plan Amendment. Staff attended the meeting to present the staff-initiated proposal and answer questions from the Commission. At the conclusion of the public comments, the Commission on a vote of 4-0, approved Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-14, recommending approval of this General Plan Amendment to the City Council, subject to findings contained in the Resolution.

PUBLIC NOTICE
A Public Hearing Notice announcing the proposed General Plan Amendment was published in the newspaper on July 29, 2026. Any public comments received will be provided to the City Council on the Hearing date.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff time and the consulting services of Rincon Consultants were used to prepare and process this General Plan Amendment.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-XX, finding that the Addendum to the 2000 General Plan EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA; determine that none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR are present; approve General Plan Amendment 2024-02 to replace the existing Housing Element with the Final 2024-2032 (6th Cycle) Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element, including City Appendix E and any revisions made in response to HCD comments; and direct staff, following City Council action, to submit the adopted Housing Element and supporting documentation to the California Housing and Community Development Department pursuant to Government Code Section 65585.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City Council Resolution No. 2026-XX

2. Planning Commission Resolution 2026-14
Exhibit A, web link to viewing the proposed Housing Element Update

3. Final Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element Update

4. Final Appendix E: City of Livingston 2024-2032 Merced County Housing Element Update

5. Maps of the City of Livingston vacant sites inventory

6. Affidavit of Posting - Public Hearing Notice of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update

7. Letter from Paul McDougal, Senior Program Manager of California Department of Housing and Community Development, dated July 21, 2026.

8. Addendum to the 2000 General Plan EIR
396 of 912

Page 1 of 4 ends

RESOLUTION 2026-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2024-02 REPLACING THE EXISTING HOUSING ELEMENT WITH THE FINAL 2024-2032 (6TH CYCLE) MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT,

INCLUDING REVISIONS MADE IN RESPONSE TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO

SUBMIT THE ADOPTED HOUSING ELEMENT TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HOUSING

AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, Sections 65580 through 65589.8 of the California Government Code require each jurisdiction to regularly update its Housing Element in accordance with deadlines established by the State; and
WHEREAS, the City held a Public Workshop on August 29, 2023, to introduce the 6th Cycle MultiJurisdictional Housing Element update effort, to provide the community and interested agencies with an opportunity to identify priorities and concerns related to the provision of housing; and WHEREAS, the City made the draft Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element available for a 30-day public review from May 13, 2024, to June 12, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the Draft 6th Cycle Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element was submitted to California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on July 2, 2024, for a 90-day Statemandated review; and WHEREAS, HCD identified revision to the Draft 6th Cycle Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element that were necessary to comply with state law in a written letter dated September 30, 2024; and WHEREAS, staff revised the Draft 6th Cycle Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element to address HCD’s findings and resubmitted to HCD for a subsequent 60-day review on March 14, 2025, following a 7-day public review period from February 24, 2025, to March 3, 2025; and WHEREAS, HCD identified additional revisions to the Draft 6th Cycle Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element that were necessary to comply with state law in a written letter dated May 8, 2025; and WHEREAS, staff revised the Draft 6th Cycle Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element to address HCD’s findings and resubmitted to HCD for a 60-day review on October 13, 2025, following a 7- day public review period from October 3, 2025, to October 10, 2025; and WHEREAS, HCD found the Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element in substantial conformance with State Housing Element Law in a written letter dated December 10, 2025, received on December 19, 2025; and
WHEREAS, On January 13, 2026, staff presented the 6th Cycle Housing Element to the Planning Commission for recommendation of adoption to the City Council. At which several of the Planning Commission members expressed a potential conflict of interest with a few of the sites identified 397 of 912

Page 2 of 4 ends

in the Housing Element housing site inventories and with the proposed General Plan and Rezoning agenda item; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued consideration of both the Housing Element update and the proposed General Plan and Rezoning of housing sites to the next Regular meeting of February 10, 2026; and
WHEREAS, at the February 10, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting, community opposition was voiced concerning two of the proposed housing sites; and WHEREAS, on March 3, 2026, the City Council directed staff to remove two sites from the proposed rezone list and find alternative sites as a part of the housing element implementation; and
WHEREAS, staff revised the Draft 6th Cycle Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element to add alternative sites to the sites inventory and resubmitted to HCD for a 60-day review on June 18, 2026, following a 7-day public review period from June 10, 2026, to June 17, 2026; and WHEREAS, HCD found the Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element in substantial conformance with State Housing Element Law in a written letter dated July 21, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City of Livingston, as the lead agency, has prepared an Addendum to the 2000 General Plan EIR to analyze potential changes in environmental effects associated with the Housing Element 2024-2032 and compares the potential environmental impacts to the environmental impacts analyzed in the 2000 General Plan EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 11, 2026, regarding the Housing Element Update, including the changes requested by HCD by their July 21, 2026 letter, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in a vote of 4-0, approved a Resolution recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment to the City Council, subject to findings contained in the Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 18, 2026, regarding the Housing Element Update, including the changes requested by HCD by their July 21, 2026 letter, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered all evidence submitted in connection with the Housing Element Update, including the staff report, public testimony, and all other documents and evidence that are part of the City administrative record for these actions; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the goals, policies, and programs, and objectives contained in the Draft 6th Cycle Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element, considered individually and cumulatively, do not adversely affect the internal consistency of the City of Livingston General Plan; and
398 of 912

Page 3 of 4 ends

WHEREAS, in accordance with Senate Bill 18, formal consultation requests were distributed to Native American Tribes on August 12, 2025, for a 90-day period ending on November 10, 2025, and the City did not receive any formal requests for consultation; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was advertised in the Merced Sun Star, a newspaper of general circulation on July 29, 2026. In addition, the Public Notice was emailed to City’s Public Hearing subscribers and interested parties on July 29, 2026, and posted at Livingston City Hall and on the City’s website, locations accessible to the public; and WHEREAS, the City Council has utilized its own independent judgement in considering the information contained in this resolution and attachments, in the staff report and attachments and other exhibits, and in writing and oral testimony during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Livingston hereby finds:

Section 1. Finds that the Addendum to the 2000 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164; finds, on the basis of the whole record before it, that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR are present; and hereby adopts the Addendum to the 2000 General Plan EIR.

Section 2. Finds that the proposed Housing Element maintains internal consistency of the General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65300.5.

Section 3. Adopts Resolution 2026-XX, approving General Plan Amendment 2024- 02 replacing the existing Housing Element with the Final 2024-2032 (6th Cycle) Multi-jurisdictional Housing Element, including any revisions made in response to HCD comments.

Section 4. Directs staff, following City Council action, to submit the adopted Housing Element and supporting materials to the California Housing and Community Development Department pursuant to Government Code Section 65585, as provided for in attached Exhibit A.

Page 4 of 4 ends

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

By: ___________________________
Jose A. Moran, Mayor
of City of Livingston
ATTEST
_____________________________
Monica Cisneros, Deputy City Clerk
of the City of Livingston

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
________________________
City Attorney or Assistant City Attorney
of City of Livingston
400 of 912
PC Resolution 2026-14, Exhibit A:
web link to viewing the proposed Housing Element Update ____________________________________________________________________________________________ https://www.cityoflivingston.org/commdev/page/city-livingston-housing-element-update City Of Livingston Housing Element Update
News Release Date:06-10-2026 f:ffli@te

HOUSING ELEMENT
City of Livingston is panicipating in the Merced County Multi·Jurisdictional Housing Element Update, a joint effon between the County of Merced, and the cities of Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, Livingston, Los Banos, and Merced to coordinate their Housing Element updates. The Merced County Association of Governments is helping to coordinate the effon.

The Revised Draft Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element is now available for public review· • Visit the City of Livingston website: cityofl ivingston.org • Or visit the project website for documents and additional information: Merced MJHE Project Website The Housing Element, a required component of the General Plan, presents a strategy for meeting the community's housing needs. b!!gs:// mercedmjhe.com/w~ontent(ugloads(2026/06/LivingstonE4-Housing-Constraints-Analysis.p....Qf addresses:

Housing constraints
Available land and resources
Housing needs across income levels
Fair housing requirements
Goals, policies, and programs to guide future housing development The City of Livingston's Draft Housing Element
To access the document directly, visit the Project Resources Page, City of Livingston {Appendix E). Each updated chapter is available under the June 2026 Public Review Draft. • Livingston 2024-2032 Housing Element (Combined)
Web Links
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element Sign Up for Updates Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element Community Workshop 8-29-23 DRAFT--City of Livingston 2024-2032 Housing Element Update-General Plan EIR Addendum To view the draft, click on the PDF below.
f1::ii DRAFT-City of Livingston 2024-2032 Housing Element Update-General Plan EIR Addendum lPciF 1.61 MB
401 of 912

Page 1 of 3 ends

ATTACHMENT A
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2026-14

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

LIVINGSTON RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2024-02 REPLACING THE EXISTING
HOUSING ELEMENT WITH THE FINAL 2024-2032 (6TH CYCLE) MULTIJURISDICTIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT, INCLUDING REVISIONS MADE IN

RESPONSE TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO

SUBMIT THE ADOPTED HOUSING ELEMENT TO THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, Sections 65580 through 65589.8 of the California Government Code require each jurisdiction to regularly update its Housing Element in accordance with deadlines established by the State; and
WHEREAS, the City held a Public Workshop on August 29, 2023, to introduce the 6th Cycle Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element update effort, to provide the community and interested agencies with an opportunity to identify priorities and concerns related to the provision of housing; and
WHEREAS, the City made the draft Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element available for a 30-day public review from May 13, 2024, to June 12, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Draft 6th Cycle Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element was submitted to California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on July 2, 2024, for a 90-day State-mandated review; and
WHEREAS, HCD identified revision to the Draft 6th Cycle Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element that were necessary to comply with state law in a written letter dated September 30, 2024; and
WHEREAS, staff revised the Draft 6th Cycle Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element to address HCD’s findings and resubmitted to HCD for a subsequent 60-day review on March 14, 2025, following a 7-day public review period from February 24, 2025, to March 3, 2025; and
WHEREAS, HCD identified additional revisions to the Draft 6th Cycle Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element that were necessary to comply with state law in a written letter dated May 8, 2025; and
WHEREAS, staff revised the Draft 6th Cycle Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element to address HCD’s findings and resubmitted to HCD for a 60-day review on October 13, 2025, following a 7-day public review period from October 3, 2025, to October 10, 2025; and WHEREAS, HCD found the Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element in substantial conformance with State Housing Element Law in a written letter dated December 10, 2025, received on December 19, 2025; and
402 of 912

Page 2 of 3 ends

WHEREAS, On January 13, 2026, staff presented the 6th Cycle Housing Element to the Planning Commission for recommendation of adoption to the City Council. At which several of the Planning Commission members expressed a potential conflict of interest with a few of the sites identified in the Housing Element housing site inventories and with the proposed General Plan and Rezoning agenda item; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued consideration of both the Housing Element update and the proposed General Plan and Rezoning of housing sites to the next Regular meeting of February 10, 2026; and
WHEREAS, at the February 10, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting, community opposition was voiced concerning two of the proposed housing sites; and WHEREAS, on March 3, 2026, the City Council directed staff to remove two sites from the proposed rezone list and find alternative sites as a part of the housing element implementation; and
WHEREAS, staff revised the Draft 6th Cycle Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element to add alternative sites to the sites inventory and resubmitted to HCD for a 60-day review on June 18, 2026, following a 7-day public review period from June 10, 2026, to June 17, 2026; and WHEREAS, HCD found the Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element in substantial conformance with State Housing Element Law in a written letter dated July 21, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City of Livingston, as the lead agency, has prepared an Addendum to the 2000 General Plan EIR to analyze potential changes in environmental effects associated with the Housing Element 2024-2032 and compares the potential environmental impacts to the environmental impacts analyzed in the 2000 General Plan EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 11, 2026, regarding the Housing Element Update, including the changes requested by HCD by their July 21, 2026 letter, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered all evidence submitted in connection with the Housing Element Update, including the staff report, public testimony, and all other documents and evidence that are part of the City administrative record for these actions; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the goals, policies, and programs, and objectives contained in the Draft 6th Cycle Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element, considered individually and cumulatively, do not adversely affect the internal consistency of the City of Livingston General Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Senate Bill 18, formal consultation requests were distributed to Native American Tribes on August 12, 2025, for a 90-day period ending on November 10, 2025, and the City did not receive any formal requests for consultation; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was advertised in the Merced Sun Star, a newspaper of general circulation on July 22, 2026. In addition, the Public Notice was emailed to City’s Public Hearing subscribers and interested parties on July 21, 2026, and posted at Livingston City Hall and on the City’s website, locations accessible to the public; and 403 of 912

Page 3 of 3 ends

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has utilized its own independent judgement in considering the information contained in this resolution and attachments, in the staff report and attachments and other exhibits, and in writing and oral testimony during the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Livingston Planning Commission hereby:

1. Finds that the Addendum to the General Plan EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 and recommends that the City Council adopt the Addendum.

2. Finds that the proposed Housing Element maintains internal consistency of the General Plan pursuant to Government Code Section 65300.5.

3. Adopts Resolution 2026-XX, recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2024-02 replacing the existing Housing Element with the Final 2024-2032 (6th Cycle) Multi-jurisdictional Housing Element,, including any revisions made in response to HCD comments.

4. Directs staff, following City Council action, to submit the adopted Housing Element and supporting materials to the California Housing and Community Development Department pursuant to Government Code Section 65585, as provided for in attached Exhibit A.

The foregoing resolution was introduced and moved for adoption on August 11, 2026, by Commissioner Steve Bassi, and being duly seconded by Vice-Chair Jose Flores, was passed by the following vote:

AYES: Commissioner Jatinder Mann, Commissioner Steve Bassi, Vice-Chair Jose Flores and Alternate Commissioner Mohinder Kanda
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Jasneil Singh and *Chair Renee Mendonca ABSTAIN: None
*Note- Chair Renee Mendonca resigned on August 11, 2026, via email.

ATTEST:
_______________________________ _______________________________ Jose Flores, Miguel Galvez,
Vice Chair of the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission

Attachment:

Exhibit A – web link to proposed housing element update document 404 of 912
Appendix E: City of Livingston
2024-2032 Merced County
Multi-Jurisdictional Housing
Element Update
Draft | June 2026
405 of 912
Table of Contents
2024-2032 Housing Element i
Table of Contents
E1 Review of Past Accomplishments............................................................................................. E1-1 E1.1 Effectiveness in Addressing Special Needs................................................................... E1-1 E1.2 Review of Past Accomplishments................................................................................. E1-2 E2 Public Participation................................................................................................................... E2-1 E2.1 Community Workshops ................................................................................................ E2-1 E2.2 Survey............................................................................................................................ E2-2 E2.3 Stakeholder Interviews................................................................................................. E2-2 E2.4 Additional Outreach...................................................................................................... E2-3 E2.5 Response to Community Input ..................................................................................... E2-3 E2.6 Public Review ................................................................................................................ E2-5 E2.6.1 May 2024 Public Review............................................................................... E2-5 E2.6.2 February 2025 Public Review ....................................................................... E2-6 E2.6.3 October 2025 Public Review......................................................................... E2-6 E2.6.4 December 2025 Public Review ..................................................................... E2-6 E3 Housing Needs Assessment...................................................................................................... E3-1 E3.1 Population Characteristics............................................................................................ E3-1 E3.2 Population Growth........................................................................................................ E3-1 E3.3 Age Characteristics........................................................................................................ E3-1 E3.4 Race and Ethnicity......................................................................................................... E3-2 E3.5 Economic Characteristics.............................................................................................. E3-3 E3.6 Household Characteristics ............................................................................................ E3-8 E3.7 Large Households.......................................................................................................... E3-9 E3.8 Overcrowding................................................................................................................ E3-9 E3.9 Special Needs Groups ................................................................................................. E3-10 E3.10 Housing Stock Characteristics..................................................................................... E3-23 E3.11 Distribution of Owner-Occupied Units ....................................................................... E3-31 E3.12 Housing Rents............................................................................................................. E3-31 E3.13 Housing Affordability .................................................................................................. E3-33 E3.14 Assisted Housing Units................................................................................................ E3-37 E4 Housing Constraints Analysis.................................................................................................... E4-1 E4.1 Summary of Local Housing Constraints........................................................................ E4-1 E4.2 Non-Governmental Constraints.................................................................................... E4-1 E4.2.1 Land Costs..................................................................................................... E4-2 E4.2.2 Construction Costs........................................................................................ E4-3 E4.2.3 Availability of Financing................................................................................ E4-4 E4.2.4 Requests for Lower Development Densities ................................................ E4-6 406 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) ii
E4.3 Governmental Constraints............................................................................................ E4-6 E4.3.1 Land Use Controls......................................................................................... E4-6 E4.3.2 Residential Development Standards ............................................................ E4-9 E4.3.3 On- and Off-Site Improvement Standards.................................................. E4-12 E4.3.4 Provision of a Variety of Housing Types..................................................... E4-15 E4.3.5 Housing for Persons with Disabilities ......................................................... E4-25 E4.3.6 Planning and Development Fees................................................................ E4-28 E4.3.7 Permit Types............................................................................................... E4-30 E4.3.8 Permit Procedures and Processing Times .................................................. E4-33 E4.3.9 State Streamlining ...................................................................................... E4-35 E4.3.10 Transparency in the Development Process................................................ E4-36 E4.3.11 Short-Term Housing Rentals....................................................................... E4-36 E4.3.12 Code Enforcement...................................................................................... E4-36 E4.4 Environmental Constraints ......................................................................................... E4-38 E4.4.1 Flood ........................................................................................................... E4-38 E4.4.2 Seismic Zones.............................................................................................. E4-38 E4.4.3 Wildland/Urban Fire Hazards..................................................................... E4-39 E4.4.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................. E4-39 E4.4.5 Recommended Action ................................................................................ E4-39 E5 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)........................................................................... E5-1 E5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. E5-1 E5.2 Methodology................................................................................................................. E5-1 E5.3 Data Sources ................................................................................................................. E5-2 E5.4 Summary of AFFH Analysis Findings ............................................................................. E5-2 E5.5 Fair Housing Resources................................................................................................. E5-4 E5.6 Compliance with Fair Housing Laws.............................................................................. E5-4 E5.6.1 Fair Housing Laws......................................................................................... E5-4 E5.7 Ability to Address Complaints....................................................................................... E5-5 E5.8 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends........................................................ E5-5 E5.9 Household Income ...................................................................................................... E5-18 E5.10 Disparities in Access to Opportunities........................................................................ E5-24 E5.11 Disproportionate Housing Needs................................................................................ E5-35 E5.12 Local Area Knowledge................................................................................................. E5-44 E5.13 Subsidized Housing ..................................................................................................... E5-50 E5.14 Housing Site Inventory Analysis.................................................................................. E5-51 E5.15 Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions............................................................ E5-65 E5.16 Meaningful Actions to Address Fair Housing Issues................................................... E5-68 407 of 912
Table of Contents
2024-2032 Housing Element iii
E6 Housing Resources and Site Inventory Analysis....................................................................... E6-1 E6.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation .............................................................................. E6-1 E6.2 Meeting the RHNA ........................................................................................................ E6-2 E6.2.1 RHNA Credits ................................................................................................ E6-2 E6.3 Summary of RHNA Credits............................................................................................ E6-5 E6.4 Methodology................................................................................................................. E6-6 E6.4.1 Suitable Sites for Affordable Housing........................................................... E6-6 E6.5 Nonvacant Sites ............................................................................................................ E6-6 E6.5.1 Adequacy of Nonvacant Sites....................................................................... E6-6 E6.6 Development Trends..................................................................................................... E6-7 E6.6.1 Realistic Development Capacity ................................................................... E6-8 E6.6.2 Likelihood of 100 Percent Nonresidential Uses on Sites.............................. E6-9 E6.7 Large Sites for Affordable Units.................................................................................. E6-11 E6.7.1 Subdivision Process for Large Sites............................................................. E6-12 E6.8 Site Inventory.............................................................................................................. E6-12 E6.8.1 Rezone Sites................................................................................................ E6-21 E6.8.2 Sites Used in Previous Planning Periods..................................................... E6-23 E6.9 Adequacy of Residential Site Inventory in Meeting RHNA ......................................... E6-23 E6.10 Availability of Infrastructure and Services.................................................................. E6-24 E6.10.1 Wastewater System.................................................................................... E6-24 E6.10.2 Potable Water System................................................................................ E6-25 E6.10.3 Storm Water and Drainage......................................................................... E6-25 E6.10.4 Dry Utilities................................................................................................. E6-26 E6.11 Environmental Considerations.................................................................................... E6-26 E6.12 Opportunities for Energy Conservation...................................................................... E6-26 E7 Housing Plan ............................................................................................................................. E7-1 E7.1 Goals and Policies ......................................................................................................... E7-1 E7.2 Implementing Programs ............................................................................................... E7-3 E7.3 AFFH Actions Summary............................................................................................... E7-22 E7.4 Quantified Objectives ................................................................................................. E7-27 Tables
Table E1-1 Quantified Housing Objective and Achieved Accomplishments............................... E1-2 Table E1-2 Review of Past Accomplishments............................................................................. E1-3 Table E3-1 Population Change (2000 - 2021) ............................................................................. E3-1 Table E3-2 Population by Age Group (2021)............................................................................... E3-2 Table E3-3 Population by Race.................................................................................................... E3-2 Table E3-4 Employment by Industry (2021) ............................................................................... E3-3 Table E3-5 Major Employers in Merced County (2024).............................................................. E3-4 408 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) iv
Table E3-6 Occupational Employment and Wages by Major Occupational Group, Merced Metropolitan Area (2023)......................................................................................... E3-5 Table E3-7 HUD Income Limits by Person per Household.......................................................... E3-6 Table E3-8 State of California Income Categories....................................................................... E3-6 Table E3-9 Median Household Income by Race/Ethnicity.......................................................... E3-7 Table E3-10 Cost Burdened Households by Tenure...................................................................... E3-7 Table E3-11 Overpayment by Tenure (dollars)............................................................................. E3-8 Table E3-12 Households by Type.................................................................................................. E3-8 Table E3-13 Large Households by Tenure..................................................................................... E3-9 Table E3-14 Overcrowding Severity by Tenure............................................................................. E3-9 Table E3-15 Senior Households by Tenure ................................................................................. E3-10 Table E3-16 Overpayment by Tenure Among Senior Households.............................................. E3-11 Table E3-17 Cost Burdened Senior Households.......................................................................... E3-12 Table E3-18 Population by Number of Disabilities ..................................................................... E3-12 Table E3-19 Disability by Age for the Total Population .............................................................. E3-13 Table E3-20 Developmental Disability by Age ............................................................................ E3-13 Table E3-21 Developmental Disability by Residence.................................................................. E3-13 Table E3-22 Large Households by Tenure................................................................................... E3-14 Table E3-23 Large Households and Units ................................................................................... E3-15 Table E3-24 Single Female-Headed Households with Own Children.......................................... E3-15 Table E3-25 Female-Headed Family Households by Tenure ...................................................... E3-16 Table E3-26 Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure ...................................................... E3-17 Table E3-27 Extremely Low-Income Households Overpaying by Tenure................................... E3-17 Table E3-28 Inventory of Public Assisted Complexes, Livingston............................................... E3-18 Table E3-29 Farmworker Population .......................................................................................... E3-19 Table E3-30 Farmworkers in Merced County by Days Worked (2017)....................................... E3-20 Table E3-31 Homelessness by Type (2022)................................................................................. E3-21 Table E3-32 Homelessness by Ethnicity, Merced County (2023) ............................................... E3-22 Table E3-33 Total Housing Units Over Time (1980 to 2020)....................................................... E3-23 Table E3-34 Total Housing Units by Type ................................................................................... E3-24 Table E3-35 Housing Units by Tenure......................................................................................... E3-25 Table E3-36 Vacancy Status by Type for Total Vacant Units....................................................... E3-26 Table E3-37 Housing Unit Size .................................................................................................... E3-27 Table E3-38 Total Occupied Housing Units by Year Built............................................................ E3-28 Table E3-39 Substandard Housing Units..................................................................................... E3-29 Table E3-40 Median Housing Value Over Time (1980 to 2021).................................................. E3-30 Table E3-41 Median Housing Value from 2017 to 2021............................................................. E3-30 Table E3-42 Owner-Occupied Units by Race .............................................................................. E3-31 Table E3-43 Median Gross Rent Over Time, Livingston.............................................................. E3-32 409 of 912
Table of Contents
2024-2032 Housing Element v
Table E3-44 Median Rent by Number of Bedrooms................................................................... E3-32 Table E3-45 Housing Affordability Matrix – Livingston (2021) ................................................... E3-33 Table E3-46 Cost Burdened Owner-Occupied Households Over Time....................................... E3-35 Table E3-47 Cost Burdened Renter-Occupied Households Over Time....................................... E3-35 Table E3-48 Cost Burden by Income and Tenure........................................................................ E3-36 Table E3-49 Inventory of Public Assisted Complexes – Livingston ............................................. E3-38 Table E4-1 Listed Land Prices – Livingston.................................................................................. E4-2 Table E4-2 Sold Land Prices – Livingston .................................................................................... E4-2 Table E4-3 Estimated Construction Cost..................................................................................... E4-3 Table E4-4 Site Area Per Dwelling Unit....................................................................................... E4-8 Table E4-5 Residential Development Standards......................................................................... E4-9 Table E4-6 Residential Parking Requirements.......................................................................... E4-10 Table E4-7 Residential Use Matrix ............................................................................................ E4-15 Table E4-8 Emergency Shelter Capacity Analysis...................................................................... E4-23 Table E4-9 Residential Development Planning Fees................................................................. E4-28 Table E4-10 Residential Development Fees................................................................................ E4-29 Table E4-11 Residential Development Fee Comparison............................................................. E4-29 Table E4-12 Timelines for Permit Procedures ............................................................................ E4-34 Table E4-13 Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type...................................................... E4-34 Table E5-1 Population by Racial Group (City of Livingston)........................................................ E5-6 Table E5-2 Employment Status by Disability Status (City of Livingston)................................... E5-13 Table E5-3 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (City of Livingston)............. E5-14 Table E5-4 Cost Burden by Income Category (2015-2019)....................................................... E5-36 Table E5-5 Large Households (City of Livingston)..................................................................... E5-37 Table E5-6 Proposed Housing Units by Resource Area............................................................. E5-52 Table E5-7 Site Inventory by Census Tract Characteristics....................................................... E5-63 Table E6-1 Livingston 2024-2032 RHNA ..................................................................................... E6-1 Table E6-2 Pipeline Projects........................................................................................................ E6-3 Table E6-3 Accessory Dwelling Unit Production, City of Livingston ........................................... E6-5 Table E6-4 Remaining Share of RHNA......................................................................................... E6-6 Table E6-5 Representative Nonvacant Sites............................................................................... E6-7 Table E6-6 Livingston Development Trends ............................................................................... E6-8 Table E6-7 Realistic Capacity of Sites by Zoning District............................................................. E6-9 Table E6-8 Residential Projects in Zones that allow 100 percent Nonresidential Uses ........... E6-10 Table E6-9 Large Sites with Affordable Units............................................................................ E6-11 Table E6-10 Livingston Site Inventory – Opportunity Sites......................................................... E6-19 Table E6-11 Realistic Capacity of Rezoned Sites......................................................................... E6-22 Table E6-12 Sites Used in Previous Planning Periods................................................................. E6-23 Table E6-13 Adequacy of Residential Site Inventory .................................................................. E6-24 410 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) vi
Table E7-1 AFFH Actions Summary........................................................................................... E7-23 Table E7-2 Quantified Objectives 2024-2032 ........................................................................... E7-27 Figures
Figure E3-1 Median Household Income....................................................................................... E3-6 Figure E3-2 Homelessness by Type Over Time, Households, Merced County........................... E3-21 Figure E3-3 Homelessness by Type by Race (2023) ................................................................... E3-22 Figure E3-4 Median Contract Rent............................................................................................. E3-32 Figure E5-1 Livingston Neighborhoods........................................................................................ E5-3 Figure E5-2 Percent of Total Non-White Population (City of Livingston) .................................... E5-7 Figure E5-3 Predominant Populations (City of Livingston) .......................................................... E5-8 Figure E5-4 Neighborhood Segregation (City of Livingston)........................................................ E5-9 Figure E5-5 Disability by Type (City of Livingston) ..................................................................... E5-10 Figure E5-6 Percent of Population with a Disability (City of Livingston).................................... E5-11 Figure E5-7 Percent of Population with a Disability and Residential Elderly Care Facilities (City of Livingston) .................................................................................................. E5-12 Figure E5-8 Female-Headed Households with Children Present, No Spouse/Partner Present (City of Livingston) ..................................................................................... E5-15 Figure E5-9 Children in Married-Couple Households (City of Livingston).................................. E5-16 Figure E5-10 Female-Headed Households with Children Present, No Spouse/Partner Present and Child Care Centers (City of Livingston) ............................................... E5-17 Figure E5-11 Median Household Income (City of Livingston)...................................................... E5-19 Figure E5-12 Low- and Moderate-Income Population (City of Livingston).................................. E5-20 Figure E5-13 Low- and Moderate-Income Population, Public Housing, and Subsidized Housing (City of Livingston) .................................................................................... E5-21 Figure E5-14 Poverty Status (City of Livingston).......................................................................... E5-23 Figure E5-15 Walkability Index (City of Livingston)...................................................................... E5-27 Figure E5-16 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (City of Livingston)..................... E5-28 Figure E5-17 District Boundaries and School Locations (City of Livingston)................................ E5-29 Figure E5-18 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Economic (City of Livingston)........................................ E5-30 Figure E5-19 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (City of Livingston)..................................... E5-32 Figure E5-20 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Environmental (City of Livingston) ............................... E5-33 Figure E5-21 SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities (City of Livingston) ....................................... E5-34 Figure E5-22 Overpayment by Home Owners (City of Livingston)............................................... E5-38 Figure E5-23 Overpayment by Renters (City of Livingston) ......................................................... E5-39 Figure E5-24 Overcrowded Households (City of Livingston)........................................................ E5-40 Figure E5-25 Displacement Risk (City of Livingston).................................................................... E5-43 Figure E5-26 City of Livingston Zoning ......................................................................................... E5-48 Figure E5-27 Housing Choice Vouchers (City of Livingston)......................................................... E5-49 Figure E5-28 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Resource Area (City of Livingston)................. E5-53 411 of 912
Table of Contents
2024-2032 Housing Element vii
Figure E5-29 Housing Opportunity Sites by Low- and Moderate-Income Population (City of Livingston) .................................................................................................. E5-54 Figure E5-30 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowding (City of Livingston)........................... E5-56 Figure E5-31 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (City of Livingston)......... E5-57 Figure E5-32 Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population (City of Livingston).... E5-59 Figure E5-33 Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk (City of Livingston).................... E5-60 Figure E5-34 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Percentile Score (City of Livingston)............................................................................................................... E5-61 Figure E6-1 Pipeline Projects........................................................................................................ E6-4 Figure E6-2 Livingston Site Inventory (Current Zoning)............................................................. E6-15 Figure E6-3 Livingston Site Inventory (Proposed Zoning) .......................................................... E6-17 412 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) viii
This page intentionally left blank.
413 of 912
City of Livingston
Review of Past Accomplishments
2024-2032 Housing Element E1-1
E1 Review of Past Accomplishments
To develop appropriate programs to address the housing issues identified in the 2024-2032 Housing Element (6th cycle), the City of Livingston has reviewed the housing programs adopted in the 2015- 2022 Housing Element (5th cycle) and evaluated the effectiveness of these programs in delivering housing services and assistance. Table E1-1 summarizes the City’s progress toward the previous Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and Table E1-2 provides a detailed program level assessment of housing accomplishments over the 5th cycle planning period. Programs that are routine staff functions with no specific actions and no direct City involvement are not continued as housing programs in the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

E1.1 Effectiveness in Addressing Special Needs
The City was not successful in facilitating the development of housing for special needs groups during the 5th cycle, but continues to explore opportunities to more effectively support such initiatives. Programs developed for the 5th cycle identified specific solutions to housing for special needs groups such as seniors, homeless, female-headed households, large families, low-income households, and/or persons with disabilities. No housing units for special needs groups were developed during the 5th cycle, resulting from factors beyond the City’s control such as market conditions and financial barriers. However, the City was awarded $200,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in 2021, which were utilized to provide rental, mortgage, and utility payment assistance to 64 low- and moderate-income households, including femaleheaded households, seniors, and persons with disabilities.

The City’s 5th cycle Housing Plan includes programs to encourage the development of affordable housing, such as utilizing zoning and land use controls such as flexible development standards (Program 7), reduction of permitting for affordable housing (Program 16), expedited processing of projects that contain affordable units (Program 20), and monitoring affordable multifamily housing projects to help prevent the conversion of affordable units to market rate (Program 22). City staff continues to implement these programs as development applications are received.

Additionally, the City established and maintains a Housing Rehabilitation Program that provides loans for lower income households and special needs groups for rehabilitation assistance and emergency housing repairs (Program 23). This program has been discontinued due to the lack of HUD funding. However, the City has pivoted and continues to manage a portfolio of existing rehabilitation loans to contribute to rehabilitation assistance.

During the 5th cycle, the City approved an 80-unit affordable housing project, as well as a 480-unit multifamily project. The 80-unit affordable housing project includes 16 units affordable to extremely low-income households and 63 units affordable to very low-income households.

Furthermore, the City updated the Zoning Code to allow for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs (JADUs) in accordance with State law.

The 6th cycle Housing Element accounts for staffing and funding constraints that limited implementation of 5th cycle programs by incorporating new and revised programs to encourage the development of special needs housing. Specifically, Program 11 prioritizes the pursuit of new funding and regional and collaborative initiatives to expand housing opportunities for special needs groups.
414 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E1-2
Quantified Objectives
Table E1-1 summarizes the City’s progress toward meeting the previous 5th Cycle Housing Element RHNA, as well as objectives to rehabilitate and conserve/preserve existing housing stock. The City of Livingston did not reach its 5th cycle RHNA goals in the extremely low, very low-, low-, and moderate-income categories.

Table E1-1 Quantified Housing Objective and Achieved Accomplishments New Construction Rehabilitation Preservation (At-Risk Units) RHNA
(2016-2024) Actual Objectives Actual Objectives Actual
Extremely Low-Income 124 0 – – – –
Very Low-Income 125 0 – – – –
Low-Income 178 9 – – – –
Moderate-Income 163 17 – – – –
Above Moderate-Income 435 347 – – – –
Total 1,023 373 – – – –
E1.2 Review of Past Accomplishments
Table E1-2provides a detailed program-level assessment of housing accomplishments during the 5th Cycle Housing Element planning period.
415 of 912
City of Livingston
Review of Past Accomplishments
2024-2032 Housing Element E1-3
Table E1-2 Review of Past Accomplishments
Program Program Objectives Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program 1 — Housing Diversity: Use a variety of incentives including zoning and land use controls, flexible development standards, technical assistance, and expedited processing to promote affordable housing or to promote a range of housing types. Encourage and support the use of the City's Planned Development Process in the review and consideration of new housing projects. This may include exceptions to setbacks, clustering of units and lot configuration, lot size, and lot coverage.

The objective of this program is to approve of at
least four developments that include a range of
housing types.

The City continues to process development applications efficiently and encourages the use of Planned Development Zoning to provide flexible development standards. The City has approved three multi-family property entitlements. One three-unit building was completed. One two-unit building is under construction, and one three-unit building is pending construction.

Effectiveness: Successfully implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 1 is ongoing and will be revised and incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 6.

Program 2 — Economic Development: Continue to identify and promote economic development opportunities that bring additional employment for City residents, including jobs paying a range of wages.

Conduct targeted outreach to businesses in order to get them to locate in Livingston.

The objective of this program is to continue
outreach efforts to encourage new businesses to
locate in Livingston.

The City continues to outreach annually, depending on resource availability, to industrial and commercial businesses to locate in Livingston.

Effectiveness: Successfully implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 2 is ongoing and will be revised and incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 12
Program 3 — Maintain Adequate Sites: In order to ensure that there are sufficient sites to address the City’s share of the regional housing need, the City will monitor the existing inventory of available land and, if necessary, rezone land within the existing city limits or annex land within its Sphere of Influence (SOI). To ensure sufficient residential capacity is maintained to accommodate the RHNA, the City will develop and implement a formal ongoing (project-by-project) evaluation procedure pursuant to Government Code Section 65863. Should an approval of development result in a reduction of capacity below the residential capacity needed to accommodate the remaining need for lower income households, the City will identify and, if necessary, rezone sufficient sites to accommodate the shortfall and ensure “no net loss” in capacity to accommodate the RHNA. If rezoning is required to replenish the sites inventory for meeting the RHNA shortfall, the sites shall be large enough to accommodate at least 16 units per site at a minimum density of 20 units per acre and shall be rezoned within two years.

The objective of this program is to maintain the
existing inventory of vacant sites suitable for
residential sites and annex land, if necessary, to
provide adequate sites for housing consistent
with the objectives identified in the Housing
Element.

The City continues to maintain the Vacant Site Inventory that was developed as part of the Housing Element update. The City will develop and implement a formal evaluation procedure pursuant to Government Code Section 65863.

Effectiveness: Partially implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 3 is ongoing and will be revised and incorporated with the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 2.

Program 4 — Tax-Sharing Agreement: Re-establish a master tax-sharing agreement with the County in order to facilitate the annexation of land within the City’s SOI when sites are needed to address housing needs.

The objective of this program is to complete a
master tax-sharing agreement to facilitate future
annexation of land.

The City is continuing discussion with the County of Merced regarding the Tax-Sharing Agreement.

Effectiveness: Partially implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 4 is ongoing. The City will ensure adequate housing sites through Program 2 in the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

Program 5 — Multi-Family Lot Consolidation and Lot Split Program: In order to provide vacant parcels of adequate size to encourage affordable multi-family development, encourage the consolidation of adjacent parcels zoned High Density Residential (R-3) or Downtown Commercial (DTC) and the splitting of large R-3 zoned parcels. This may include working with property owners to consolidate parcels, coordinating with local property owners to support the development of affordable multifamily housing developments, or working with developers to identify suitable vacant adjoining R-3 or DTC sites.

The objective of this program is to encourage
consolidated of smaller R-2 zoned lots to make
affordable multi-family development feasible.

The City continues to encourage lot consolidation and lot splits in the R-3 zone. As development applications are submitted, City Staff reviews potential opportunities that would allow the development of additional dwelling units. City staff also conducts preapplication reviews for the consolidation of R-3 zones.

Effectiveness: Successfully implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 5 is ongoing and will be incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 8.

Program 6 — Annual Reporting: Review and report annually on the implementation of Housing Element programs and the City's effectiveness in meeting the program objectives for the prior calendar year.

Present the annual report at a public hearing before submitting the annual report to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Office of Planning and Research (OPR).

The objective of this program is to prepare an
annual report on the progress toward Housing
Element goals.

The Housing Element Annual Report is prepared each year by City Staff and presented to the Planning Commission and City Council prior to transmitting to HCD and OPR. The annual report is submitted annually in April.

Effectiveness: Successfully implemented
Continued Appropriateness: The City will not carry Program 6 into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as it is restating the functions of an existing city requirement.

Program 7 — Incentives for Affordable Housing: Use a variety of incentives including zoning and land use controls, flexible development standards, technical assistance, reduced development fees (see Program 16) and expedited processing (see Program 20) to promote affordable housing, including housing that meets the needs of special groups (e.g., seniors, persons with disabilities, persons with developmental disabilities, farmworkers, large households, and the homeless). Work with developers to identify sites and potential funding sources for the development of affordable housing and special needs housing.

The objective of this program is to incentivize at
least four developments during the planning
period.

As applications for Affordable Housing are submitted to the City, Staff will work with developers to provide technical assistance, development incentives, and expedite processing procedures. The City worked with a developer of an R-3 zoned property to develop a triplex on an 8,375 square foot property at 1920 8th Street. The City allowed the developer to encroach into the front yard setback to allow the development of these units. The City also worked with the owner of 835 6th Street to develop three dwelling units on a reconfigured R-2 zoned property. The development was allowed through the approval of a lot line adjustment that reconfigured two lots which involved an existing dwelling that straddled the property line of the two lots. Additionally, the City worked with the owner of 1547 F Street to facilitate the development of new single-family dwelling units on vacant lots.

Effectiveness: Successfully implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 7 is ongoing and will be incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 8. 416 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E1-4
Program Program Objectives Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program 8 — First-Time Homebuyer Program: Continue to identify and apply for funding in order to continue the City's first-time homebuyer program to help lower-income homebuyers, including extremely low-, very low-, and low-income, with downpayment and closing costs.

The objective of this program is to assist five
households annually.

The City discontinued promoting the First Time Homebuyer Program on the City’s website and in-person, due to market constraints limiting the ability for low-income households to qualify for mortgages.

Effectiveness: Not implemented due to market constraints Continued Appropriateness: Program 8 will be revised to accommodate market constraints and incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 13.

Program 9 — Extremely Low-Income Housing Development Funding: Support applications for funding for the development of extremely low-income housing. Research potential funding opportunities and reach out to affordable housing developers on an annual basis to identify grants or loans and provide expedited processing of applications for the development of extremely low-income housing.

The objective of this program is to support at
least one extremely low-income housing
development.

The City was not successful in its pursuit of funding to support extremely low-income and farmworker households due to staffing limitations and lack of developer interest in this housing type farmworker housing. However, City Staff continues to support development of extremely low-income housing and will assist developers in technical assistance to secure monies for the development of such housing. City Staff continues supporting annual research funding opportunities and reach out to affordable housing developers.

Effectiveness: Partially implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 9 is ongoing and will be incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 8.

Program 10 — Farmworker Housing: Support regional efforts, such as those of the Merced County Housing Authority and other organizations, to identify sites, including sites within the SOI, and secure funding for permanent and seasonal farmworker housing. Provide assistance in the form of reduced development standards and/or fee deferrals to developers of affordable farmworker housing.

The objective of this program is to work with
local non-profit developers to secure funds for
one farmworker housing and provide assistance
to two farmworker housing.

While no farmworker units were developed during the 5th cycle, the City continues to support, the Merced County Housing Authority to provide for development of farmworker housing. City Staff annually reaches out to affordable developers to inform them of properties available for purchase. For interested developers, the City provides a summary and guidance on the required entitlement process.

Effectiveness: Partially implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 10 is ongoing and will be revised and incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 1 and Program 8
Program 11 – Section 8 Rental Assistance: Encourage new multifamily apartment owners to participate in the Housing Choice (Section 8) Voucher Program by accepting vouchers at their complexes. Refer extremely low and very low-income households seeking rental assistance to the Merced County Housing Authority's Housing Choice Voucher Program.

The objective of this program is to promote
participation by new apartment owners in the
Section 8 program.

Due to staffing limitations, the City could not conduct outreach to property owners of multi-family housing developments.

However, the City refers extremely low and very-low income households to the Merced County Housing’s Housing Choice Voucher Program.

In addition, City utilized CDBG funds to provide rental, mortgage, and utility assistance to 64 low- and moderate-income households.

Effectiveness: Partially implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 11 is ongoing and will be revised and incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 11.

Program 12 — Housing Program Information. Make information on housing, housing programs, and housing assistance available to all members of the community, including information on second units and information on the availability of sites at the Monte Cristo Mobile Home Park. Continue to provide materials in both Spanish and English. Place information at a public counter in City Hall, and the City's website, and at other public locations.

The objective of this program is to provide
information on housing programs and
assistance to residents.

The City continues to provide information on the City website and in person. However, this information is provided only in English.

Effectiveness: Partially implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 12 is ongoing and will be revised and incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 13.

Program 13 – Infrastructure Improvements: Continue to identify and apply for loans and grants to improve and upgrade City infrastructure, such as the water, sewer, storm drainage, and circulation system in order to meet future residential, industrial, and commercial demand. Give priority to providing infrastructure to vacant R-3 parcels, especially those in the southeastern portion of the city, as well as DTC parcels in order to support the development of multifamily housing in these areas.

The objective of this program is to apply for at
least one grant/loan. Target efforts toward
expanding infrastructure to support the
development of multi-family housing on vacant
R-3 parcels.

The City received grant funding for water line improvements and completed construction in 2019. The City continues to research grant opportunities for infrastructure funding. City Staff shall continue to apply for CDBG funds at least biennially.

Effectiveness: Successfully implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 13 was established in 2017 and shall be reviewed biennially. The program will be revised and incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 14.

Program 14 — Impact Fee Program: Periodically review and update the City's impact fees to ensure that they are consistent with the City's costs to provide these services and that they do not act as a constraint to residential development.

The objective of this program is to review City
fees to ensure that they are not a constraint to
affordable development.

The City reviews the Development Impact Fee Program biennially to ensure that the fees are consistent with the City’s costs.

Effectiveness: Successfully implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 14 is ongoing and will be revised and incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 8.

Program 15 — Provide Information on Reasonable Accommodation: Consistent with the Reasonable Accommodation provisions of City Code, prepare a notice of availability of reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, and display it prominently at the public information counter in the Planning and Building Departments advising the public of the availability of the procedure. Make forms for requesting reasonable accommodation available to the public in the Planning and Building Departments.

The objective of this program is to promote
reasonable accommodation procedures.

The City provides information related to Reasonable Accommodation as requests are received. Information is provided in person when development proposals and applications are submitted.

Effectiveness: Partially implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 15 is ongoing and will be revised and incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 13.
417 of 912
City of Livingston
Review of Past Accomplishments
2024-2032 Housing Element E1-5
Program Program Objectives Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program 16 — Permitting Fees: As appropriate and feasible, waive, reduce or defer permitting fees for new housing developments in the city affordable to extremely low-, very low-, and moderate-income households
The objective of this program is to waive,
reduce, or defer fees and application
requirements for two affordable housing
projects.

As development applications are received, the City may consider the waiver of development impact fees for new housing developments affordable to extremely low-, very low-, and moderate-income households.

Effectiveness: Successfully implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 16 is ongoing and will be revised and incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 8.

Program 17 – Remove CUP Requirement in R-3 Zone: The City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance to remove the Conditional Use Permit requirement for projects within the R-3 Zone District that consist of 25 units or more or a density of 24 units per acre or more. The City shall continue to require site plan approval for projects within the R-3 zone.

The objective of this program is to remove the
CUP requirement for multifamily residential
uses in the R-3 zone.

This program was established in 2018 and will be completed during the next Zoning Ordinance amendment.

Effectiveness: Not implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 17 will be completed as part of the next Zoning Ordinance Amendment and will not be incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

Program 18 – Permit Streamlining: Continue to encourage applicants to meet for pre-application conferences to address any issues before the application is submitted. As funding permits, hire additional planning staff to handle permit processing.

The objective of this program is to reduce
processing and permit times.

City Staff continues to encourage developers to apply for a pre-application and meet with Department Representatives to discuss proposed development.

Effectiveness: Partially implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 18 is ongoing and will be revised and incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 6.

Program 19 – Development Handbook: Develop an informational handbook for developers interested in building in Livingston. The handbook should include information on permit processing requirements, steps in the process, and a schedule of building and permitting fees, among others. The handbook should be designed to provide information, answer typical questions, and reduce confusion about the permit process for developers. Continue to maintain and update information on the City's website.

The objective of this program is to provide
informational handbooks to developers.

The Development Handbook was developed in 2020.

Effectiveness: Successfully implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 19 was completed in 2020 and will not be incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

Program 20 – Expedited Processing. Provide expedited processing for developments that contain units that are affordable to extremely low-, very-low-, and low-income households as well as special needs groups, such as persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities. The City will also provide expedited processing to commercial and industrial projects by businesses, with will generate higher paying jobs in the community.

The objective of this program is to provide
expedited processing for affordable housing
projects as well as commercial and industrial
projects that create high paying jobs for
residents.

City Staff continues to offer expedited application processing for projects as well as commercial and industrial developments.

Effectiveness: Successfully implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 20 is ongoing and will be revised and incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 8.

Program 21 – Zoning for Special Needs Housing: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to: allow residential care facilities for more than 15 persons in appropriate zones in the city; and add a definition of single-room occupancy (SRO) and allow SROs in the DTC zone.

The objective of this program is to amend the
Zoning Ordinance.

The City amended it’s Zoning Ordinance to allow for ADUs and JADUs in all residential and DTC districts. Zoning for Special Needs Housing will be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance during the next Zoning Ordinance amendment. program will be completed in FY 2023/24.

Effectiveness: Not implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 21 will be completed as part of the next Zoning Ordinance Amendment and will not be incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

Program 22 – Conservation of Affordable Housing: Monitor affordable multifamily housing projects to help prevent the conversion of affordable units to market rate. Work with non-profit organizations and other agencies to preserve the affordability of these units. Ensure tenants are properly noticed and informed of their rights and eligibility to obtain special Section 8 vouchers reserved for tenants of converted HUD properties.

The objective of this program is to preserve 99
at-risk units.

The City continues to monitor multifamily housing projects to help prevent the conversion of affordable housing to market-rate.

All 99 identified at-risk units were preserved during the 5th cycle. The City will reach out to any that may convert within the 6th Cycle.

Effectiveness: Successfully implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 22 is ongoing and will be revised and incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 9.

Program 23 – Housing Rehabilitation Program: Continue to provide loans to lower-income households and special needs groups, such as seniors and the disabled, for rehabilitation assistance and emergency housing repairs.

The objective of this program is to provide
rehabilitation and emergency repair assistance
to five lower-income owner and renter
households annually.

This program is not active due to the lack of HUD funding. The City currently manages a portfolio of existing rehabilitation loans.

Effectiveness: Not implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 23 is ongoing and will be revised and incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 10.

Program 24 – Overcrowding Reduction: Encourage developers of both affordable and market- rate housing to construct housing units with three or more bedrooms to accommodate large households and alleviate overcrowding in Livingston. Where feasible, provide incentives to developers who provide housing units affordable to lower-income households that have three or more bedrooms. Such incentives may include, but are not limited to flexible development standards, fee deferrals, density bonus, or expedited processing.

The objective of this program is to encourage
two affordable developments and two marketrate rental developments to include units with three or more bedrooms.

The City encourages development of housing units with three or more bedrooms, as well as incorporating ADUs during meetings with prospective developers. The City offered HCD funding to affordable housing developers, including Self-Help Enterprises and Tierra Santa Villas, to support affordable housing development.

Effectiveness: Partially implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 24 is ongoing and will be revised and incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 8.
418 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E1-6
Program Program Objectives Progress and Continued Appropriateness Program 25 – Code Enforcement: Continue code enforcement efforts to identify substandard housing and housing in need of substantial rehabilitation. Provide information about the City's rehabilitation program to low-income and moderate-income households with homes or apartments in need of repairs.

The objective of this program is to identify
substandard housing or housing with code
violations and provide information on
rehabilitation programs to eligible households.

The City continues Code Enforcement efforts to identify substandard housing conditions. Due to limited staffing and funding, the City could not conduct outreach to low- and moderate-income households living in homes in need of repair.

Effectiveness: Partially implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 25 is ongoing and will be revised and incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 10.

Program 26 – Fair Housing Services. Collaborate with the County and fair housing service providers that serve the County to: 1) identify funding sources to support fair housing and landlord/tenant counseling programs; 2) provide information on fair housing laws at City Hall, the library, senior center, on the City’s website, and other areas in which the community gathers information. And 3) address or refer complaints of housing discrimination to appropriate State or federal agencies.

The objective of this program is to work in
partnership with local fair housing service
agencies and provide fair housing information
and services to residents.

The City refers fair housing complaints to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and continues to work with the County of Merced to identify funding sources and provide additional information to support fair housing. Due to limited staffing and funding, the City could not provide information on fair housing in community gathering areas.

Effectiveness: Partially implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 26 is ongoing and will be incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 13.

Program 27 – Weatherization Assistance: Continue to provide weatherization assistance to lower-income households through the City's rehabilitation program. Provide information at City Hall on PG&E and the Merced Irrigation District's (MID) weatherization and energy assistance program.

The objective of this program is to provide
weatherization to five lower-income owner
and renter households annually through the
Housing Rehabilitation Program.

The City provides information related to energy savings from PG&E and the Merced Irrigation District to residents.

Effectiveness: Successfully implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 27 is ongoing and will be revised and incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 10.

Program 28 – Innovative Neighborhood Design: Encourage the use of pedestrian-oriented design, greenbelts, parks, bicycle routes, and open-space to enhance new residential neighborhoods in Livingston.

Make available on the City's Website the City's Design Guidelines.

The objective of this program is to encourage
developers to use designs that incorporate
smart growth and community sustainability
practices, such as the use of greenbelts or
walkways, which enhance pedestrian and
bicycle use.

The City encourages developers to use designs that encourage Smart Growth and consistency with the City’s Design Guidelines.

Effectiveness: Successfully implemented
Continued Appropriateness: Program 28 is ongoing and will be revised incorporated into the 6th Cycle Housing Element as Program 12.
419 of 912
City of Livingston
Public Participation
2024-2032 Housing Element E2-1
E2 Public Participation
This section documents the efforts the City of Livingston made to engage the public and gather input to inform the development of this Housing Element update. The Housing Element must reflect the values and preferences of the community. Government Code Section 65583(c)(8) states that the local government must make “a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element.” This process includes engagement with Livingston community members, and local stakeholder groups. There were several public engagement efforts conducted at a regional level, including a community survey and stakeholder interviews. These efforts are described in Chapter 1, Introduction and Regional Collaboration. Feedback from the City of Livingston’s outreach events helped shape the priorities and objectives of the Housing Element Update, and are summarized in this Appendix as follows.

E2.1 Community Workshops
A workshop on the Housing Element was hosted in Livingston on August 29, 2023. Flyers advertising the workshops were widely distributed by the City of Livingston in advance of the workshop series to encourage public attendance and participation. The bilingual (Spanish and English) flyers provided meeting details (dates, times, locations, and Zoom links for residents unable to attend in person) and links to the Housing Element Update website and email list.  The workshop consisted of an informative PowerPoint presentation on housing sites, a questionnaire about the proposed sites, and a Q&A and public discussion period. The workshop activities invited participants to share their opinions on what makes their neighborhood great, their experiences finding housing, and reasons it is difficult to find housing in their communities.

Participants took part in a sticker activity to rank the most effective housing programs.

Participants were also asked to weigh in on the selected housing opportunity sites. The PowerPoint presentation was available in Spanish via written translation and live Spanish translation was available upon request. The community workshop was recorded and is available on YouTube at: Merced Multi-Jurisdiction Housing Element - Community Workshop at City of Livingston 08-29- 2023
Participants in Livingston found it difficult to find housing, especially affordable housing, both rental and for-sale.

Key findings from the workshops are as follows:
 Housing affordability makes it difficult to find housing and homeownership is difficult.  In looking for housing, residents care about safety and maintenance.  Rent affordability was voted as the greatest housing need in Livingston, followed by difficulty to locate type of housing needed and difficulty buying a home.  Community opposition to new housing was cited as a constraint to housing development, and lack of housing close to stores, schools, or work was also cited as a housing need. 420 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E2-2
E2.2 Survey
The City conducted a community survey to inform the 6th Cycle Housing Element update. The survey was made available from March 27 through December 22, 2023. The survey was also made available during various community outreach events, including the community workshop. The survey consisted of 16 questions and used different formats for questions: checkbox, ranking, and openended questions. A total of 172 people responded to the survey. Of these, three respondents either live, work, attend school, or own a business or property in Livingston.

The input provided by the respondents included the following major themes:
 Affordability is the most important aspect when looking for new housing, followed by proximity to resources such as commercial areas, medical facilities, jobs, and schools, and the quality and size of housing. Safe neighborhoods were also noted as important when searching for housing.

Respondents want housing near public transit stops, employment, and shopping centers.  The largest barriers to affordable, desirable housing are the cost and limited supply of housing.

Respondents also noted the lack of good paying jobs to be able to afford housing.  In addition to affordability and availability of housing, respondents noted that homelessness, overcrowding, and fair housing/discrimination were also urgent issues in the Merced County region.
 Respondents would like to see programs related to housing vouchers and homebuyer loan counseling services.
 Housing with three or more bedrooms and accessory dwelling units are the most needed housing in the region.
 In Livingston, participants recommended housing development in the northwestern parts of the city and near Peach Avenue and Robin Avenue.

Full survey results can be found in Appendix 1 to the Regional Housing Element, Community Survey Results.

E2.3 Stakeholder Interviews
The City also participated in a series of stakeholder interviews with service providers, residents, and housing developers held between August 8, 2023, and August 23, 2023 as part of greater regional public participation efforts. Attendees included housing groups and providers that service the needs of Livingston residents, including Project Sentinel, Faith in the Valley, United Way of Merced County, and Merced County Workforce Investment. Much of the discussion was focused on countywide needs and issues for special needs groups, including low-income households, seniors, persons with disabilities, and renters. A complete summary of the stakeholder interviews can be found in Chapter 1, Introduction, to the Regional Housing Element. Key findings included:
 Service providers stated there is a need for affordable housing throughout the county with access to resources.
 Residents expressed that rental units need maintenance and repair.  Additional housing services are needed throughout communities in the county include transitional housing, rental assistance, first-time homebuyer assistance, and education on tenants’ rights.
421 of 912
City of Livingston
Public Participation
2024-2032 Housing Element E2-3
 Residents expressed concern over the high cost of housing, particularly for renters.  Residents identified a need for more community engagement efforts that allow residents to participate in a meaningful way, including workshops and translation services during outreach events.

E2.4 Additional Outreach
In an effort to provide additional opportunities for public outreach, particularly to address the needs of lower-income and special needs households, and in coordination with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the City conducted targeted stakeholder interviews. These interviews aimed to gather comprehensive feedback to identify specific challenges and opportunities in providing affordable housing for these populations.

On December 18, 2024, the City held a joint virtual stakeholder interview with the cities of Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, and Los Banos. The meeting consisted of a discussion on housing needs for lowincome households and those with special needs, and fair housing issues. Information gathered was used to support the fair housing analysis and refine policies and programs within the Housing Plan.

Questions asked to participants included:
 What are specific housing needs for lower-income and special needs households within the community?
 Are there special needs groups/populations within the jurisdiction that are lacking affordable housing/support services?
 What barriers do residents in low-income neighborhoods face when trying to access affordable housing?
 What services are most requested by renters? Homeowners?  What additional supportive services (e.g., job training, mental health support, childcare) are most needed in the jurisdiction to help residents maintain stable housing and improve their quality of life?
The City invited six participants from various fair housing services, agencies, and developers. Two participants attended, including a representative from Visionary Home Builders and a representative from the Merced County Continuum of Care.

Participants noted that water challenges persist in Livingston, and it is a priority issue alongside affordable housing development. The City is encouraged to continue applying for HOME and CDBG funding to support further affordable housing development. Participants also noted that building permitting should happen faster, as it typically takes six to eight weeks to get a response for plan checks, despite 95 percent of the application fee going to expedited plan checks. Additionally, participants commented that stakeholders should be included in new housing funding regulations, as developers and property owners are at the front line of these regulatory changes.

E2.5 Response to Community Input
During community outreach, community members identified the following overarching themes regarding housing in Livingston. Below is a summary of how each theme is addressed in the Housing Element.
422 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E2-4
Need more affordable housing for both renters and buyers.

The City will accommodate at least 825 units affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The City will accommodate these units on sites that are currently vacant or underutilized, including six sites that will be rezoned to allow higher residential densities.

All moderate and above-moderate housing units will be on sites that support multi-family housing, encouraging the development of townhomes and condominiums for more affordable homeownership opportunities.

Housing Program 5 includes actions to encourage the development of at least eight accessory dwelling units (ADUs) during the planning period by creating standard plans and streamlining the permit process. ADUs often provide relatively affordable rental options.

Through Housing Program 8, the City will facilitate multi-family housing development by contacting non-profit and private developers to facilitate the production of affordable housing as well as pursue funding opportunities available at the local, regional, state and federal levels. Multi-family housing provides affordable housing options to add to the city’s housing stock.

There are 181 housing units that are deed restricted as affordable housing for lower-income households in Livingston. Although these are not at immediate risk of conversion to market-rate units, under Program 9, the City will work to preserve these units as affordable housing and will proactively monitor all other units to encourage continued affordability beyond existing covenants and work proactively with owners of affordable units to assist in rehabilitation needs.

Support for transit-oriented development and increasing density in areas with existing services.

Housing opportunity sites were prioritized by location, including proximity to transit, job centers, and community services. Site selection focused heavily on infill development of vacant and nonvacant sites along strategic corridors and in neighborhoods with existing services.

Housing Program 1 directs the City to collaborate with other jurisdictions on housing efforts, including funding opportunities, best practices, and other efforts to address housing, transit, economic development, and homeless issues in Merced County. This Program includes participation in the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) to manage and implement regional transit services, including an annual community workshop to identify transportation needs for Livingston residents.

Need for rental assistance for low-income families and rent-restricted housing.

Housing Program 11 directs the City to assist in the development of housing to meet the needs of lower-income and special needs households. The City will continue to work with the Housing Authority of the County of Merced (HACM) to provide housing choice vouchers (HCV), public housing, project-based vouchers, and farmworker housing. Starting in 2025 the City will annually conduct an outreach event for landlords to increase participation in the HCV program, with a goal of seven events during the planning period.
423 of 912
City of Livingston
Public Participation
2024-2032 Housing Element E2-5
Need to increase the variety of available rental and for sale housing types, including apartments and townhomes, and more options for three-bedroom units.

In order to facilitate a variety of housing types, especially housing for lower-income households and those with special needs, the City will amending the Zoning Code to constraints related to development standards, density bonus, ADUs, single-room occupancy, emergency shelters, residential care facilities, farmworker housing, and supportive housing (Housing Program 6).

In order to facilitate a variety of housing types, specifically multi-family housing, the City will update the General Plan to facilitate multi-family residential uses in commercial zones for the encouragement of mixed-use development.

Through Housing Program 8, the City looks to expand multifamily housing stock through contacting non-profit and private developers to facilitate the production of affordable housing as well as pursue funding opportunities available at the local, regional, state and federal levels. Multi-family housing will increase the variety of available rental and for-sale housing types.

Need for housing rehabilitation services homeowners with aging housing stock and those with flood damage.

Housing Program 10 directs the City to utilize various programs and community partnerships to encourage the rehabilitation of housing units, as well as maintaining the supply of affordable housing. The City will work with non-profits in the community to assist with rehabilitation, annually research funding opportunities, with a goal to assist with five units annually through the Weatherization Program.

Need increased education on housing rights and legal resources for tenants and landlords.

Under Housing Program 14, the City will work with HACM to provide fair housing information and resources to residents and housing providers. The City will coordinate with Central California Legal Services (CCLS) and other fair housing non-profit organizations to provide fair housing and tenant and landlord services. The City’s goal is to assist at least 15 residents and landlords with fair housing services annually throughout planning period.

E2.6 Public Review
E2.6.1 May 2024 Public Review
The Draft Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element was available for public review for the required 30 days, from May 13 to June 12, 2024. The City notified interested parties via email and the complete document was posted on the project website (https://mercedmjhe.com/). No comments were received.
424 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E2-6
E2.6.2 February 2025 Public Review
The City Revised the Draft Housing Element to address HCD’s formal comment letter. The 2nd Revised Draft Housing Element was available for public review from February 24, 2025 to March 3, 2025. The City notified interested parties via email and the complete document was posted on the project website (https://mercedmjhe.com/). The Draft Housing Element was also published on the City’s website. No comments were received.

E2.6.3 October 2025 Public Review
The City Revised the Draft Housing Element to address HCD’s formal comment letter. The 3rd Revised Draft Housing Element was available for public review from October 3, 2025 to October 10, 2025. The City notified interested parties via email and the complete document was posted on the project website (https://mercedmjhe.com/). The Draft Housing Element was also published on the City’s website. No comments were received.

E2.6.4 December 2025 Public Review
The City Revised the Draft Housing Element to address HCD’s formal comment letter. The 3rd Revised Draft Housing Element was available for public review from December 1, 2025 to December 8, 2025. The City notified interested parties via email and the complete document was posted on the project website (https://mercedmjhe.com/). The Draft Housing Element was also published on the City’s website. No comments were received.
425 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-1
E3 Housing Needs Assessment
This chapter provides an individual assessment of housing needs for the City of Livingston. This section summarizes demographic, employment, and housing characteristics. The main source of the information is the pre-approved data package for jurisdictions approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). This data is primarily sourced from the U.S. Census, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), and American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 five-year estimates. Tables and Figures also include comparable data for Merced County and California where it is found most useful.

E3.1 Population Characteristics
Population characteristics, such as growth rate, age, and income levels, affect the type and amount of housing needed in a community. Residents’ age and income, employment trends, and other factors influence the type of housing needed and the community’s ability to afford housing. The following section analyzes the City of Livingston’s population characteristics and trends.

E3.2 Population Growth
Table E3-1 analyzes population change from 2000 to 2021. Livingston grew by 24.7 percent from 2000 to 2010 compared to 21.5 percent countywide and 9.7 percent throughout the state. Growth in Livingston slowed to 8.5 percent from 2010 to 2021, which is similar to the county (9.1 percent) and state (5.6 percent).

Table E3-1 Population Change (2000 - 2021)
Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2021
Percent Change Percent Change
2000-2010 2010-2021
Livingston 10,473 13,058 14,078 24.7% 8.5%
Merced County 210,554 255,793 279,150 21.5% 9.1%
California 33,971,648 37,253,956 39,346,023 9.7% 5.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, 2010; Social Explorer tables for Census 2021.

E3.3 Age Characteristics
Table E3-2 shows population by age group and each group’s percentage of the total population. The age groups include preschool (under five years), school-age students (five to seventeen years), college-age students (18 to 24 years), young adults (25 to 44), middle-aged adults (45 to 64), and seniors (65 and over). In Livingston, the largest age group is the young adult category, representing

30.7 percent of the total population, similar to the county (27 percent) and state (28.6 percent). The second largest group in Livingston is middle-aged adults at 22.3 percent. The smallest population by age are college-age students at 8.4 percent, which is lower than the county (11.1 percent) and the state (9.3 percent).
426 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-2
Table E3-2 Population by Age Group (2021)
Jurisdiction
Under 5
years
(Preschool)
5 to 17 years
(School-age
Students)
18 to 24
years
(College-age
Students)
25 to 44
(Young
Adults)
45 to 64
(Middleaged Adults)
65 years
and over
(Seniors)
Total
Population
Livingston 1,364 2,701 1,181 4,326 3,133 1,373 14,078
Percent 9.7% 19.2% 8.4% 30.7% 22.3% 9.8%
Merced
County
20,969 61,609 31,111 75,342 59,131 30,988 279,150
Percent 7.5% 22.1% 11.1% 27% 21.2% 11.1%
California 2,350,335 6,642,097 3,665,851 11,282,671 9,844,520 5,669,879 39,455,353 Percent 6.0% 16.8% 9.3% 28.6% 25.0% 14.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B01001.

E3.4 Race and Ethnicity
Table E3-3 shows race and ethnicity data for residents in Livingston, Merced County, and California.

In terms of race, Some Other Race makes up the largest percentage of people with 47.6 percent.

This is higher than both the county (33.7 percent) and state (15.3 percent). In Livingston, white and Asian residents make up the next two largest percentages; there are significantly fewer white residents and more Asian residents in Livingston than countywide and statewide. In terms of ethnicity, 73.8 percent of the population of Livingston identifies as Hispanic/Latino, which is higher than in Merced County (61.2 percent) and the state (39.5 percent).

Table E3-3 Population by Race
Jurisdiction
White
alone
Black or
African
American
alone
American
Indian and
Alaska
Native
alone Asian alone
Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
alone
Some
Other Race
alone1
Two or
More
Races2
Hispanic/
Latino,
Any Race Total
Livingston 3,206 – 182 2,955 – 6,706 1,029 10,386 14,078 Percent 22.8% 0.0% 1.3% 21.0% 0.0% 47.6% 7.3% 73.8%
Merced
County 128,897 8,057 3,267 20,945 797 93,978 23,209 170,730 279,150 Percent 46.2% 2.9% 1.2% 7.5% 0.3% 33.7% 8.3% 61.2%
California 20,553,732 2,233,258 360,607 5,887,396 148,278 6,036,865 4,235,217 15,593,787 39,455,353 Percent 52.1% 5.7% 0.9% 14.9% 0.4% 15.3% 10.7% 39.5%
1 “Some other race alone” includes all other responses not included in the "white alone", "Black or African American alone", "American Indian and Alaska Native alone”, “Asian alone” and “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone” race categories 2 “Two or more races” includes responses from all individuals who identify themselves as two or more of the aforementioned race groups. If an individual responded with both “two or more races” and “some other race,” their response was only included under “two or more races.”
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B02001; U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B03001. 427 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-3
E3.5 Economic Characteristics
Employment
Understanding employment and occupation patterns can provide insight into present housing needs. Table E3-4 shows employment by industry. Educational services, health care, and social assistance sector is the most common employment sector in Livingston, representing 22.5 percent of all employment. This is also the most common sector countywide (22 percent) and statewide (21.4 percent). The second largest sector in Livingston is manufacturing, which employs 18.9 percent of residents, higher than the county and state numbers.

Table E3-4 Employment by Industry (2021)
Industry Livingston Percent Merced County Percent California Percent Educational Services, And
Health Care and Social
Assistance
1,388 22.5% 23,797 22.0% 3,990,094 21.4%
Manufacturing 1,161 18.9% 11,778 10.9% 1,676,715 9%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing
and Hunting, And Mining
859 14.0% 12,326 11.4% 394,881 2.1%
Retail Trade 638 10.4% 11,804 10.9% 1,919,513 10.3%
Transportation And
Warehousing, And Utilities
538 8.7% 7,626 7.1% 1,071,181 5.7%
Arts, Entertainment, And
Recreation, And
Accommodation and Food
Services
418 6.8% 7,682 7.1% 1,835,141 9.8%
Professional, Scientific, And
Management, And
Administrative, And Waste
Management Services
389 6.3% 7,146 6.6% 2,612,859 14%
Construction 291 4.7% 8,623 8% 1,235,586 6.6%
Wholesale Trade 157 2.6% 4,036 3.7% 501,378 2.7%
Finance And Insurance, And
Real Estate, And Rental and
Leasing
129 2.1% 3,075 2.8% 1,107,961 5.9%
Other Services, Except Public
Administration
98 1.6% 4,275 4.0% 927,253 5.0%
Public Administration 90 1.5% 5,058 4.7% 864,476 4.6%
Information – 0.0% 968 0.9% 539,683 2.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table C24050.

Table E3-5and shows the major employers in Merced County together with the number of employees and type of industry. The majority of large employers are located in the City of Merced, which is the county’s largest city and the County seat. The largest employers in Livingston include Foster Farms (1,000-4,999 employees), Livingston Union School District (205-499 employees), and Sensient Natural Ingredients (250-499 employees). Livingston does not anticipate any significant changes in employment trends and is not aware of any new large-scape employers coming to Livingston during the planning period.
428 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-4
Table E3-5 Major Employers in Merced County (2024)
Employer Name Number of Employees Location Industry
Costco Wholesale 100-249 Merced Wholesale Clubs
County-Merced-Behavioral Hlth 100-249 Merced Clinics
Dignity Health-Mercy Med Ctr 1,000-4,999 Merced Hospitals Foodmaxx 100-249 Merced Grocers-Retail
Foster Farms 1,000-4,999 Livingston Poultry Processing Plants (mfrs) Golden Valley Health Ctr 500-999 Merced Pharmacies
Golden Valley Health Ctr 100-249 Merced Clinics
Hilmar Cheese Co Inc 500-999 Hilmar Cheese Processors (mfrs) J Marchini & Son Inc 500-999 Le Grand Farming Service
Liberty Packing Co 250-499 Los Banos Packing & Crating Service Live Oak Farms 250-499 Le Grand Fruits & Vegetables-Growers & Shippers Livingston Union School District 250-499 Livingston School Districts Malibu Boats Inc 250-499 Merced Boats-Manufacturers
Memorial Hospital Los Banos 100-249 Los Banos Hospitals Mental Health Svc For Merced 250-49 Merced Mental Health Services Merced County Human Svc 500-999 Merced Government Offices-County Quad/Graphics Inc 500-999 Merced Printers (mfrs)
Scholle 100-249 Merced Packaging Materials-Manufacturers Sensient Natural Ingredients 250-499 Livingston Dehydrating Service (mfrs) University of CA Merced 500-999 Merced Schools-Universities & Colleges Academic Walmart 250-499 Merced Department Stores
Walmart Supercenter 250-499 Atwater Department Stores
Weaver Union School District 100-249 Merced School Districts Western Marketing & Sales 500-999 Atwater Farms
Yosemite Wholesale Warehouse 100-249 Merced Warehouses
Source: California Employment Development Department, Major Employers in Merced County. Accessed 2024 https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/majorer/countymajorer.asp?CountyCode=000047 Table E3-6 shows the employment estimates, average hourly wage and average annual wage for employment industries in the Merced Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) as of May 2023. The occupations offering the lowest wages are food preparation and serving related, healthcare support, farming, fishing, and forestry. Occupations offering the highest wages include management and legal positions, and healthcare practitioners.

The largest percentage of employed civilians in Livingston are employed in the health care, education, and agriculture industries. While healthcare practitioners’ average higher annual salaries ($107,806) than Merced County’s Area Median Income (AMI) of $69,106 in 2021, healthcare support staff salaries ($36,900) average approximately 53 percent of the AMI. Additionally, average salaries for those in the education sector ($76,357) and farming, fishing, and forestry ($37,398) fall short of the AMI as well. Compared to the annual income limits shown on Table E3-6, it can be assumed that the majority of healthcare practitioners fall in the Above Moderate-Income category, construction and sales workers fall into the Low-Income category, and healthcare support workers fall into the Very Low-Income category.
429 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-5
Table E3-6 Occupational Employment and Wages by Major Occupational Group, Merced Metropolitan Area (2023)
Major Occupational Group Mean Hourly Wage Mean Annual Wage Total, all occupations $27.45 $57,096
Management $58.77 $113,073
Business and financial operations $37.87 $78,770
Computer and mathematical $43.64 $90,771
Architecture and engineering $43.00 $89,440
Life, physical, and social science $36.22 $75,338
Community and social service $28.81 $59,925
Legal $54.16 $112,653
Educational instruction and library $36.71 $76,357
Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media $28.59 $59,467 Healthcare practitioners and technical $51.83 $107,806
Healthcare support $17.74 $36,900
Protective service $29.50 $61,360
Food preparation and serving related $17.87 $37,170
Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance $20.78 $43,222 Personal care and service $19.05 $39,624
Sales and related $21.76 $45,261
Office and administrative support $23.71 $49,317
Farming, fishing, and forestry $17.98 $37,398
Construction and extraction $30.48 $63,398
Installation, maintenance, and repair $30.43 $63,294
Production $22.00 $45,760
Transportation and material moving $22.02 $45,802
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment and Wages in Merced (May 2023) https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/occupationalemploymentandwages_merced.htm Income Definitions and Income Limits
State and Federal governments classify household income into several categories based upon the relationship to the county area median income (AMI), adjusted for household size. The U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimate of AMI is used to set income limits for eligibility in Federal housing programs. The income categories include:
 Acutely low-income households, which earn up to 15 percent AMI;  Extremely low-income households, which earn up to 30 percent AMI;  Very low-income households, which earn between 31 and 50 percent AMI;  Low-income households, which earn between 51 and 80 percent AMI; and  Median-income households, which earn 100 percent AMI.

For all income categories, income limits are defined for various household sizes based on a fourperson household as a reference point. Income limits for larger or smaller households are calculated by HUD (See Table E3-7). According to HUD, the AMI for a four-person household in Merced County was $80,300 in 2022.
430 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-6
Table E3-7 HUD Income Limits by Person per Household
Household Size: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Acutely Low $8,450 $9,650 $10,850 $12,050 $13,000 $14,000 $14,950 $15,900 Extremely Low $16,350 $18,700 $23,030 $27,750 $32,470 $37,190 $41,910 $46,630 Very Low $27,300 $31,200 $35,100 $38,950 $42,100 $45,200 $48,300 $51,450 Low Income $43,650 $49,850 $56,100 $62,300 $67,300 $72,300 $77,300 $82,250 Median Income $56,200 $64,250 $72,250 $80,300 $847,300 $931,500 $99,550 $106,000 Moderate Income $67,450 $77,100 $89,700 $96,350 $104,050 $111,750 $119,450 $127,200 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Income Limits, 2022.

HCD uses the income categories shown in Table E3-8 to determine eligibility for state housing programs. HCD’s methodology for calculating AMI is slightly different from HUD’s methodology, and therefore the AMI and income limits vary.

Table E3-8 State of California Income Categories
Income Category Percent of County Area Median Income (AMI) Extremely Low 0-30% AMI
Very Low 31%-50% AMI
Low 51%-80% AMI
Moderate 81%-120% AMI
Above Moderate 120% AMI or greater
Source: California, CA Health & Safety Code § 50093.

Figure E3-1 shows median household income in Livingston as reported by the 2017-2021 ACS. This median income is for all households, regardless of household size. The median household income in Livingston was $68,958 in 2021, which was higher than in Merced County ($58,861) and significantly lower than statewide ($84,097).

Figure E3-1 Median Household Income
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B19013. $68,958
$58,861
$84,097
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
Livingston Merced County California
431 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-7
Table E3-9 compares the median household income by race in 2021. In Livingston, Asian households have the highest median income at $97,899, followed by Two or More Races households at $72,083.

This is generally consistent with the county and state median incomes, where Asian and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander households’ have the highest median income. Black households had the lowest median income across the county and state; however, data for this category is not available for Livingston. Notably, the lowest reported median income for Livingston was for white households with $55,776. In comparison, white households in the county and state have the second highest median income. Hispanic/Latino households had a median income of $67,667, which is significantly higher than Merced County (54,635) and similar to California ($67,327).

Table E3-9 Median Household Income by Race/Ethnicity
Jurisdiction
White,
alone
Black or
African
American,
alone
American
Indian
and
Alaskan
Native,
alone
Asian,
alone
Native
Hawaiian
and
Other
Pacific
Islander,
alone
Some
Other
Race,
alone
Two or
More
Races,
alone
Hispanic/Latino,
Any Race
Livingston $55,776 – – $97,899 – $69,500 $72,083 $67,667 Merced
County
$60,918 $45,573 $50,214 $71,829 $71,829 $55,083 $56,355 $54,635 California $88,616 $58,958 $66,904 $108,477 $87,066 $63,975 $79,777 $67,327 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B19013.

Overpayment and Housing Cost Burdens
Table E3-10 lists the number of households overpaying for housing by tenure. Generally, renters are more affected by overpayment than owners. As shown, overpaying renter-occupied households account for 15.4 percent of households in Livingston, which is lower than the county (21.4 percent) and state (22.9 percent). Overpaying owner-occupied households comprise 9.6 percent of households in the city, which is also a lower rate than the county (11.8 percent) and state (14.4 percent). Livingston has a significantly lower rate of total cost-burdened households (25.0) than both Merced County (33.2 percent) and California (37.3 percent).

Table E3-10 Cost Burdened Households by Tenure
Jurisdiction Owner-Occupied Overpaying Renter-Occupied Overpaying Total Overpaying Livingston 316 508 824
Percent 9.6% 15.4% 25.0%
Merced County 9,611 17,470 27,081
Percent 11.8% 21.4% 33.2%
California 1,904,162 3,030,934 4,935,096
Percent 14.4% 22.9% 37.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 06-10, 11-15, 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25091 and B25070. 432 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-8
CHAS data provided by HUD provides information on cost burden based on the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI). This data is included in Table E3-11 below. While the totals do not align exactly with 2021 ACS data presented above, the CHAS data identifies the level at which cost burdened households are overpaying for housing. As shown, 20.1 percent of households are cost burdened households are paying 30 percent of their income on housing costs, which is higher than the county but similar to the state. Further, 13.3 percent of households are spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing, which is less than in the county and state. Based on CHAS data, Livingston has higher rates of moderate cost burden than Merced County, although Livingston’s rates are similar to those seen statewide. Additionally, Livingston has lower rates of severe cost burden than both the county and the state.

Table E3-11 Overpayment by Tenure (dollars)
Jurisdiction Moderate Cost Burden >30% to <=50% Severe Cost Burden >50% Total Households Livingston 725 478 3,605
Percent 20.1% 13.3% 100.0%
Merced County 14,710 12,285 80,010
Percent 18.4% 15.4% 100.0%
California 2,632,205 2,427,660 13,044,265
Percent 20.2% 18.6% 100.0%
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2015-19 (5-Year Estimates), Table 7.

E3.6 Household Characteristics
Table E3-12 provides information on household types. Of the 3,299 households in Livingston, 1,588 are married-couple households with or without children, and 380 are cohabitating couple households with or without children. Approximately half the total households in Livingston, Merced County, and California are married-couple households.

Table E3-12 Households by Type
Jurisdiction
Married-Couple Household Cohabitating Couple Household
Total
Total Children Households
No
Children Total Children
No
Children
Livingston 1,588 723 865 380 190 190 3,299
Percent 48.1% 21.9% 26.2% 11.5% 5.8% 5.8%
Merced County 39,912 18,171 21,741 6,862 3,910 2,952 139,044 Percent 48.9% 22.3% 26.6% 8.4% 4.8% 3.6%
California 6,539,445 2,780,272 3,759,173 938,780 338,874 599,906 13,217,586 Percent 49.5% 21.0% 28.4% 7.1% 2.6% 4.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B11012. 433 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-9
E3.7 Large Households
Table E3-13 provides information on large households by tenure. As shown, 36.4 percent of households in Livingston consist of five or more people, which is greater than the county and state averages. In Livingston, owner-occupied five-person households (17.1 percent of total households), renter-occupied five-person households (6.2 percent) and owner-occupied six-person households (4.7 percent) make up the largest percentages of large households, while renter-occupied six-person households make up the smallest percentage of large households. Livingston has a significantly higher percentage of owner-occupied five-person households compared to the county and state.

Table E3-13 Large Households by Tenure
Jurisdiction
Total Large
Households
Owner-Occupied
Large Households
Renter-Occupied
Large Households
5-Person 6-Person
7-or-More
Person 5-Person 6-Person
7-or-More
Person
Livingston 1,202 564 154 120 204 24 136
Percent 36.4% 17.1% 4.7% 3.6% 6.2% 0.7% 4.1%
Merced County 17,710 4,737 1,952 1,649 5,380 2,184 1,808 Percent 21.7% 5.8% 2.4% 2.0% 6.6% 2.7% 2.2%
California 1,830,468 580,759 246,420 200,281 456,013 199,263 147,732 Percent 13.9% 4.4% 1.9% 1.5% 3.5% 1.5% 1.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25009.

E3.8 Overcrowding
Table E3-14 provides information on overcrowding by tenure in Livingston. There are 304 overcrowded households in the city, of which 56 percent (170) are owner-occupied households, and 44 percent (134) are renter-occupied.

Table E3-14 Overcrowding Severity by Tenure
Jurisdiction
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Total

1.0 to 1.5
Occupants per
Room
More than 1.5
Occupants per
Room Total

1.0 to 1.5
Occupants per
Room
More than 1.5
Occupants per
Room
Livingston 1,881 102 68 1,418 45 89
Percent 57.0% 3.1% 2.1% 43.0% 1.4% 2.7%
Merced County 42,146 1,766 551 39,472 3,090 1,362
Percent 51.6% 2.2% 0.7% 48.4% 3.8% 1.7%
California 7,335,247 229,637 82,236 5,882,339 453,625 321,169 Percent 55.5% 1.7% 0.6% 44.5% 3.4% 2.4%
Note: Totals reflect the total number of owner/renter-occupied households in the city, not the total number of overcrowded households.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 06-10, 11-15, 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25014. 434 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-10
E3.9 Special Needs Groups
Within the general population there are several groups of people who have special housing needs.

These needs can make it difficult for members of these groups to locate suitable housing. The following subsections identify and discuss these special housing needs groups.

Seniors
Table E3-15 identifies senior households in Livingston, Merced County, and California. The percentage row identifies the percent of households within the specified age range out of all the owner-occupied or renter-occupied households. There are far more owner-occupied senior households in Livingston (470 total), than renter-occupied senior households (108 total), which is like the county and state. As shown, seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 make up the largest percentages of owner and renter-occupied households (15 percent and 5.9 percent of total households, respectively), consistent with the two other jurisdictions.

Table E3-15 Senior Households by Tenure
Jurisdiction
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
65 to 74 75 to 84 85 and over 65 to 74 75 to 84 85 and over Livingston 283 147 40 84 - 24
Percent 15.0% 7.8% 2.1% 5.9% 0.0% 1.7%
Merced County 7,176 4,232 1,559 3,318 1,216 495
Percent 39.9% 23.5% 8.7% 18.4% 6.8% 2.8%
California 1,386,828 679,546 288,915 501,465 229,153 132,237 Percent 43.1% 21.1% 9.0% 15.6% 7.1% 4.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25007.

Table E3-16 shows the housing cost burdens by elderly family type and tenure in Livingston based on data extracted through CHAS (note that the CHAS data defines senior or elderly as age 62 and over, as opposed to the American Community Survey that reports seniors as age 65 and older).

Based on data in this table, of all elderly persons in lower-income categories (less than or equal to 80 percent HAMFI), 23.0 percent of all senior-owner households and 46.0 percent of all seniorrenter households in Livingston had a housing cost burden of 30 percent or greater. 435 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-11
Table E3-16 Overpayment by Tenure Among Senior Households Owners Renters
Total
Elderly
Family
Elderly
Non-Family
Elderly
Family
Elderly
Non-Family
Household Income <= 30% HAMFI Extremely Low-Income
Total Households <= 30% HAMFI 10 25 50 30 115
Number w/ Cost Burden <= 30% 10 – 50 – 60
Number w/ Cost Burden > 30% to <= 50% – 15 – – 15
Number w/ Cost Burden > 50% – 10 – 30 40
Percent with Cost Burden >30% HAMFI 0% 100% 0% 100% 48% Household Income > 30% to <= 50% HAMFI Very Low-Income
Total Households > 30% to <= 50% HAMFI 34 40 24 10 108
Number w/ Cost Burden <= 30% 4 40 – – 44
Number w/ Cost Burden > 30% to <= 50% – – 20 10 30
Number w/ Cost Burden > 50% 30 – 4 – 34
Percent with Cost Burden >30% HAMFI 88% 0% 100% 100% 59% Household Income > 50% to <= 80% HAMFI Low-Income
Total HouseholdS > 50% to <= 80% HAMFI 54 45 25 – 124
Number w/ Cost Burden <= 30% 50 10 25 – 85
Number w/ Cost Burden > 30% to <= 50% – 35 – – 35
Number w/ Cost Burden > 50% 4 – – – 4
Percent with Cost Burden >30% HAMFI 7% 78% 0% 0% 31%
Household Income > 80% to <= 100% HAMFI
Total Households > 80% to <= 100% HAMFI 10 40 – – 50
Household Income > 100% HAMFI
Total Households > 100% HAMFI 60 90 – – 150
Lower-Income Cost Burden
Total Income <80% HAMFI and Cost Burden > 30% 94 64 158 Percent Income <80% HAMFI and Cost Burden > 30% 23.0% 46.0% 28.9% Grand Total Households 168 240 99 40 547
Elderly family constitutes 2 persons with either or both age 62 and over.

HAMFI = HUD Area Median Family Income
Source: HUD Consolidated Planning / Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) database, 2015-2019 estimates, Table 7, accessed 2023. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html Table E3-17 summarizes cost burden data for units occupied by senior households. As shown,

62.9 percent of senior households in Livingston are cost burdened by less than or equal to 30 percent.

Further, 20.1 percent are cost burdened by greater than 30 percent and less than or equal to 50 percent, while 17.0 percent are cost burdened by more than 50 percent. There is a higher percentage of senior households cost burdened by over 30 percent in Livingston than in Merced County. 436 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-12
Table E3-17 Cost Burdened Senior Households
Jurisdiction
Cost Burden
<= 30%
Cost Burden
>30% to <=50%
Cost Burden
>50%
Total Senior
Households
Livingston 344 110 93 547
Percent 62.9% 20.1% 17.0% 100.0%
Merced County 12,080 3,220 2,880 18,180
Percent 66.4% 17.7% 15.8% 100.0%
California 1,963,195 620,335 736,510 3,320,040
Percent 59.1% 18.7% 22.2% 100.0%
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2015-19 (5-Year Estimates), Table 7.

Resources for Senior-Headed Households
There is one care facility for seniors with disabilities in Livingston called Grace Home. It has eight rooms housing 15 patients offering long-term care services, and is located at 13435 Peach Avenue, Livingston. As shown in Table E3-16, there are a total of 139 senior rental-occupied households, of which 64 are lower income. Based on this data, there is a gap between lower income senior rentaloccupied households and available units equating to approximately 50 lower-income units.

Persons with Disabilities (including Developmental Disabilities) Individuals with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, may require special housing accommodations or assistance. Community members with ambulatory difficulties, self-care limitations, or cognitive conditions may require assisted living or financial assistance. Table E3-18 identifies the number of residents with one or more disabilities. In Livingston, 10.3 percent of the total population has one type of disability, while 3.8 percent report two or more disabilities. The percentage of the population with one disability is much higher in Livingston (10.3 percent) than in the county (6.6 percent) and the state (5.4 percent). However, the percentage of the population with a disability in Livingston is just slightly higher than in the county and state, as there are far fewer residents with multiple disabilities in Livingston (3.8 percent) than in the county (6.3 percent) and state (5.2 percent). Among those with a disability, 72.8 percent have one disability, while 27 percent have two or more types of disability.

Table E3-18 Population by Number of Disabilities
Jurisdiction Total
With One Type of
Disability
With two or More
types of Disability No Disability
Livingston 14,078 1,446 539 12,093
Percent 10.3% 3.8% 85.9%
Merced County 276,304 18,099 17,266 240,939
Percent 6.6% 6.3% 87.2%
California 38,946,377 2,108,406 2,037,095 34,800,876
Percent 5.4% 5.2% 89.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table C18108. 437 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-13
Table E3-19 summarizes the population with a disability by age. In Livingston, residents aged 18 to 64 years old make up the largest population of disabled individuals at 9.8 percent of the total population, which is higher than countywide (6.6 percent) and statewide (5.1 percent). The under 18 years age group accounts for the smallest percent of those with a disability at 0.9 percent in Livingston, which is similar to the rates for the county and state (1.3 and 0.9 percent, respectively).

The age group of 65 years and older has a lower rate of disability than the county and state averages.

Table E3-19 Disability by Age for the Total Population
Jurisdiction Total Under 18 Years 18 to 64 Years 65 Years and Older Livingston 14,078 125 1,376 484
Percent 0.9% 9.8% 3.4%
Merced County 276,304 3,666 18,311 13,388
Percent 1.3% 6.6% 4.9%
California 38,946,377 315,849 1,964,845 1,864,807
Percent 0.8% 5.1% 4.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table C18108.

Table E3-20 identifies residents with a developmental disability by age. In Livingston, most residents with a developmental disability are under 18 years old, which is consistent with both the state and county.

Table E3-20 Developmental Disability by Age
Jurisdiction Under 18 Years 18 Years and Older Total Population with a Disability Livingston 77 52 129
Merced County 1,507 1,287 2,794
California 192,384 185,353 377,737
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, DDS Quarterly Consumer Report, December 2021.

Table E3-21 includes data summarizing the housing location of residents with developmental disabilities. The majority of Livingston residents with a developmental disability live in the home of a parent, family member, or guardian (125). Less than 11 residents live in an independent/ supported living facility or in foster/family homes, while no residents live in community care facilities or in intermediate care facilities.

Table E3-21 Developmental Disability by Residence
Residence Type City of Livingston Merced County California Home of Parent/Family/Guardian 125 2,937 309,381
Independent/Supported Living <11 232 27,881
Community Care Facility 0 80 23,728
Intermediate Care Facility 0 60 6,188
Foster/Family Home <11 <11 8,288
Other <11 <11 4,792
Total >125 >3,309 380,258
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, DDS Quarterly Consumer Report, January 2022. 438 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-14
The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, administered by the U.S. Social security Administration, shows the number of persons with disabilities who may have housing needs because of their low incomes. As of December 2021, 10,190 SSI recipients in Merced County were receiving benefits because they were blind or disabled.1

Resources for Persons with Disabilities
The State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides community-based services to persons with developmental disabilities through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two community‐based facilities. Regional centers provide “point of entry” services to those that are developmentally disabled. The closest center to Livingston is the Central Valley Regional Center in Merced, approximately 17 miles away. The Central Valley Regional Center is a non‐profit community agency that contracts with local businesses to provide services to developmentally disabled persons and their families.

In addition, Livingston’s Grace Home also offers housing for seniors with disabilities, as mentioned before in section 6.2.9: Special Needs Groups. While there are no specific public housing resources that are accessible to people with disabilities in Livingston, there are 181 total public housing units available to low and moderate-income families and individuals in the city. As shown in Table E3-19, there 1,985 people with a disability in Livingston, illustrating a significant gap in housing resources for residents with a disability. The City will implement Program 8 to facilitate housing for persons with disabilities or developmental disabilities.

Large Households
Table E3-22 provides information on large households by tenure in Livingston, Merced County, and California. See section 9.2.7: Large Households for more information. As shown, there are 838 owner-occupied large households and 364 renter-occupied large households. The percentage of total large households in Livingston (36.4 percent) is significantly higher than the county (21.7 percent) but higher than the state (13.9 percent).

Table E3-22 Large Households by Tenure
Jurisdiction
Total
Households
Owner-Occupied Large Households Renter-Occupied Large Households 5-Person 6-Person
7-or-More
Person 5-Person 6-Person
7-or-More
Person
Livingston 3,299 564 154 120 204 24 136
Percent 17.1% 4.7% 3.6% 6.2% 0.7% 4.1%
Merced County 81,618 4,737 1,952 1,649 5,380 2,184 1,808 Percent 5.8% 2.4% 2.0% 6.6% 2.7% 2.2%
California 13,217,586 580,759 246,420 200,281 456,013 199,263 147,732 Percent 4.4% 1.9% 1.5% 3.5% 1.5% 1.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25009. 1 Source: U.S. Social Security administration. SSI Recipients by State and County, 2021. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_sc/2021/ca.html Note: Although these figures can give a sense of the proportion of the population with different types of disabilities, a much smaller proportion of the population may actually require specially adapted housing to accommodate disabilities.) 439 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-15
Resources for Large Households
Units with four or more bedrooms are the primary housing resource for large households.

Table E3-23 compares the number of large households to the number of large units. Units with five or more rooms provide housing options for large households and work to lessen overcrowding. In Livingston, there are 267 units with five or more bedrooms, leaving a potential resource gap of 935 units. When considering large units with four or more bedrooms (774), the potential resource gap is reduced to 161 units.

Table E3-23 Large Households and Units
Jurisdiction
Total
Households
Large Households
(5 or more persons) Total Units
Large Units
(4 bedrooms)
Large Units
(5 or more bedrooms)
Livingston 3,299 1,202 3,407 774 267
Percent 36.4% 23.5% 8.1%
Merced County 81,618 17,710 86,767 17,656 3,002
Percent 21.7% 21.6% 3.7%
California 13,217,586 1,830,468 14,328,539 2,373,268 596,588 Percent 13.8% 18.0% 4.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-Year Estimates), Tables DP04.

Female-Headed Households
Table E3-24 identifies single female-headed households with their own children under age 18. The table values do not include female-headed households with unrelated dependents. Livingston has a total of 250 single female-headed households with their own children under 18, representing 7.6 percent of total households. This is similar to the county (7.8 percent) and higher than the state (4.7 percent).

Table E3-24 Single Female-Headed Households with Own Children Jurisdiction Total Households Single Female-Headed Households* Percent Livingston 3,299 250 7.6%
Merced County 81,618 6,365 7.8%
California 13,217,586 614,747 4.7%
Notes: Single Female-Headed Households with own children under age 18, does not include unrelated dependents.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B11012.

Table E3-25 compares female-headed households by tenure. As shown, there is a larger percentage of renter-occupied female-headed households (73.7 percent) than owner-occupied female-headed households (26.3 percent). There is a considerably larger proportion of owner-occupied female headed households in both the county (31.1 percent) and state (41.7 percent). 440 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-16
Table E3-25 Female-Headed Family Households by Tenure
Jurisdiction Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total
Livingston 202 565 767
Percent 26.3% 73.7%
Merced County 4,569 10,129 14,698
Percent 31.1% 68.9%
California 713,100 996,675 1,709,775
Percent 41.7% 58.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B17010.

Resources for Single-Parent and Female-Headed Households Resources for lower-income female-headed households include existing affordable housing units in the city as well as rental assistance provided through the County’s Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. Below is a list of local agencies dedicated to assisting parents:
 First 5 Merced County is dedicated to improving the lives of Merced County’s young children, including Livingston, and their families through a comprehensive system of education, health services, and other crucial programs. The Strong Families programs enable families to raise their children in a safe, stable, and nurturing home. These programs work with families, educators, health, and social services providers to support parents and guardians.  Ace Overcomers Program is committed to helping teens and adults overcome the effects of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs).
 Merced County Office of Education provides educational services to children and families including childcare subsidies to offset the costs of care.  Sierra Vista Child and Family Services is committed to supporting the community by providing mental health services to children and youth under the age of 21.  Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health (MCAH) Services provides information and services to mothers and children.

Extremely Low-Income Residents
Extremely low-income (ELI) households are defined as households with incomes under 30 percent of the AMI. ELI households typically consist of minimum wage workers, seniors on fixed incomes, the disabled, and farmworkers. This income group is likely to live in overcrowded and substandard housing conditions. Many ELI households overlap with other special housing needs groups such as seniors and people with disabilities, demonstrating a disproportionate need for affordable housing options. ELI households have specific housing needs that require greater government subsidies and assistance, housing with supportive services, single room occupancy (SRO) and/or shared housing, and/or rental subsidies or vouchers. In recent years, rising rents, higher income and credit standards imposed by landlords, and insufficient government assistance has exacerbated the problem.

Without adequate assistance this group has a high risk of homelessness.

Table E3-26 identifies extremely low-income (ELI) households by tenure in Livingston. Renteroccupied ELI households account for 21.5 percent of total households in Livingston, significantly higher than owner-occupied ELI households (3.7 percent percent). The percentage of renter-occupied ELI households in the city is significantly higher than the rate in the county (10.7 percent) and the state (10.8 percent). The percentage of owner-occupied ELI households in Livingston (4.0 percent) is 441 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-17
slightly higher than in Merced County (3.7 percent) and lower than in California (4.5 percent). There are 405 total ELI households in Livingston, comprising approximately 25.2 percent of total households in the city. This is considerably higher than in the county (14.3 percent) and state (15.3 percent).

Table E3-26 Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure
Jurisdiction
Income <=30% HAMFI
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total ELI Households Total Households Livingston 60 345 405 1,605
Percent 3.7% 21.5% 25.2% 100.0%
Merced County 2,940 8,540 11,480 80,010
Percent 3.7% 10.7% 14.3% 100.0%
California 592,010 1,427,405 2,019,415 13,217,586
Percent 4.5% 10.8% 15.3% 100.0%
Source: U.S. Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2015-19 (5-Year Estimates), Table 7.

Table E3-27 summarizes cost burdens among extremely low-income households. As shown, 50 of 60 ELI owner-occupied households (83 percent) are experiencing a moderate or severe housing cost burden. This is higher than the county (79 percent) and the state (80 percent). In addition, 295 of 345 ELI renter-occupied households (86 percent) are experiencing a moderate or severe housing cost burden. This is higher than in the county (80 percent) but lower than the state (88 percent). In Livingston, renter-occupied households with a severe cost burden account for 66.7 percent of all ELI households. This is significantly higher than in the county (52 percent) and the state (51 percent).

ELI households also generally experience more housing problems compared to other income categories. Approximately 75 percent of ELI households experience a housing problem, while approximately 60 percent of Low-income households and approximately 18 percent of moderateand above moderate-income households experience a housing problem.

Table E3-27 Extremely Low-Income Households Overpaying by Tenure Jurisdiction
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Total ELI
Households
Cost
Burden
<30%
Moderate
Cost
Burden
30%-50%
Severe
Cost
Burden
>50%
Cost
Burden
<30%
Moderate
Cost
Burden
30%-50%
Severe
Cost
Burden
>50%
Livingston 10 15 35 50 25 270 405
Percent 2.5% 3.7% 8.6% 12.3% 6.2% 66.7% 100.0%
Merced County 615 595 1,730 1,075 1,530 5,935 11,480
Percent 5.4% 5.2% 15.1% 9.4% 13.3% 51.7% 100.0%
California 117,890 92,945 381,175 172,130 216,880 1,038,395 2,019,415 Percent 5.8% 4.6% 18.9% 8.5% 10.7% 51.4% 100.0%
Source: US Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2015-19 (5-Year Estimates). 442 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-18
Resources for Extremely Low-Income Households
The Housing Authority of the County of Merced currently administers the HCV program, a federal rent subsidy program under the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The program provides rent subsidy to families in privately owned existing rental units in Merced County. The Housing Authority of the County of Merced currently administers 2,705 HCVs. 2 In addition to the HCV program, the Housing Authority also administers Emergency Housing Vouchers (EHV). In order to be eligible for an EHV, an individual must meet one of the four eligibility criteria: 1.

Homeless; 2. At risk of homelessness; 3. Fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking; 4. Recently homeless and for whom providing rental assistance will prevent the family’s homelessness or having high risk of housing instability.3

Table E3-28 includes an inventory of affordable housing in Livingston. As shown, there are 181 affordable units in the city. These units serve households making less than 80 percent AMI and may be accessible to extremely low-income households. Based on the identified need (405 ELI households), there is a significant need for additional units that are affordable to ELI households in the city. The City will implement Program 8 to facilitate housing for ELI households.

Table E3-28 Inventory of Public Assisted Complexes, Livingston Name Address City Zip Affordable Units
Harvest Garden Apartments 1429 Nut Tree Road Livingston 95334 43 Casitas Del Sol 1001 B Street Livingston 95334 35
Vintage West Apartments 1000 Front Street Livingston 95334 55 The Orchards On Newcastle 1972 Main Street Livingston 95334 48 Total 181
Note: All locally assisted or restricted developments may not be included in this list.

Source: California Housing Partnership, 2023.

Farmworkers
Farmworkers and day laborers are an essential component of California’s agriculture industry.

Farmers and farmworkers are the cornerstone of the larger food sector, which includes the industries that provide farmers with fertilizer and equipment, farms to produce crops and livestock, and industries that process, transport, and distribute food to consumers. Farmworker households are often comprised of extended family members or single male workers. Farmworkers make up the majority of the agricultural labor sector and include individuals whose primary income is earned through either seasonal or permanent agricultural labor.

Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. Migrant farmworkers as a group consist of individuals who travel not only across county lines but also from one major geographic region of California to another to find work. Travel for work prevents them from returning to their primary residence every evening. Many migrant farmworkers are single males, most of whom are married and migrate alone 2 Housing Authority of Merced County, Housing Choice Voucher, http://www.merced-pha.com/housing-choice-voucher/ accessed June 2023.
3 Housing Authority of Merced County, Emergency Housing Vouchers, http://www.merced-pha.com/emergency-housing-vouchers-ehvfrequently-asked-questions-faq/ accessed June 2023. 443 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-19
to support their families who live at home base. However, there are many migrant families who have more than one employed member.

When workloads increase during harvest periods, the labor force is supplemented by seasonal labor, often supplied by a labor contractor. Non-migrant seasonal farmworkers consist of individuals who work only during a harvest season, and who are able to return to their primary residence every evening. This group, which includes cannery workers, is fairly significant, and includes more than half of all farmworkers in the state. Permanent farmworkers comprise the smallest group of individuals employed in agriculture. Permanent farmworkers are employed year-round, usually by one employer in the agricultural industry. This group generally lives in rural areas in permanent housing provided by the grower. Providing migratory or seasonal farmworkers with affordable shelter has long presented a problem. Traditionally, growers offered some level of shelter to workers, yet the availability of grower-offered housing has dramatically decreased over the last twenty years. While housing for farmworkers is most convenient when located on or adjacent to farms, housing affordable at very low-income levels tends to be more feasible in cities. Housing in cities, with services located nearby, may also be more suitable for seasonal farmworkers whose families live with them. Increasingly, farmworkers are living in cities on a year-round basis, especially in existing single family rental units in older neighborhoods that offer relatively low-cost housing and its central location in relation to farmland.

According to a study conducted by the University of California, Merced, farmworker households frequently experience high poverty rates, severe overcrowding, and poor housing conditions, with a majority renting and living in substandard environments due to their typically lower incomes and face a disproportionate need for more affordable housing. These housing issues, combined with the demanding and poorly compensated nature of farmwork, often lead to negative health outcomes and exacerbate respiratory and infectious diseases.4 The U.S. Department of Agriculture provides countywide farmworker population data generated by the Census of Agriculture. The most recent Census of Agriculture data (2017) identified 15,566 farmworkers in the county.5 Table E3-29 provides 2021 ACS data for the total population of residents working in the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining industries (including farmworkers) in Livingston and Merced County. Livingston had 859 workers in these categories in 2021, representing 7 percent of the total population across the county.

Table E3-29 Farmworker Population
Jurisdiction Farmworkers
Livingston 859
Percent 7.0%
Total Merced County 12,326
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table C24050. 4 Farmworker Health in California. UC Merced. August 2022. https://clc.ucmerced.edu/sites/clc.ucmerced.edu/files/page/documents/fwhs_report_2.2.2383.pdf?_gl=1*1rg0e9w*_ga*MTU3Njc2MD MzNS4xNzA4OTk2Nzgx*_ga_TSE2LSBDQZ*MTcwODk5Njc4MC4xLjAuMTcwODk5Njc4MC42MC4wLjA 5 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture, https://www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus/ accessed June 2023, accessed June 2023. 444 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-20
The United States Department of Agriculture Census of Agriculture reported 1,397 farms with a total of 15,945 workers in Merced County (see Table E3-30). The majority of farmworkers were yearround, working 150 days or more per year.

Table E3-30 Farmworkers in Merced County by Days Worked (2017) Farm Type Number of Farms Number of Workers
150 Days or More (Year-Round)
Small Farms (less than 10 workers per farm) 512 1,535
Large Farms (10 or more workers per farm) 291 7,853
Subtotal 803 9,388
Fewer than 150 Days (Seasonal)
Small Farms (less than 10 workers per farm) 438 1,346
Large Farms (10 or more workers per farm) 156 5,211
Subtotal 594 6,557
Total 1,397 15,945
Source: USDA. 2022 Census of Agriculture - County Data. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/California/st06_2_007_007.pdf Resources for Farmworkers
Self-Help Enterprises (SHE) built a self-help housing project called Casitas Del Sol, which provides 36 units of affordable multifamily housing to low- and very-low-income farm workers and their families in Livingston. SHE also provided 173 units of affordable sweat-equity ownership housing for very low and low-income farmworkers in the city over the past 40 years. Livingston Campus Park, which is managed by the Merced County Housing Authority, provides 60 multifamily units offered to lowincome families, including farmworkers. As reported in Table E3-29 above, there were more than 859 farmworkers living in Livingston in 2021. Despite the housing opportunities listed above, there is a significant gap in housing resources for farmworkers in the city. The City will implement Program 8 to facilitate housing for farmworkers.

Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Figure E3-2 shows households experiencing homelessness by type between 2005 to 2022. As shown, 2005 had the highest reported number of households (1,101) by the Merced County Continuum of Care (CoC), the majority of which were unsheltered. Data for 2020 indicates that 559 households experienced homelessness in the county, including 313 of those counted as unsheltered. These numbers increased from 2020 to 2022, at which point over 680 households experienced homelessness in the county.
445 of 912
City of Livingston
Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element E3-21
Figure E3-2 Homelessness by Type Over Time, Households, Merced County Source: U.S. HUD, CoC Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, 2022).

Point in time count data is reported by the CoC for Merced County, including Livingston. Table E3-31 provides the most recent (2023) point-in-time count for individual residents experiencing homelessness in the county. In 2023, there were a total of 784 people experiencing homelessness in Merced County, 0.7 percent of which live in Livingston (6 people).

Table E3-31 Homelessness by Type (2022)
Jurisdiction Sheltered Unsheltered Total
Merced County 394 390 784
Livingston 0 6 6
Percent 0.0% 1.5% 0.7%
Source: Merced City and County Continuum of Care, Point-in-Time Count (2022).

Figure E3-3 identifies homelessness by type and race in Merced County for the year 2023. As shown,

53.2 percent of the homeless population countywide was reported as sheltered. In terms of race, 69 percent reported as white, 17 percent as Black or African American, one percent as Asian, three percent as American Indian or Alaska Native, less than one percent as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 10 percent as multiple races.
115
9 95 107 209
40 1 38
139
115
946
38 743
313
363
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2005 2010 2015 2020 2022
■ Emergency Shelter ■ Transitional Housing ■ Unsheltered 446 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
447 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. 448 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. 449 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.
450 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. 451 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. 452 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. 453 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.
454 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. 455 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 456 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
457 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
458 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.
459 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. 460 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.
461 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. 462 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. 463 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.
464 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E3-40
This page intentionally left blank.
465 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
466 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.
467 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. 468 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.
469 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.
470 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. 471 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, 472 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.
473 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. 474 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/ 475 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 476 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 477 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 478 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.
479 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
480 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.
481 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 482 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.
483 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 484 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.
485 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 486 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.
487 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. 488 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. 489 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. 490 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.
491 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. 492 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).
493 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.
494 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.
495 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 496 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.
497 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.
498 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.
499 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. 500 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 501 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.
502 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.
503 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.
504 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E4-40
This page intentionally left blank.
505 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 506 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.
507 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
508 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).
509 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 510 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.
511 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
512 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
513 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
514 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 515 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
516 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-12
Figure E5-7 Percent of Population with a Disability and Residential Elderly Care Facilities (City of Livingston) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2024 and Department of Developmental Services, 2024. ~
~
Livingston City Boundary
' - - , Neighborhoods
e Elderly Care Center
Population With a Disability
(Tract) • ACS (2018-2022)
<10%
10%- 20%
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
-------
North Livingston
Central Livingston
South Livingston
®m:r/€ll
I
Al4, Ploce~rlu 2014, HCD 1024, Sources. Estf, TomTom, Garmin, FAD, NOAA,, USGS, C ~nSrrttrMop conmburors, and the GIS UserCommt.1mtv. ACS 2017-1011 , HCD, PloceWotks, HUD Reg,on 9, UC Berlcley UDP, TCAC 1011, CalEnvlroScreen 4.0, 1021, CAL FIRE, OEHHA, FEMA 0 02 0.4 N
Miles A
517 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-13
Approximately 12 percent of the total employed population in Livingston have one or more disabilities, reflecting a decrease from 2016. Only one percent of the unemployed population has one or more disabilities, a decrease from 16 percent in 2016. Table E5-2 shows employment status by disability status estimates for Livingston.

Table E5-2 Employment Status by Disability Status (City of Livingston) Disability Status
Employed
2012-2016
(Percent of Total
Employed)
Unemployed
2012-2016
(Percent of Total
Unemployed)
Employed
2017-2021
(Percent of Total
Employed)
Unemployed
2017-2021
(Percent of Total
Unemployed)
No Disability 4,958
91%
608
84%
5,145
88%
592
99%
With a Disability 485
19%
119
16%
734
12%
8 1%
Total 5,443 727 5,879 600
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, ACS, Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2012-2016, 2017-2021 Estimates.

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

The household composition of total households with children in Livingston is similar compared to Merced County and the Northern SJV region. However, there is a higher percentage of single parent, female-headed households who rent in Livingston than Merced County and the NSJV region.

Livingston has a total of 3,299 households in 2021. Households with children present comprise approximately 36 percent (1,198 households) of the total households in the city. This is similar to the region, where 37 percent of households have children present. Married-couple families with children comprise the largest share of households with children (22 percent), which is lower than observed trends in Merced County (49 percent). Female-headed single-parent households comprise the majority of renter occupied single-parent households. Male-headed single-parent households comprise the majority of owner-occupied single-parent households, although they account for only a small percentage of the population. (Table E5-3)
518 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) 5-14
Table E5-3 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (City of Livingston) Household Type Owner-Occupied
Percent of Total
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Percent of Total
Renter-Occupied
Married Couple Family, with
Children Present
497 26.4% 226 15.9%
Single-Parent, Male Householder,
no Spouse Present
59 3.1% 35 2.5%
Single Parent, Female
Householder, No Spouse Present
15 0.8% 366 25.8%
Total Households with Children
Present
571 30.4% 627 44.2%
Total Households 1,881 1,418
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, ACS, Table B25115 Tenure by Household Type and Presence and Age of own Children, 2016-2020 Estimates.

The percentage of children residing in female-headed, single-parent households is greater in the western portion of Central and South Livingston, where the percentage of children a living in a female-headed, single-parent household ranges between 20 and 40 percent (Figure E5-8). Elsewhere in Livingston, less than 20 percent of children are living in female-headed, single-parent households.

The eastern portion of Central Livingston and South Livingston have the highest percentage of children in married-couple households, with 60 to 80 percent of children in married-couple households (Figure E5-9). Across the rest of the city, between 40 and 60 percent of children live in married-couple households.

There are four childcare centers in Livingston, including two in the census tract where more than 20 percent of households are single-parent female-headed, as shown in Figure E5-10. Facilities are accessible to all Livingston neighborhoods.
519 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-15
Figure E5-8 Female-Headed Households with Children Present, No Spouse/Partner Present (City of Livingston) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2024 and Department of Developmental Services, 2024.

II
ll
II
Ii II Livingston City Bounda ry
~ : :, Neighborhoods
Percent of Children in Female
Householder, No Spouse/Partner
Present Households
D Less than 20%
□ 20%- 40%
I
North Livingston
rr;.
ft:-; .• 'I J
.... ....

Fresno County Dept. PWP, Merced County Association of Gov; Cahfornia State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, So/eGroph, Geo Technologies, Inc, METI/ NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, ACS 2017-2021, HCD, PlaceWorks, HUD Region 9, UC Berkley UDP, TCAC 2022, Ca/Envir0Screer1 4.0, 2021, CAL FIRE, OEHHA, FEMA -;1
II
IL
\I ,--
0 0.2 0.4 N
Miles A
520 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-16
Figure E5-9 Children in Married-Couple Households (City of Livingston) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.
:@Imm•-
[I II Livingston City Boundary
~ : :, Neighborhoods
Percent of Children in MarriedCouple Households
- 40% -60%
- 60%- 80%
- 80% -100%
Fresno County Dept. PWP, Merced County Association of Gov, Ca/ifomia State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGroph, Ge0Tech11ologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management; EPA, NPS, U5 Census Bureau, USDA, ACS 2017-2021, HCD, P/aceWorks, HUD Region 9, UC Berkley UDP, TCAC 2022, CoJEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021, CAL FIRE, OEHHA, FEMA

0.2 0.4 N
Miles A
521 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-17
Figure E5-10 Female-Headed Households with Children Present, No Spouse/Partner Present and Child Care Centers (City of Livingston)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2024 and Department of Developmental Services, 2024. l"/liBl'l'i01lli'Ykl
II II Livingston City Bounda ry
~ ~ ~I Neighborhoods
0 Childcare Facility
Percent of Children in Female
Householder, No Spouse/Partner
Present Households (Tract) - ACS
(2018-2022)
D Less than 20%
D 20% -40%
f
North Livingston
00 Central Livingston
I 0
South Livingston
I
I
ACS, Pf ace Works 2024, HCD 2024, Sources: Esri, Tom Tom, Garmin, FAD, NOAA, USGS, © Open Street Mop contributors, and the GIS User Community, ACS 2017-2021, HCO, Place Works, HUD Region 9, UC Berkley UDP, TCAC 2022, ColEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021, CA L FIRE, OEHHA, FEMA ~
0 0 0.2 0.4 N
Miles A 1 '· to "'
522 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-18
E5.9 Household Income
Household income is directly connected to the ability to afford housing. Higher-income households are more likely to own rather than rent housing. As household income decreases, households tend to pay a disproportionate amount of their income for housing and the number of persons occupying unsound and overcrowded housing increases. To achieve fair housing objectives, people in lowincome households must have a choice in housing opportunities—that is, when they are able to locate units that are affordable and well maintained in all parts of a jurisdiction and region.

This section identifies household income disparities using data based on median household income and low- or moderate-income (LMI) geographies. HUD defines an LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI. The definition of LMI is based on HUD income definitions of up to 80 percent of the area median income (AMI). Data for this analysis is from the HUD Low and Moderate Income Summary based on the 2011-2015 ACS (most recent available data).1
As of 2021 (most recent available data), Livingston has a median household income of $68,958 per year, greater than the county’s median income of $53,992, but significantly lower than the state median household income of $87,100. Median household income across Livingston falls between $55,000 and $90,100 in all census tracts. (Figure E5-11) Median income is higher in North Livingston than it in Central or South Livingston. These areas, particularly the census tract that makes up North Livingston, overlap with unincorporated Merced County, which may skew the median income in these areas. The residential units in this census tract within the city’s boundaries are much newer and in better condition than the residential units located in the unincorporated areas. The majority of residential units in this census tract are located within the boundaries of Livingston.

LMI populations are prevalent throughout the western part of Merced County and Livingston, especially in the northeast portion of North Livingston, and Central Livingston (Figure E5-12). The eastern portion of Central Livingston has the highest percentage of LMI households, with 75 to 100 percent of residents falling into that category. LMI households make up approximately 50 to 75 percent of the western portion of Central Livingston, the northwest portion of North Livingston, and the northwest portion of South Livingston. The western portion of Southern Livingston has the lowest percentage of LMI residents within the city. These areas have newer and larger housing stock compared to the rest of the city. Many of the houses within this neighborhood were constructed within the last 15 years. LMI households in the remainder of the city make up 25 to 50 percent of the population.

Figure E5-13 shows updated low to moderate income household populations, public housing buildings, and subsidized housing units in Livingston. There are five publicly assisted housing projects in Livingston. In addition, there is one mobile home park located in South Livingston.

However, there is no correlation between location of publicly assisted housing and location of publicly assisted housing and concentrations of low- and moderate-income households.

Higher density housing tends to be more affordable for lower income households. As discussed in Section E5.12, Local Area Knowledge, all three Livingston neighborhoods, North, Central, and South, have pockets of areas zoned for higher density residential uses. The block group in North Livingston with the highest concentration of low- and moderate-income households does not have a larger share of higher density residential zones.
1 HUD Exchange 2021: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/acs-low-mod-summary-data/ 523 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-19
Figure E5-11 Median Household Income (City of Livingston) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

II
11 II Livingston City Boundary
~-=- _=-1 Neighborhoods
Median Income (Tract) - ACS
(2017-2021)
- Less than $55,000
$55,000 - $90,100
A
j
c.d.!
11 Fresno County Dept. PWP, Merced County Association of Gov; Cahfornia State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SofeGroph, Geo Technologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, ACS 2017-2021, HCD, PlaceWorks, HUD Region 9, UC Berkley UDP, TCAC 2022, Ca/EnviroScreen 4.0, 2021, CAL FIRE, OEHHA, FEMA I
II
r
I
I
II
0 0.2
Miles
71 I
II
IL

0.4 N
A
524 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-20
Figure E5-12 Low- and Moderate-Income Population (City of Livingston) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.
ll
\YJJiG%J:il!)(M;,
11 II Livingston City Boundary
~ : :, Neighborhoods
{A) Low to Moderate Income
Population (HUD) - Block Group
- < 25%
25% -50%
□ 50%- 75%
- 75% -100%
A
J
Fresno County Dept. PWP, Merced County Association of Gov, California State Porks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, Geo Technologies, Inc, M ETI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, ACS 2015-2019, HCD, PfaceWorks 2021, HUD Region 9 2021, UC Berkley Urban Displacement Project, TCAC 2022, Ca/EnviroScreen 4.0, 2021 I
'

0.2 Miles
l
I
I
I
l1

0.4 N
A
525 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-21
Figure E5-13 Low- and Moderate-Income Population, Public Housing, and Subsidized Housing (City of Livingston) Source: AFFH Data Viewer 3.0, 2025.
~
Ii ii Livingston City Boundary
~: : 1 Neighborhoods
Low to Moderate Income (HUD,
2024) - Block Group
- 25%- 50%
- 50%-75%
- 75%- 100%
Subsidized Housing (CHPC, 2023)
• Up to 50 Units
e 50 - 100 Units
Public Housing Buildings (HUD,
2024)
• 0-4
• 5-15
I
<lentral mvingston
South Livingston
•
CHPC, PlaceWorks 2022, J-ICD 2022, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Sources: Esri, Tom Tom, Garmin, FAQ, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMop contributors, and che GIS User Community, ACS 2017•2021, HCD, Place Works, HUD Region 9, UC Berkley UDP, TCAC 2022, Ca/EnviroScreen 4.0, 2021, CAL FIRE, OEHHA, FEMA ===i./ ~

0.2 0.4 N
Miles A
526 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-22
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
To identify racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (known as R/ECAPs), the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) includes a poverty concentration and racial segregation filter that aligns with HUD’s R/ECAP methodology but is intended to reflect the level of racial and ethnic diversity more effectively. TCAC categorizes census tracts that have both a poverty rate of over 30 percent and that are designated as being racially segregated (overrepresentation of people of color relative to the region) as areas of high segregation and poverty.

In Livingston there are no designated areas of high segregation and poverty. However, Central Livingston has the highest percentage of LMI households which overlaps with a high percent of nonwhite population. Areas of high segregation and poverty in the Northern SJV region are found in larger cities. This includes the cities of Lodi, Stockton, Modesto, Turlock, Merced, and Los Banos.

Poverty and Segregation
The eastern portion of Central Livingston and South Livingston have poverty rates that range from 30 to 40 percent. Across the rest of Livingston, poverty rates range from 10 to 20 percent (Figure E5-14). This is similar to the unincorporated portions of Merced County, but lower than most nearby jurisdictions such as the cities of Atwater and Merced, where poverty rates exceed 40 percent in some areas. While the census tracts that encompass North Livingston overlap with unincorporated areas, the majority of residents within these census tracts live within city limits. As a result, it is assumed that the percentage of residents earning below the poverty line within these census tracts accurately reflects the neighborhoods of Livingston.

Concentrated Areas of Affluence
The AFFH Data Viewer identifies Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs), defined as white, affluent communities, as census tracts that have a white population that is 1.25 times higher than Merced County and a household median income 1.5 times higher than the AMI. There are no RCAAs in Livingston as defined by HCD. All Livingston neighborhoods have incomes that exceed the county’s household median income of $53,992 per year. However, these neighborhoods also have high percentages of non-white residents. Within the region, RCAAs are located primarily in areas surrounding major cities such as Merced, Atwater, and Los Banos. 527 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-23
Figure E5-14 Poverty Status (City of Livingston)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

I
~ il
&I
I
I ~~ f
~€0
II k/~
I
u V tr ( L
JJ
IJ II
II II Livingston City Bounda ry
~: :1 Neighborhoods
Poverty Status (Tract) - ACS
(2017-2021)
10% -20%
- 20%- 30%
- 30% -40%
II
I
.....

North Livingston
-
Ii_
j
Fresno County Dept. PWP, Merced County Association of Gov, California State Porks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, Geo Technologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, ACS 2017•2021, HCD, PlaceWorks, HUD Region 9, UC Berkley UDP, TCAC 2022, Ca/EnviroScreen 4.0, 2021, CAL FIRE, OEHHA, FEMA 1-r-----
11 II
II
- - -
I
0 0.2 0.4 N
Miles A
528 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-24
E5.10 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Transit Access and Walkability
Livingston encompasses 3.5 square miles, making most facilities and resources easily accessible to most residents. Residents without access to a car primarily rely on the County’s Regional Transit System, or family and friends for transportation to work or medical care. The Livingston medical clinic complex is centrally located along B Street, near shopping, downtown, bus stops, schools, and multi-family housing. Most community facilities are located throughout the city, ensuring convenient access for many residents.

There is limited transit service within Livingston. “The Bus,” Merced County's Regional Transit System, was formed from the consolidation of four former local public transit service providers in July 1996. Today, the Bus is the single public transportation service provider for all of Merced County. The Bus operates 15 fixed routes throughout the region. The Bus offers veterans, seniors and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-eligible passengers to ride for free on all services provided by The Bus throughout Merced County. Within Livingston, there are two fixed route bus lines that run through the city.

The Bus offers the following services in Livingston:
 The Livingston Commuter: The Livingston Commuter line runs through Livingston Winton, Atwater, and Merced. It runs approximately every 1.5 hours. This line operates between 6:14 a.m. to 7:51 p.m. Monday through Friday and 7:15 a.m. to 7:12 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.  Turlock Commuter: The Turlock Commuter runs through Turlock, Delhi, Livingston, Atwater, and Merced, and runs approximately every hour. This route operates from 5:30 a.m. to 8:50 p.m. on weekdays and from 9:00 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. on weekends.
 Paratransit is a curb-to-curb shred transit service for persons with a disability and seniors.

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

Access to transit is relatively consistent across Livingston neighborhoods. Transit stops are located around the city, with a concentration of stops in the Downtown area. While service coverage is similar, residents in Central Livingston near the Downtown area have shorter walks to bus stops.

AllTransit is an online database that examines factors related to transit access and produces a performance score that reveals the social and economic impact of transit, such as connectivity and access to jobs. Livingston received an average AllTransit performance score of 2.0 which equates to a very low combination of trips per week and number of jobs that are accessible, enabling a negligible number of people to take transit to work.2 This is similar to the majority of the region where slightly more than one percent of commuters use transit. Walk Score is a private company that offers a walkability index on its website which measures the pedestrian friendliness of a given location by analyzing walking routes to nearby amenities and examining population density and road metrics, including block length and intersection density.3 Livingston received an overall walk 2 AllTransit.Org, 2021. https://alltransit.cnt.org/
3 Walk Score, 2021. https://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml 529 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-25
score of 56 out of 100, which is considered “somewhat walkable,” and some errands can be accomplished on foot.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has a walkability index, that ranks block groups according to their relative walkability.4 According to the National Walkability Index, the eastern half of Central Livingston, including Downtown, is the most walkable (Figure E5-15). The City has made significant upgrades to streets and sidewalks in the Downtown area and is actively modernizing sidewalk corners along Main Street to improve accessibility. The western part of Central Livingston, the central portion of North Livingston, and the eastern part of South Livingston are above average walkable, and other areas of the city are considered below average walkable.

There are several transportation planning initiatives that are currently underway that will improve transit access and walkability in the city. The Merced County Association of Governments is currently in the process of updating the 2026 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). This is a long-term (20+ year) plan that provides a vision for the future of transportation and sustainable development in Merced County. The RTP/SCS outlines the vision, goals, and strategies that will guide transportation planning, improve mobility, and promote sustainability throughout the region.

The Merced Regional Multimodal Access Plan (MRMAP) is currently underway. The MRMAP focuses on connecting residents to the future rail stations in Livingston, Atwater, and Downtown Merced. As part of this effort, the City has developed two regional maps showing existing and planned railrelated investments in the region. The maps are currently in draft form but include the future ACE rail line and stations that will run through Livingston, Atwater, and Merced. Furthermore, the City’s General Plan Update, currently underway, will include an update to the Circulation Element.

Based assessments by City staff, right-of-way improvements are in fair to good condition. There are some stretches of roadway where sidewalks are not available, but they are generally located along undeveloped properties and are not concentrated in a single area of the city.

Access to Quality Education
Educational outcomes are measured through the educational opportunity index, which measures the percentage of fourth-grade students testing proficient in reading and math within three miles of a census block group. Scores range from 0 to 1, with 1 being the most positive educational outcome, and 0 being the least positive educational outcome. Educational outcomes are more positive across Livingston (Figure E5-16). Educational outcomes are higher than other nearby jurisdictions such as the cities of Delhi, Winton, and Merced, which all have lower educational outcomes.

The City is served by the Livingston Union School District (LUSD)and the Merced Union High School District (MUHSD). The LUSD serves approximately 2,500 students and operates three elementary schools, one middle school, and two childhood development centers. MUHSD serves several jurisdictions in eastern Merced County, including Livingston. Livingston High School, which is part of MUHSD, serves 1,206 students in grades 9-12. According to Ed-Data, Livingston High School has an overall graduation rate of 98 percent. Approximately 14 percent of students are classified as English learners, and 81 percent are eligible for free or reduce priced meals.5 District boundaries and school locations are shown in Figure E5-17. All Livingston neighborhoods have equal access to educational opportunities. However, schools are primarily located in older, 4 EPA, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/national-walkability-index-user-guide-and-methodology 530 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-26
more centralized neighborhoods developed during the city’s early growth. As a result, students living in the eastern, northeastern, and southwestern areas must travel further to access educational facilities. These areas have fewer safe routes to school options, creating additional barriers for families.

The four schools located in Livingston are outdated and in need of improvements. LUSD completed a Facilities Master Plan (FMP) in November 2016 and is in the process of updating the FMP. Since the adoption of the FMP, LUSD has added 24 elementary school classrooms, nine extended learning classrooms, STEM labs to each elementary school, a new multipurpose building, created two kindergarten suites, and reconfigured the pick-up/drop off logistics of two schools to improve traffic flow.

Economic Outcomes
TCAC measures economic opportunity by census tract. They consider poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. A higher economic index score reflects more positive economic outcomes. Economic outcomes are higher in Livingston than in the nearby jurisdictions of Winton and Merced, but lower than a majority of unincorporated area within the eastern side of Merced County (Figure E5-18).

According to 2021 ACS estimates, Livingston has an employment rate of 59 percent, which is higher than the employment rate for the county (49 percent). The largest industries in Livingston are educational services, health care, and social assistance (23 percent of employed population); manufacturing (19 percent); and agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining (14 percent).

Educational services, health care, and social assistance and agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining are also the largest industries in the county based on employment.

Land zoned for commercial and industrial uses in Livingston is primarily located in Central and North Livingston. Foster Poultry Farms, a poultry processing plant located in North Livingston, operates 24 hours per day throughout the year and employs over 3,600 employees at this location. Many employees are Livingston residents. However, many industrial parcels in North Livingston are vacant. The City is working to attract additional industrial employers to North Livingston, but the distance to the freeway and improvement costs are a significant barrier. A small, partially developed industrial park in Central Livingston, east of the Downtown area, contains light industrial uses. The largest employers in this area include Emerald Textiles, which provides commercial laundry services for medical facilities, and the City of Livingston Corporation Yard.

Commercial zones are concentrated in Central Livingston and industrial zones are concentrated in the western end of North Livingston. South Livingston is zoned for residential, which uses do not provide employment opportunities. According to the California Employment Development Department, Foster Poultry Farms in Livingston, the University of California Merced in Merced, Mercy Medical Center in Merced, and Hilmar Cheese in Hilmar are the largest employers within Merced County, within or within commuting distance of Livingston.6 Many residents also work in Regional Trucking Transportation Services.

The employment sector in Livingston has generally remained static over the last several decades.

There have not been any recently developed commercial or industrial areas, job centers, or large employers.
6 California Employment Development Department. 2023.
https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/majorer/countymajorer.asp?CountyCode=000047 531 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-27
Figure E5-15 Walkability Index (City of Livingston)
Source: National Walkability Index, 2023.

J
~
II I) Livingston City Bounda ry
~ : : 1 Neighborhoods
National Walkability Index
- 1 - 5.75 (Least Walkable)

5.76 - 10.50 (Below
Average Walkable)

10.51 - 15.25 (Above
Average Wal kable)
- 15.26 - 20 (Most
Walkable)
Fresno Counl'y Dept. PWP, Merced County Association of Gov, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, Geo Technologies, fnc, METf/NASA, USGS, Bureau of l and Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, ACS 2015-1019, HCD, PlaceWorks 2021, HUD Region 9 2021, UC Berkley Urban Displacement Project, TCAC 1022, Ca(EnviroScreen 4.0, 2021 I
Miles
Ht H~
532 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-28
Figure E5-16 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (City of Livingston) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

I I .•
:€llirotim:: /
ll ~
(
¾
~
LI
JI II Livingston City Boundary
~ ~ _:-1 Neigh borhoods
COG Geography TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map - Education
Score (HCD, 2023) - Tract
□ > 0.2-0.4
- > 0.8 - 1 (More Positive
Economic Outcomes)
Fresno County Dept. PWP, Merced County Association of Gov, California Stace Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, 5afeGraph, Geo Technologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, ACS 2017·2021, HCD, PlaceWorks, HUD Region 9, UC Berkley UDP, TCAC 2022, Ca/EnviroScreen 4.0, 2021, CAL FIRE, OEHHA, FEMA

0.2 0.4 N
Miles A
533 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-29
Figure E5-17 District Boundaries and School Locations (City of Livingston) Source: LUSD Facilities Master Plan, November 2016..

School Sites and District Facilities
D !STRICT O HICE 922 8 St.. Livingston CA 95334
Andres Zamora. Superintendent

CAMPUS PAIK UUIENTUY SCHOOL
1845 H Street, Uv,ngston. CA 95334
Grades· TK-5
Jorge Arteaga, Pnnopal
SHIU HEINDO ELUlfNTAIY SCHOOL
71• Prusso St. Livingston. CA 95334
Grades. TK-5
Stella Monlilnel. Pnnclp;,I
YA ATO COLO Y £ UUNTUY SCHOOL 800 N. Main Strfft, Uv,ngston, CA 9S334 Grades, TK·5
Alma Deluna, Princlp;,I (At the time of the Master Plan)

LIVINGSTON MIDDLE SC IDOL
101 F SL, Livingston. CA 95334
Grades 6-8
V,ctona Bradshaw, P11napal

PRUSSO CNILD DEVHOPMEN CE TU
848 Prusso St, Livingston, CA 9S334
Ages. 3-5 Years old
AIN £NANCE OPUA 10 S TUNSPOHATION 922 1 / 2 "II" Strfft, Livingston. CA 9S334 N,ck Jonu, MOT Director
i
, .... IHOO •••oo I IJ lltN 11,00 , ....
534 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-30
Figure E5-18 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Economic (City of Livingston) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

II
il /_
l'JJiJFJwiilDib
11 11 Livingston City Boundary
~ ~ ~1 Neighborhoods
COG Geography TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map - Economic
Score (HCD, 2023) - Tract
□ > o.4 - o.6
> 0.6-0.8
- > 0.8 - 1 (More Positive
Economic Outcomes)
I
<,nm,f/€ll
I
r
\ \\
- --i--::- ~ - - ---
- l-Jl.j JI 11 j c4ULJJ J [ ][ ccJ[lr l /L.1L ]
JL_J !f Li
r
------i\ f~ c~
J J
:I
/I
Fresno County Dept. PWP, Merced County Association of Gov, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, Geo Technologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, ACS 2017-2021, HCO, PlaceWorks, HUD Region 9, UC Berkley UDP, TCAC 2022, CafEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021, CAL FJRE, OEHHA, FEMA lf - lf
II
II
11 II
JI
I
,r-
~
--

0.2 0.4 N
Miles A l I
535 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-31
As part of the City’s General Plan update, the City will identify new areas for commercial and industrial development. The Plan is expected to incorporate both mixed-use development and designate property for business park land uses, which increase increasing number and variety of job opportunities.

Healthy and Safe Housing Environment
The CalEnviroScreen map identifies the degree to which communities are considered burdened by pollution. CalEnviroScreen identified higher pollution burden across Livingston, with a percentile score between 71 and 80. (Figure E5-19). This is lower than the scores for the majority of Merced County, particularly the western portions. Throughout the city, pollution burden caused by ozone pesticides, and drinking water are high. The TCAC environmental opportunity map also identifies pollution burden, using CalEnviroScreen scores. However, unlike CalEnviroScreen, the TCAC map compares census tracts to other census tracts within the same council of governments to show differences in pollution burden within the region. According to the TCAC opportunity map, environmental outcomes are low across Livingston (Figure E5-20).

State Route 99 runs diagonally through the city between North Livingston and Central Livingston.

This heavily trafficked corridor likely contributes to low environmental outcomes in the city.

Industrial uses in North Livingston are well-buffered from nearby residential areas, reducing potential environmental impacts on nearby households. Current industrial operations primarily utilize steam energy, which significantly lowers air quality impacts within the city. However, there have been occasional complaints regarding odors originating from Foster Poultry Farms. While these odor issues are not health risk, they may affect quality of life for residents in proximity to the facility.

Senate Bill (SB) 535 tasks the California Environmental Protection Agency with identifying disadvantaged communities. Disadvantaged communities are low-income areas that are disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards. Under SB 535, a minimum of 25 percent of funds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, funded by revenue from the state’s cap-and-trade emissions program, goes to projects that benefit disadvantaged communities. All of Livingston is considered a disadvantaged community under SB 535 (Figure E5-21). This is because population characteristics such as cardiovascular disease, education, and linguistic isolation are also high throughout Livingston and Merced County, in addition to the pollution burden described above.

Livingston has recently invested in the water well system, including refurbishing existing wells and adding new water treatment capabilities. However, due to limited funding, no major infrastructure projects are currently planned.

Parks are evenly distributed across the city and all neighborhoods in Livingston have access to parks and outdoor spaces. A new recreation complex and community park, the Rec-Plex, is being planned along D Street between 6th and 8th streets. The project is in the design phase, and actual construction will depend on costs and available funding. In addition, new multifamily projects are being designed to have sufficient access to park and open space opportunities There are three multifamily projects that are planned or under construction:
536 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-32
Figure E5-19 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (City of Livingston) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.
ii iJ Livingston City Boundary
~ -=- _=-1 Neighborhoods
{A) CalEnviroScreen 4.0 - Feb
2021 Update)
- 71-80
- 91 - 100 (Highest Scores)
~
/J
/)
J
Fresno County Dept. PWP, Merced County Association a/Gov, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, So/eGraph, Geo Technologies, Inc:, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureov af lond Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, ACS 2015-2019, HCD, PlaceWorks 2021, HUD Region 9 2021, UC Berkley Urban Displacf:'ment Project, TCAC 2022, Ca/EnviroScreen 4.0, 2021 0 L

0.2 0.4 N
Miles A
hF - " H
537 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-33
Figure E5-20 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Environmental (City of Livingston) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.
ll
II II Livingston City Boundary
~ ~ ~ I Neighborhoods
COG Geography TCAC/HCO
Opportunity Map -
Environmental Score (HCD, 2023)
- Tract
-
0 -0.2 (Less Positive
Economic Outcomes)
□ > 0.2-0.4
Fresno County Dept. PWP, Merced County Association of Gov, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGroph, GeoTechnofogies, Inc, METf/NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, ACS 2017-2021, HCD, PfaceWorks, HUD Region 9, UC Berkley UDP, TCAC 2022, CafEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021, CAL FIRE, OEHHA, FEMA

0.2 Miles
538 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-34
Figure E5-21 SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities (City of Livingston)

Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

II
l~L • __
ll ~ - "
11 JI ~ - -- ~~
;~=--.---r
2022) ERE Garmm SafeGraph, GeaTechnalag,es, Inc, ~ ' OEHHA FEMA D t PWP. Merced County Assoc,at1on of Gov, California StaDtR• Parks,98;;~ ~erkl~y UDP, TcAC 2022, CafEnviroScreen 4 0, 2021, CAL FIRE, ' Fresno County ep ' A ACS 2017-2021, HCD, PlaceWorks, HU eg1an ' EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USO ' 539 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-35
 The Villages at Main Street – 480-unit multi-family project located in South Livingston.

Construction is expected to commence in winter 2025.
 Tierra Santa Villas Apartment project – 80-unit affordable housing project presently under construction by Visionary Home Builders along B Street. Occupancy is expected to commence in October 2025.
 River Glen Apartments – 80-unit affordable housing project under construction by Self-Help Enterprises. Occupancy is expected to commence in late 2026.

E5.11 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate housing needs refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. To analyze the extent of disproportionate housing needs, this section reviews HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data on housing cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing conditions (collectively known as “housing problems”), homelessness, and displacement risk.

Housing Problems
According to federal law, “housing problems” refers to any of four housing issues: cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing conditions. Substandard housing is defined as a housing unit lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities.

Approximately 42 percent of total households in Livingston experience housing problems. About 24 percent of total households experience severe housing problems. This is similar to the region, where 41 percent of all households experience housing problems and 23 percent of households experience severe housing problems.

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

Approximately 50 percent of Livingston’s housing stock was constructed prior to 1990 and is more than 30 years old. These units are potentially in need of repair and modernization improvements.

According to City staff’s knowledge of rehabilitation needs, older homes located in Central Livingston generally have a greater need for rehabilitation or replacement. These older neighborhoods also tend to have smaller lot sizes compared to areas developed more recently.

Newer housing subdivisions are located in the north, northeast, south, and southwest of the city.

The housing in these areas tends to be higher quality than housing found in Central Livingston.

Housing Cost Burden
The rate of cost burden (spending more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs) is high throughout Livingston. Cost burden by homeowners in North Livingston and the western part of Central and South Livingston is between 20 and 40 percent of owner-occupied households (Figure E5-22). The cost burden among homeowners is higher in the eastern part of Central and South Livingston, with 40 to 60 percent of homeowners overpaying. This is similar to other nearby 540 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-36
communities, such as Atwater and Winton, but lower than the City of Merced, where trends indicate that 60 to 80 percent of owners are cost burdened. Cost burden among homeowners in most of the city is lower than the region, where approximately 56 percent of homeowners are experiencing cost burden.

For renter households, between 20 and 40 percent of the renter population is cost burdened (Figure E5-23). Similar to owner-occupied households, this is lower than other nearby jurisdictions such as Atwater and Merced, which have areas where 60 to 80 percent of renters are cost burdened, and lower than the region, where 44 percent of renter households experience cost burden.

Approximately 38 percent of total households in Livingston are cost burdened and 27 percent of households are severely cost burdened (Table E5-4). Both owner- and renter- occupied households experienced cost burden across all income levels. Extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households experienced cost burden at disproportionately high rates compared to moderate and above moderate-income households, for both renter and owner households. The percentage of households experiencing cost burden generally increases as income decreases, which represents trends in Livingston. Approximately 85 percent of all extremely low-income households experienced cost burden, while only 11 percent of moderate and above moderate-income households experienced cost burden.

Table E5-4 Cost Burden by Income Category (2015-2019)
Household by Tenure, Income, and
Housing Problem
Owners Renters Total Household s
Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent
Extremely low-income (0-30% AMI) 60 345 405
With any housing problem 60 100.0% 295 85.5% 355 87.7%
With cost burden >30% 50 83.3% 295 85.5% 345 85.2%
With cost burden >50% 35 58.3% 50 14.5% 85 21.0%
Very low-income (31-50% AMI) 260 255 515
With any housing problem 155 59.6% 240 94.1% 395 76.7%
With cost burden >30% 155 59.6% 240 94.1% 395 76.7%
With cost burden >50% 50 19.2% 15 5.9% 65 12.6%
Low-income (51-80% AMI) 375 540 915
With any housing problem 250 66.7% 265 49.1% 515 56.3%
With cost burden >30% 159 42.4% 265 49.1% 424 46.3%
With cost burden >50% 4 1.1% 275 50.9% 279 30.5%
Moderate & Above Income (>80% AMI) 1220 545 1,765
With any housing problem 205 16.8% 50 9.2% 255 14.4%
With cost burden >30% 140 11.5% 50 9.2% 190 10.8%
With cost burden >50% 40 3.3% 490 89.9% 530 30.0%
Total Households 1,920 1,685 3,605
With any housing problem 670 34.9% 850 50.4% 1520 42.2% With cost burden >30% 514 26.8% 850 50.4% 1364 37.8%
With cost burden >50% 119 6.2% 835 49.6% 954 26.5%
541 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-37
Household by Tenure, Income, and
Housing Problem
Owners Renters Total Household s
Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent
Note: Housing Problems: There are four housing problems in the CHAS data: 1) housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2) housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3) household is overcrowded; and 4) household is cost burdened. A household is said to have a housing problem if they have any 1 or more of these 4 problems.

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

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

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), CHAS ACS tabulation, 2015-2019 release Overcrowding
As discussed in Chapter E3, Housing Needs Assessment, Livingston has 1,202 large households (households with five or more people), comprising approximately 36 percent of total households, as shown in Table E5-5. This is 14 percent higher than the county (22 percent) and 17 percent higher than the Northern SJV region average (19 percent). A higher percentage of owner households (45 percent) are large households compared to renter households (26 percent).

Approximately 13 percent of households in Livingston are overcrowded (more than 1.0 persons residing per room), which is greater than the statewide average of eight percent, and the countywide average of nine percent. The rate of overcrowded households is higher in North Livingston than Central and South Livingston (Figure E5-24). Overcrowding rates are lower than other cities and communities in the county, such as the community of Winton, where overcrowding ranges from 15 to 20 percent, and the City of Merced, which contains areas where over 20 percent of households are overcrowded.

Table E5-5 Large Households (City of Livingston)
Number of Household Percent of Households
Total Occupied Housing Units 3,299 100%
Total Large Households (5 or More Persons) 1,202 36%
5-Person Household 768 23%
6-Person Household 178 5%
7-or-More Person Household 256 8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Data (2017-2021), Table B25009. 542 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-38
Figure E5-22 Overpayment by Home Owners (City of Livingston) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

II
f
II II Livingston City Boundary
~ ~ _=-1 Neighborhoods
Overpayment by Home Owners
(2017-2021) - ACS Tract Level
20% - 40%
- 40%- 60%
North Living~\On
Fresno County Dept. PWP, Merced County Association of Gov, Co(1Jornia State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, Sa/eGraph, Geo Technologies, Inc, METJ/ NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bvreau, USDA, ACS 2017-2021, HCD, PlaceWarks, HUD Region 9, UC Berkley UDP, TCAC 2022, CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021, CAL FIRE, OEHHA, FEMA I
II
Miles
543 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-39
Figure E5-23 Overpayment by Renters (City of Livingston) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.
fil
l'JJlGwN!lcik
,,
[I II Livingston City Boundary
~ ~ .=-1 Neighborhoods
Overpayment by Renters
(2017-2021) - ACS Tract Level
0 < 20%
20% - 40%
- 40% -60%
South Livingston
Fresno County Dept. PWP, Merced County Association of Gov, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, Geo Technologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, ACS 2017-2021, HCO, PlaceWorks, HUD Region 9, UC Berkley UDP, TCAC 2022, CafEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021, CAL FJRE, OEHHA, FEMA I
1r
11 JI

0.2 0.4 N
Miles A
544 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-40
Figure E5-24 Overcrowded Households (City of Livingston) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.
~ I
~(ell
lf --
'
/j_
11 )
/
tf JL
--i~
I
North Livingston ' se>--=-Ce=n"'itral Livingsto
z [
,.......
,I
II II Livingston City Bounda ry
~ ; l [JL--r- ,
~tr l '{I if _ , [ 1111
~ ~ ~I Neighborhoods
Overcrowding (ACS, 2017 - 2021)
- Tract
I
'
-'
'J[Jl re'/,,.-:,,._,_, ~,,~ ]f 1( ][ U ~L 1~] • '> South Lt ngston _ J _ ILJL,.

I ~ _Jc_, t _L_~-~~~~~~1~ir~=1J- _
D Less than 5%
□ 5%- 10%
- 10% -15%
Fresno County Dept. PWP, Merced County Association of Gov, California State Parks, Esn, HERE, Garmin, SofeGraph, Geo Technologies, Inc, METf/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, ACS 2017-2021 , HCD, PfaceWorks, HUD Region 9, UC Berkley UDP, TCAC 2022, CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021, CAL FIRE, OEHHA, FEMA 0 0.2
Miles
l
I

0.4 N
A
545 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-41
Homelessness
According to the 2022 Merced City and County point-in-time (PIT) count, 855 unhoused persons were recorded in Merced County and its jurisdictions, representing a two percent increase since 2021.7 In Livingston, 35 unsheltered and sheltered people were recorded in 2022, compared to 34 people recorded in 2021 (three percent increase). The total population in Livingston comprises approximately five percent of the population in Merced County, and the unhoused population in Livingston represents four percent of the total unhoused population recorded in Merced County.

Livingston has a roughly proportional share of the county’s unhoused population. Of the 35 individuals identified during the 2022 PIT count, nine were unsheltered and 26 were sheltered. City staff have observed encampments in Central Livingston, between Liberty Market (1471 B Street) and the railroad tracks. Unhoused individuals are also concentrated just outside the city along the Merced River. Many unhoused individuals in and near Livingston elect not to accept services that are offered and made available to them. Service providers have indicated that most homeless residents reside in the larger cities in the county, such as the city of Merced.

The most recent 2024 PIT Count indicated that there was only one unhoused person in Livingston.

Based on the low number of individuals identified during the 2024 PIT count and the rate of sheltered individuals during the 2022 PIT Count (74 percent sheltered), homelessness is generally a smaller issue in Livingston compared to other areas of the county. The large proportion of homeless, sheltered individuals counted in 2022 also indicates that a significant proportion of the unhoused community has access to assistance.

The PIT Count does not provide demographic information of the unhoused population for Livingston.

There are no emergency shelters located in Livingston. However, within the Merced City and County Continuum of Care (Merced CoC) area there are 454 year-round emergency, safe haven, and transitional housing beds and 193 permanent housing beds, most of which are located in the city of Merced. The Merced CoC implements all annual HUD required activities. The County offers two types of programs for unhoused residents, including temporary and permanent housing assistance.

Temporary Homeless Assistance provides shelter for a maximum of 16 continuous days for families without a place to stay. The payment is provided to one of several pre-selected housing suppliers.

During the temporary period, the County recommends that families should be looking for permanent housing. Once permanent housing is found, families can receive assistance with a security deposit and other necessary deposits/fees in order to move in. Rent on permanent housing cannot be more than 80 percent of the maximum CalWORKs aid payment that the household is eligible for.

Merced County also administers the Home Safe Program to support the safety and housing stability of individuals involved in Adult Protective Services (APS) by providing housing-related assistance using evidence-based practices for homeless assistance and prevention. Home Safe offers a range of strategies to prevent homelessness and support ongoing housing stability for APS clients, including housing-related intensive case management, short-term housing related financial assistance, deep cleaning to maintain safe housing, eviction prevention, landlord mediation, and more. 7 Merced City and County Continuum of Care. 2022. Point in Time. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6149207801c5c134f32b280c/t/625605199113fa3f4be48dbe/1649875108255/Merced+County+C oC+2022+Homeless+Count+and+Survey+Report+
546 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-42
Merced CoC funding for Merced County is administered through the Merced CoC. In 2021, the following organizations were awarded Merced CoC funds in the Merced County region:
 County of Merced for $359,876, for Project Home Start and Project Hope Westside 2021 to provide permanent supportive housing.
 Housing Authority of the County of Merced for $77,010 for their Shelter Plus Care program to provide rental assistance.
 Merced County Community Action Board for $118,731 for their Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) administration.

As discussed in Section E5.10 above, The Bus offers the following services in Livingston:
 The Livingston Commuter: The Livingston Commuter line runs through Livingston Winton, Atwater, and Merced. It runs approximately every 1.5 hours. This line operates between 6:14 a.m. to 7:51 p.m. Monday through Friday and 7:15 a.m. to 7:12 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.  Turlock Commuter: The Turlock Commuter runs through Turlock, Delhi, Livingston, Atwater, and Merced, and runs approximately every hour. This route operates from 5:30 a.m. to 8:50 p.m. on weekdays and from 9:00 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. on weekends.
 Paratransit is a curb-to-curb shred transit service for persons with a disability and seniors.

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

The Foster Farms, 8th and F Street, and Livingston Health Center stops on the Livingston Commuter line are all accessible to local residents. The 8th and F and Livingston Health Center stations specifically are accessible to the Central Livingston area where encampments have been observed.

Local medical clinics include Livingston Community Health Services, RAN Health Services, MFA Medical Group, Northside Mental Services, and a WIC women’s health clinic. Livingston residents are also served by the Mercy Community Medical Center located in the city of Merced and the Emmanual Medical Center located in the city of Turlock. All local medical clinics, the Livingston Community Health Center, RAN Health Services, MFA Medical Group, Northside Mental Health Services, and WIC women’s health, are located in Central Livingston.

Displacement
The Urban Displacement Project (UDP) designates communities as at risk of displacement if the share of very low-income residents is greater than 20 percent and have any of the two following characteristics:
 The share of renters is above 40 percent
 The share of people of color is above 50 percent
 The share of very low-income households that are severely rent burdened is above the county median
 The percent change in rent is above the county median for rent increases According to the UDP, Livingston is considered to have a low risk of displacement (Figure E5-25).

However, home values and rents have increased significantly in Livingston over the past decade.

According to ACS estimates, between 2016 and 2021, average home value increased from $173,100 547 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-43
Figure E5-25 Displacement Risk (City of Livingston)
II
l
!r
=
II
~ ~
V
-... -... -...
~
I --.J
North Livingston !J ~ --ir
-...

Jr
11 ----
,--
Jf
I
tJJI r----- • L
--· "
71 -""""'~,.~ ==-=-------
JI
I l'lJira'ID'.1t!ft"i>
,_
~ -bm-Centrl iving~
= t-=r==-· ~C/~ Jl dfl ,w [L ,-;q---,
' IU[ c" ,;-J1 , JI . /[ [ 1l - ~==I -=-=>,~
II II Livingston City Boundary l~ul I¾?~ '": ";"~'o" [t jl l f ~ ~ : :1 Neighborhoods {R} Estimated Displacement Risk
- Overall Displacement {UCB,
Urban Displacement Project
2022}
Lower Displacement Ri sk
II
II
/1
_c__
Fresno County Dept. PWP, Merced County Association of Gov, California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SofeGroph, Geo Technologies, Inc, METf/NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, ACS 2015-2019, HCD, P/aceWorks 2021, HUD Region 9 2021, UC Berkley Urban Displacement Project, TCAC 2022, CofEnviraScreen 4.0, 2021 l
r7 ,1
71 0 0.2 0.4 N
Miles A
548 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-44
to $242,400 (40 percent increase) and median rent increased from $933 to $1,145 (23 percent increase. In addition, about 38 percent of all households are cost burdened, meaning many households are paying too much for housing. While the UPD rates the risk of displacement as low across Livingston, these trends indicate cost burdened and low-income households may be at risk of displacement if the cost of housing continues to rise.

There are currently no areas in Livingston where environmental hazards, such as flooding, wildfires, or other natural disasters, pose a significant risk of displacement. The City’s geographic location and land use patterns help minimize exposure to these threats.

E5.12 Local Area Knowledge
Historic Patterns of Segregation
The first inhabitants of Livingston were the Yokuts Indians, which occupied the Orestimba, Garzas, and Quinto creeks. The Yokuts peoples were either forcibly removed and sent to Spanish missions along the coast, or were killed by the Spanish Influenza, which swept the area in 1833. The first settler arrived in the area in 1862. The Southern Pacific Railway crossed the Merced River in 1871, and the Cressy station was built. The development of Livingston into a town site was stimulated by railway gang workers, gold seekers, and farmers. William Little, a landowner, laid out the town by platting a visionary 80 blocks, 40 blocks on each side of the railroad track. In the early 1900s, rightsof-way were established to provide irrigation for Livingston. As a result, Livingston was able to achieve a period of steady growth. It was incorporated in 1922.

Agriculture has been and continues to be a primary industry in Livingston. The grape industry, vineyards, sweet potato, and almond industries are the main agricultural products in the city.

Livingston is the world headquarters for Foster Farms and the largest chicken slaughterhouse and processing plant in the world is within city limits.

There are several historical factors that have shaped racial/ethnic patterns in Livingston.8 The Yamato Colony, established on 3,200 acres in the early 1900s, was a Japanese agricultural community in Livingston. There were a reported 69 Japanese families in the Yamato Colony in 1940.

In 1910, the Japanese Yamato Colony founded the Livingston Farmers Association. At the beginning of World War II, in anticipation of internment, most of the residents of the Yamato Colony formed a corporation headed by a European-American to hold their property. As a result, the Japanese residents of Yamato were able to reclaim their property after the war.

In addition to the Japanese, Livingston is home to several other immigrant populations. From the 1890s to 1930s, the city saw an increase in Hispanic and Latino immigrants, many of whom worked on the railroads. Many railroad workers would work in Livingston seasonally, returning to their country of origin for part of the year. Over time, many of the families immigrated to Livingston and the Hispanic population has remained a majority for many decades. In the 1970s, the Foster Farms chicken processing plant also created new employment opportunities, attracting immigrant workers primarily from India and Latin America. The Hispanic/Latino and Indian populations continue to make up a large proportion of the city’s population.
8 City of Livingston, 2022. 100 Years and Growing Strong. www.cityoflivingston.org/recreation/page/100-years-and-growing-strong. 549 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-45
The Portuguese from the Azore Islands are prominent in the dairy industry and in sweet potato farming. Filipinos immigrated to fill farm labor needs. Mennonites found a religious community and remained as family farmers. More recently, Sikhs of India have arrived.

Stakeholder and Community Input
A community workshop was held in Livingston on August 29, 2023. During the workshop, participants expressed rent affordability as one of the biggest housing challenges in Livingston, as well as difficulty finding the type of housing needed, and difficulty buying a home. During workshops held in each jurisdiction as part of the Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element planning effort, participants identified the most significant housing barriers, including rent affordability and rent increases, lack of housing with supportive services, and difficulty buying a home.

The City also participated in a series of stakeholder interviews with service providers, community organizations, and affordable and market-rate housing developers held between August 8 and August 23, 2023. Community organizations identified the need for housing near medical facilities and public transportation. Additional housing needs include transitional housing and citywide and countywide rent control. Compared to larger cities in the region, smaller, rural areas have vastly fewer amenities and housing resources. According to market-rate housing developers, barriers to developing housing include high construction costs, limited resources offered for affordable housing within the Central Valley, and lack of subsidies for affordable housing units. Affordable housing developers described the need for more attainable zoning and entitlement approvals and the necessity of transit being near affordable housing locations. According to affordable housing developers, cities can foster strong relationships with affordable housing providers and maintain knowledgeable staff to pursue grant opportunities for affordable housing.

An online community survey was available on the Merced County Association of Governments Housing Element website in both English and Spanish from May to December 2023. The survey asked participants about housing issues and the types and location of housing development they would like to see in their city. A total of four respondents reported that they live, work, own a business or property, or go to school in Livingston. Respondents in Livingston identified that the most important aspects when looking for housing are affordability, quality and size, and close to work and/or school. The most urgent housing needs are the affordability of housing, availability of housing, homelessness, and fair housing/discrimination. According to respondents, the most beneficial programs to assist with housing needs are homebuyer loan counseling services, rental assistance or HCVs, housing assistance for residents with special needs, and home rehabilitation assistance. Areas that would be best for housing development are areas with existing housing, (increasing the number of housing units that could be built on each property such as with fourplexes, courtyard houses, and other types of apartment complexes) and land that could be converted from an underutilized non-housing use to residential or mixed-use.

Other Relevant Factors
Other factors to fair housing issues in Livingston that have not been previously discussed in this analysis include language barriers and lack of farmworker housing. These contributing factors limit the accumulation of wealth and access to housing resources in historically marginalized communities.
550 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-46
Limited English Proficiency
Language barriers can lead to linguistic and cultural isolation. According to the 2017-2021 ACS estimates, 83 percent of Livingston residents speak a language other than English at home, and the majority of those speak Spanish.

Farmworker Housing Needs
Much of the land surrounding Livingston is utilized for agricultural operations and approximately 14 percent of Livingston’s population (859 persons) works in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining. Livingston is located near Winton, Atwater, and Delhi, all of which contain expansive agricultural operations. Farmworkers employed by nearby agricultural businesses may seek housing in Livingston. However, the migratory and often seasonal nature of farm work often makes it difficult for farmworkers to find affordable housing options. There is currently no public or subsidized housing for farmworkers in Livingston. HACM operates one property for farmworkers in Planada, approximately 25 miles from Livingston. HACM also operates several migrant housing centers across Merced County.

Housing Stock Type
The vast majority of the housing stock in Livingston (86 percent) is made up of detached singlefamily homes, which may not be affordable for lower-income households. Thirty percent of all housing units contain four or more bedrooms which can accommodate large families without overcrowding.

The City of Livingston has 1,202 large households, approximately 36 percent of total households. A higher percentage of owner households (45 percent) are considered large households compared to renter households (26 percent).

North Livingston features a mix of residential uses and some newer commercial development near Highway 99. Most residential dwellings north of Highway 99 are single-family homes, with roughly one-third built before 1985 and the remainder constructed after 2000. Newer homes include full street improvements such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and underground utilities, while older neighborhoods often incorporate alleys, overhead utility lines, and some vacant lots lacking sidewalks. Market-rate apartments located at the north end of the city offer lower rents compared to other areas.

Approximately six applications for accessory dwelling units have been submitted in North Livingston.

Newer homes tend to be owner-occupied by higher-income and younger households, whereas older homes are primarily rental properties or occupied by older residents.

More than half of the City’s housing stock is in Central and South Livingston. Of these, approximately one-third were built after 2000. Newer homes are generally concentrated in South Livingston. In contrast, most dwellings near the Downtown area in Central Livingston were constructed prior to the mid-1980s
Land Use
In Livingston, residential development comprises 14.1 percent of the City’s Planning Area.

Public/institutional uses represent 6.1 percent, commercial areas two percent, and parks and open space 1.6 percent. Agricultural land surrounds the city and makes up 60.6 percent of the Planning Area. “Planning Area” refers to the area encompassing all incorporated and unincorporated territory 551 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-47
that bears a physical relationship to the long-term planning of the city, as outlined in the Existing Conditions Report of the 2040 General Plan Update.

The City’s Zoning Map is shown in Figure E5-26. Most of the South Livingston area is characterized by single-family residential zones with smaller pockets zoned for high density residential, public/quasi-public facilities, and community commercial uses. Newer residential development in South Livingston features larger homes on lots with a minimum size of 7,000 square feet. Block groups in South Livingston have non-White populations exceeding 81 percent. The western side of South Livingston has an LMI household population representing less than 25 percent of the block group population, compared to the eastern side which has LMI household populations ranging from 25 to 75 percent. The eastern side of South Livingston contains most of the area zoned for higher density residential uses. Higher density housing is typically more affordable to lower income households.

In the southern portion of the city, land uses include commercial development and new multifamily apartment projects. A 480-unit apartment project has been entitled, and the property owner is working with the local irrigation district to underground the irrigation canal that traverses the site.

Additionally, the area contains one large mobile home park, which is currently approximately 50 percent occupied with new mobile homes.

Central Livingston is zoned for a variety of uses including high density residential, medium density residential, low density residential, downtown commercial, highway service commercial, community commercial, and public/quasi-public facilities. Medium and high density residential zones make up most of the perimeter of the Downtown area. Residential uses in Central Livingston typically have smaller lot sizes of less than 5,000 square feet. Central Livingston contains block groups with nonWhite populations exceeding 81 percent and LMI households exceeding 50 percent. The area east of Lincoln Boulevard has a larger population of LMI households compared to the area west. This section of Central Livingston also has the largest area zoned for high density residential uses.

South of Highway 99, land uses consist mainly of commercial and medical facilities near the highway, along with a mix of older commercial and residential development in the Downtown area.

This part of town is characterized by older infrastructure, including alleys, overhead utility lines, and aging structures. Two new affordable multifamily apartment projects are currently under construction along B Street, adjacent to existing low-income affordable apartments operated by Self-Help Enterprises and the Housing Authority. The Downtown area has benefited from recent street improvements, including new curbs, sidewalks, and crosswalks. However, vacant properties in this area are subject to requirements for undergrounding overhead utilities, which can be costprohibitive for new construction projects.

The North Livingston area is characterized by industrial, highway service commercial, low density residential uses with smaller pockets zoned for medium and high density residential and public/quasi-public facilities uses. Residential uses in North Livingston are served by a regional park, a regional transit route, and a community childcare center. LMI households represent 25 to 50 percent of the population in North Livingston block groups.

There has not been much development in the city during the last ten years. The city’s current General Plan was drafted in 1999. The 2008 GP update was challenged by the local Farm bureau, and was overturned by the Courts.
552 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-48
Figure E5-26 City of Livingston Zoning
"'f-----f----{_!ccc===3 /====~- ,-------- !i.'
Legend
1==1==t; Railroad
-- Highway
- • City Limits
•- • Sphere of Influence
A-1 Low Density Residential
A-2 Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C- Community Commercial
.. Highway Service Commercial
.. Downtown Commercial
M-1 Limited Industrial
.. General Industrial
Public/Quasi-Public Facilities
O Open Space
City of Livingston Zoning
wt,
1,000 500 0 1,000Feet
December 19, 20 19 IVC'rG
553 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-49
Figure E5-27 Housing Choice Vouchers (City of Livingston) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

I
I
l
r (
~ d
rJ? -j/
LJI JL 71
\VJl;G'mJ'.ffi)J,
II
'-------
11 II Livingston City Boundary
~: :, Neighborhoods
Housing Choice Vouchers Tract
{HUD, 2021}
D No Data
D Less than 5%
--f
~b rth Livingston
_J .
-
. . r , Central Living~ 1
- - -
7 JL,
ri .
-=1outh Livingston
I
Fresno County Dept. PWP, Merced County Association of Gov, California State Porks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, Geo Technologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, ACS 2017•2021, HCD, PlaceWorks, HUD Region 9, UC Berkley UDP, TCAC 2022, Ca/EnviroScreen 4.0, 2021, CAL FIRE, OEHHA, FEMA I
Jr l!
11 t
=-~--_ -_---
0 0.2 0.4 N
Miles A
554 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-50
The city’s infrastructure master plans, prepared and adopted with 2008 General Plan, became void.

Consequently, the development impact fees serving new development no longer had a nexus study to substantiate the development costs of planned improvements. Moreover, no annexations have occurred over the last 20 years as the city and county have not adopted a Master Tax Sharing Agreement. The city is trying to negotiate a Tax Sharing Agreement but has not been successful to date.

Historic Growth Patterns
The development of the Central Pacific Railroad in California led to the establishment of many railroad towns throughout the Central Valley, including Livingston. Construction of the Central Pacific Railroad began in 1863. In 1872, in a bid to make Livingston the County seat, William Little, who owned about 2,500 acres of land, plotted the area surrounding Cressey Railway station into city blocks and offered to sell them at a fairly low rate on the condition that the town was chosen as the County seat. The town, however, lost the bid to Merced that year. The land was later purchased by a man named Cyrus Bliven in 1883, and soon after, land speculators began to sell plotted land to families. The implementation of irrigation systems in 1908 led to steady growth and a flourishing agricultural industry in Livingston.

The City was incorporated in 1922. Since then, agriculture has been the main industry and source of jobs for residents. The Yamato Colony, a Japanese agricultural community, was established in Livingston by Kyutaro Abiko in 1904. Abiko bought 3,000 acres of land and put out advertisements in Japanese, encouraging farmers to settle and form a colony. The formation of the Livingston Cooperative Society assisted the colony. The Yamato Colony formed a corporation with two other European-American lead colonies during World War II. The colonies headed by European-Americans held their property during Japanese internment, allowing many of the original residents to return.

The Yamato Colony members were instrumental in founding the Livingston Farmers Association which is still located on 6th Street. Most of the area that once formed this colony is now part of the City of Livingston and the Yamato Colony Elementary school was named to commemorate this part of history. The city continues to have a significant population of Asian American residents, representing 21 percent of the Livingston population compared to only around 7 percent countywide.

E5.13 Subsidized Housing
According to the California Housing Partnership, there are five affordable housing developments in Livingston totaling 200 units. These buildings are scattered throughout the city, with most located in Central and South Livingston.

The HACM administers housing choice vouchers (HCVs) in the City of Livingston. According to the AFFH Data Viewer, there are 14 households (1.68 percent of the renter population) that receive rental assistance through HCVs in Central and South Livingston, as shown in Figure E5-27. No HCV data is available for North Livingston.

There are several existing publicly assisted housing developments within the city. They are as follows:
 Vintage West Apartments, 1005 8th Street (Housing Authority)  Harvest Garden Apartments, 1429 Nut Tree (Housing Authority)  Casitas Del Sol (Self Help Enterprises)
555 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-51
 Olive tree Apartments, 1164 -1576 Olive Avenue
 Alicante Garden Apartments, 420 Franci Street
Additionally, there are two affordable housing buildings currently being constructed in Central Livingston totaling 160 units of low-income housing. This will result in a concentration of subsidized housing in Central Livingston.

E5.14 Housing Site Inventory Analysis
This portion of the AFFH analyzes the relation between the housing opportunity sites and AFFHrelated issues. Government Code Section 65583(c)(10) requires the housing opportunity sites to be analyzed with respect to AFFH to ensure that sites designated for low-income households are dispersed equitably throughout the city rather than concentrated in areas of high segregation and poverty or low-resource areas that have historically been underserved, and conversely, that sites designated for above moderate-income households are not concentrated in high-resource areas. By comparing the Site Inventory to the fair housing indicators in this assessment, this section analyzes whether the opportunity sites improve or exacerbate fair housing conditions, patterns of segregation, and access to opportunity.

Housing Sites by TCAC Opportunity Area
For purposes of evaluating fair housing, resource levels designated by TCAC/HCD denote access to economic and educational opportunities such as low-cost transportation, jobs, and high-quality schools and the quality of environmental factors in the area such as proximity to hazards and air quality. TCAC has a composite opportunity score for each census tract. The entirety of the city is designated as a high resource area, as shown in Figure E5-28. All of the housing opportunity sites as well as the planned and approved projects are located in high resource areas.

The City’s Site Inventory can accommodate 773 1,101 housing units on 20 sites. Figure E5-28 shows the housing opportunity sites by TCAC designated resource area. The housing opportunity sites are designated by low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income categories. The appropriateness of sites for various affordability levels is dictated by State housing element law and HCD guidance and includes allowable density, size of site, realistic capacity, existing use(s), and other factors. More information about the sites and income designations is available in Chapter E6, Housing Resources.

All of the housing opportunity sites are in high-resource areas, as all of Livingston is designated a high-resource area.

A portion of the City’s RHNA of 1,097 housing units will be satisfied by planned and approved projects (645 units which fulfills the entirety of the above moderate-income RHNA and a portion of the low -income RHNA). Planned and approved projects will add 160 low-income and 485 above moderate-income units.

Total Units by Resource Area
There are 773 1,101 units planned in areas of high resource: 37 38 percent of those units (392 416 units) will be lower-income units, 327 percent (205 357 units) will be moderate-income units, and 29 30 percent (176 328 units) will be above moderate-income units. Table E5-6 shows the number of proposed housing units by income level in each resource area. 556 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-52
Table E5-6 Proposed Housing Units by Resource Area
Income Level Lower-Income Moderate-Income
Above ModerateIncome Total Units
Areas of High Segregation and
Poverty
0 units
(0% of lowerincome units)
0 units
(0% of moderateincome units)
0 units
(0% of above
moderate-income
units)
0 units
(0% of total units)
Low-Resource Areas 0 units
(0% of lowerincome units)
0 units
(0% of moderateincome units)
0 units
(0% of above
moderate-income
units)
0 units
(0% of total units)
Moderate-Resource Areas 0 units
(0% of lowerincome units)
0 units
(0% of moderateincome units)
0 units
(0% of above
moderate-income
units)
0 units
(0% of total units)
High/Highest-Resource Areas 392 416 units
(100% of
lower-income
units)
205 357 units
(100% of
moderateincome units)
176 328 units
(100% of above
moderate-income
units)
773 1,101 units
(100% of total
units)
The planned and approved projects, together with the housing opportunity sites are located in high resource areas. Therefore, overall housing development during the planning period will not contribute to patterns of segregation based on resource designation. On the contrary, the City’s Site Inventory will accommodate lower- and moderate-income housing in areas designated high resource, which will increase the mix of housing at all income levels.

Sites by Income Population
The percentage of LMI households varies throughout Livingston, as shown in Figure E5-29. A portion of South Livingston has the highest percentage of LMI households (86 percent) in the city, and a portion of Central Livingston has the lowest percentage of LMI households (22 percent) in the city.

In areas with the highest percentage of LMI households, the Site Inventory assumes a capacity of 40 40 units appropriate for lower-income households, 178 units for 26 units for moderate-income households, and 152 units for above moderate-income households. Livingston residents will benefit from the mix of households of differing income levels and provide new housing options in areas that need them. Program 10 Housing Preservation and Rehabilitation focuses on the need for housing preservation and housing issues for residents, Program 11 Lower-Income and Special Needs Housing directs the City to collaborate with other agencies to assist in the development of housing for lowerincome residents with an emphasis on Central Livingston, and Program 14 Water and Sewer Service prioritizes the need for public infrastructure improvements specifically water and sewer services. •
557 of 912
City of Livingston
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
2024-2032 Housing Element E5-53
Figure E5-28 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Resource Area (City of Livingston) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.

II 11 City Boundary
r - -
1 __ 1 Neighborhoods
D Site Inventory
COG Geography TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map -
Composite Score (HCD,
2023) - Tract
- High Resou rce
Imagery provided by Esri and its licensors © 2026
....
1-2
14 3
CJ 15 6
............................
.... .... .... ........ .... .... .... ....
18 ACS 201 7-2021, HCD, PloceWorks, HUD Region 9, American Community Survey, UC Berkley Urban Displacement Project, TCAC 2022, Co/EnviroScreen 4.0, 2021, CAL FIRE, OEHHA, FEMA. .... .... ....
0 800 1,600 N
Feet A 22 3 -11::._AFF
yAFF
558 of 912
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032) E5-54
Figure E5-29 Housing Opportunity Sites by Low- and Moderate-Income Population (City of Livingston) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023.
~ South
C - -
Livingston
L - - I Neighborhoods
D Site Inventory
Low to Moderate Income
Population - Block Group
D < 25%
~ - 25% - 50% 18
- 50%- 75%
- 75% - 100%
0 800 1,600 N
Feet A
Imagery provided by Esri and its licensors © 2026
ACS 2017-2021, HCO, PlaceWorks, HUD Region 9, American Community Survey, UC Berkley Urban Displacement Project, TCAC 2022, CalfnviroScreen 4.0, 2021, CAL FIRE, OEHHA, FEMA. 2 1' HE AFF1
" " nt yAF
559 of 912

Livingston City CouncilAugust 18, 2026

Livingston City Council
August 18, 2026