A Regional Plan for Addressing Housing Needs
Merced County Atwater Dos Palos Gustine Livingston Los Banos Merced Attachment 1
Table of Contents
2024-2032 Housing Element i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction and Regional Collaboration ................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Housing Element Purpose and Content .......................................................................... 1-1
1.1.1 Organization of the Regional Housing Element .............................................. 1-2
1.2 Regional Housing Requirements ..................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements ................................................................ 1-3
1.4 Data Sources and Methods ............................................................................................. 1-4
1.5 Public Outreach ............................................................................................................... 1-4
1.5.1 Public Notification .......................................................................................... 1-5
1.5.2 Project Website .............................................................................................. 1-5
1.5.3 Community Workshops .................................................................................. 1-6
1.5.4 Stakeholder Interviews ................................................................................... 1-7
1.5.5 Community Survey.......................................................................................... 1-8 2 Regional Housing Needs Assessment ......................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Population Characteristics .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Population Growth .......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Age Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................................................... 2-3
2.5 Economic Characteristics ................................................................................................ 2-5
2.5.1 Employment.................................................................................................... 2-5
2.5.2 Income Definitions and Income Limits ......................................................... 2-11
2.6 Household Characteristics ............................................................................................ 2-16
2.7 Large Households .......................................................................................................... 2-17
2.8 Overcrowding ................................................................................................................ 2-18
2.9 Special Needs Groups ................................................................................................... 2-19
2.9.1 Seniors .......................................................................................................... 2-19
2.9.2 Persons with Disabilities (including Developmental Disabilities) ................. 2-23
2.9.3 Large Households ......................................................................................... 2-29
2.9.4 Female-Headed Households ......................................................................... 2-31
2.9.5 Extremely Low-Income Households ............................................................. 2-34
2.9.6 Farmworkers ................................................................................................. 2-36
2.9.7 Persons Experiencing Homelessness ............................................................ 2-41
2.10 Housing Stock Characteristics ....................................................................................... 2-46
2.11 Housing Growth ............................................................................................................ 2-46
2.12 Housing Type and Tenure ............................................................................................. 2-46
2.13 Vacancy Rate ................................................................................................................. 2-49
2.14 Housing Unit Size .......................................................................................................... 2-51 Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
ii
2.15 Age and Condition of Housing Stock ............................................................................. 2-52
2.16 Housing Costs ................................................................................................................ 2-54
2.16.1 Median Home Sale Price ............................................................................... 2-54
2.17 Distribution of Owner-Occupied Units ......................................................................... 2-56
2.18 Housing Rents ............................................................................................................... 2-58
2.19 Housing Affordability .................................................................................................... 2-59
2.19.1 Cost Burden .................................................................................................. 2-61
2.20 Assisted Housing Units .................................................................................................. 2-63
2.20.1 Funding Sources for Assisted Housing .......................................................... 2-63
2.20.2 Preservation of At-Risk Units ........................................................................ 2-64 3 Regional Housing Constraints Analysis ....................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Non-Governmental Constraints ...................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Land Costs ....................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Construction Costs .......................................................................................... 3-2
3.1.3 Availability of Financing .................................................................................. 3-3
3.2 Governmental Constraints .............................................................................................. 3-6
3.2.1 Land Use Controls ........................................................................................... 3-6
3.2.2 Residential Development Standards .............................................................. 3-7
3.2.3 Provision of a Variety of Housing Types ......................................................... 3-9
3.2.4 On- and Off-Site Improvement Standards .................................................... 3-12
3.2.5 Housing for Persons with Disabilities ........................................................... 3-12
3.2.6 Planning and Development Fees .................................................................. 3-13
3.2.7 Local Ordinances ........................................................................................... 3-14
3.2.8 Code Enforcement ........................................................................................ 3-14
3.3 Environmental Constraints ........................................................................................... 3-15
3.3.1 Floodplains .................................................................................................... 3-15
3.3.2 Seismic Zones ................................................................................................ 3-16
3.3.3 Wildfire ......................................................................................................... 3-16 4 Regional Housing Resources Analysis ......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Requirement .......................................... 4-1
4.2 Development Trends ....................................................................................................... 4-2
4.3 Summary of Developer Stakeholder Interview ............................................................. 4-21
4.4 Regional Financial Resources for Affordable Housing .................................................. 4-22
4.4.1 Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) ................................................ 4-22
4.4.2 Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) ......................................... 4-22
4.4.3 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) ............................................ 4-22
4.4.4 Continuum of Care (CoC) Program ............................................................... 4-23 Table of Contents
2024-2032 Housing Element iii
4.5 Administrative Resources ............................................................................................. 4-23
4.5.1 Merced County Association of Governments ............................................... 4-23
4.5.2 San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies Policy Council .................... 4-23
4.5.3 Non-Profit Organizations .............................................................................. 4-24
4.6 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 4-24
4.7 Opportunities for Energy Conservation ........................................................................ 4-24
4.7.1 California Building Code, Title 24 .................................................................. 4-24
4.7.2 Utility Programs ............................................................................................ 4-25 5 Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis ............................................................ 5-1
5.1 Introduction and Overview ............................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 Regional Analysis ............................................................................................ 5-1
5.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 5-3
5.3 Data Sources ................................................................................................................... 5-4
5.3.1 HCD AFFH Data Viewer ................................................................................... 5-4
5.3.2 Urban Displacement Project (UDP) ................................................................ 5-4
5.3.3 CalEnviroScreen .............................................................................................. 5-4
5.3.4 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps ........................................................................ 5-5
5.3.5 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data ................ 5-5
5.3.6 U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) ............................................ 5-5
5.3.7 AllTransit ......................................................................................................... 5-6
5.3.8 Comprehensive Housing Report for the San Joaquin Valley .......................... 5-6
5.4 Fair Housing Resources ................................................................................................... 5-6
5.4.1 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity ............................................................. 5-6
5.5 Ability to Address Complaints ......................................................................................... 5-7
5.6 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends .......................................................... 5-8
5.6.1 Race and Ethnicity .......................................................................................... 5-9
5.6.2 Persons with Disabilities ............................................................................... 5-14
5.6.3 Familial Status ............................................................................................... 5-18
5.6.4 Household Income ........................................................................................ 5-22
5.6.5 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ................................ 5-25
5.6.6 Poverty and Segregation............................................................................... 5-25
5.6.7 Concentrated Areas of Affluence ................................................................. 5-28
5.7 Disparities in Access to Opportunities .......................................................................... 5-30
5.7.1 Transit Access and Walkability ..................................................................... 5-30
5.7.2 Access to Quality Education ......................................................................... 5-30
5.7.3 Economic Outcomes ..................................................................................... 5-33
5.7.4 Healthy and Safe Housing Environment ....................................................... 5-37
5.8 Disproportionate Housing Needs .................................................................................. 5-41
5.8.1 Housing Problems ......................................................................................... 5-41 Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
iv
5.8.2 Persons Experiencing Homelessness ............................................................ 5-48
5.8.3 Displacement ................................................................................................ 5-48
5.9 Local Area Knowledge ................................................................................................... 5-51
5.9.1 Historic Patterns of Segregation ................................................................... 5-51
5.10 Subsidized Housing ....................................................................................................... 5-53 Tables
Table 2-1 Population Change (2000 - 2021) .................................................................................. 2-2 Table 2-2 Population by Age Group (2021) ................................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-3 Population by Race ........................................................................................................ 2-4 Table 2-4 Employment by Industry (2021) .................................................................................... 2-7 Table 2-5 Major Employers in Merced County (2024) .................................................................. 2-9 Table 2-6 Occupational Employment and Wages by Major Occupational Group, Merced Metropolitan Area (2023) ........................................................................................... 2-10 Table 2-7 HUD Income Limits by Person per Household (dollars) .............................................. 2-11 Table 2-8 State of California Income Categories ......................................................................... 2-11 Table 2-9 Median Household Income by Race/Ethnicity ............................................................ 2-13 Table 2-10 Cost Burdened Households ......................................................................................... 2-14 Table 2-11 Overpayment by Tenure.............................................................................................. 2-15 Table 2-12 Households by Type .................................................................................................... 2-16 Table 2-13 Large Households by Tenure ....................................................................................... 2-17 Table 2-14 Overcrowding Severity by Tenure ............................................................................... 2-18 Table 2-15 Senior Households by Tenure...................................................................................... 2-20 Table 2-16 Overpayment by Tenure among Senior Households, Merced County ....................... 2-21 Table 2-17 Cost Burdened Senior Households .............................................................................. 2-22 Table 2-18 Population by Number of Disabilities .......................................................................... 2-24 Table 2-19 Disability by Type ......................................................................................................... 2-25 Table 2-20 Disability by Age for the Total Population ................................................................... 2-26 Table 2-21 Developmental Disability by Age ................................................................................. 2-27 Table 2-22 Developmental Disability by Residence ...................................................................... 2-28 Table 2-23 Large Households by Tenure ....................................................................................... 2-29 Table 2-24 Large Households and Units ........................................................................................ 2-30 Table 2-25 Single Female-Headed Households with Own Children .............................................. 2-31 Table 2-26 Single Female-Headed Households by Tenure ............................................................ 2-32 Table 2-27 Single Female-Headed Households Below the Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months ........................................................................................................................ 2-33 Table 2-28 Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure ........................................................... 2-34 Table 2-29 Extremely Low-Income Households Overpaying by Tenure ....................................... 2-35 Table 2-30 Farmworker Population ............................................................................................... 2-37 Table 2-31 Farmworker Population Over Time ............................................................................. 2-39 Table of Contents
2024-2032 Housing Element v
Table 2-32 Farmworker Housing-Type .......................................................................................... 2-40 Table 2-33 Homelessness by Type (2023) ..................................................................................... 2-43 Table 2-34 Homelessness by Ethnicity (2022) ............................................................................... 2-44 Table 2-35 Emergency and Transitional Housing .......................................................................... 2-45 Table 2-36 Total Housing Units Over Time (1980 to 2020) ........................................................... 2-46 Table 2-37 Total Housing Units by Type ........................................................................................ 2-47 Table 2-38 Housing Units by Tenure ............................................................................................. 2-48 Table 2-39 Vacancy Status by Type for Total Vacant Units ........................................................... 2-50 Table 2-40 Housing Unit Size ......................................................................................................... 2-51 Table 2-41 Total Occupied Housing Units by Year Built ................................................................ 2-53 Table 2-42 Substandard Housing Units ......................................................................................... 2-54 Table 2-43 Median Housing Value Over Time (2010 to 2020) ...................................................... 2-55 Table 2-44 Regional Median Housing Value Over Time (2000 to 2020) ....................................... 2-55 Table 2-45 Owner-Occupied Units by Race and Ethnicity ............................................................. 2-57 Table 2-46 Median Rent by Number of Bedrooms ....................................................................... 2-59 Table 2-47 Housing Affordability Matrix – Merced County (2022) ............................................... 2-59 Table 2-48 Cost-Burdened Owner-Occupied Households Over Time ........................................... 2-62 Table 2-49 Cost-Burdened Renter-Occupied Households Over Time ........................................... 2-62 Table 2-50 Inventory of Public Assisted Complexes – Merced County ......................................... 2-65 Table 3-1 Listed Land Prices – Merced County ............................................................................. 3-2 Table 3-2 Sold Land Prices – Merced County ................................................................................ 3-2 Table 3-3 Estimated Construction Cost ......................................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-4 Loan Purpose and Action Taken .................................................................................... 3-5 Table 3-5 Loan Action and Loan Type ........................................................................................... 3-5 Table 3-6 Race and Loan Action .................................................................................................... 3-6 Table 3-7 Ethnicity and Loan Action .............................................................................................. 3-6 Table 3-8 Statewide Density Bonus Parking Standards ................................................................. 3-8 Table 4-1 Merced County Regional Housing Needs Determination Allocation ............................ 4-1 Table 4-2 Development Trends for Recent Projects ..................................................................... 4-2 Table 5-1 Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps .................................................. 5-5 Table 5-2 Fair Housing Organizations Active in Merced County ................................................... 5-7 Table 5-3 Northern San Joaquin Valley Fair Housing Complaints (2006-2020) ............................ 5-8 Table 5-4 Population by Racial Group ........................................................................................... 5-9 Table 5-5 Employment Status by Disability Status (Northern San Joaquin Valley) ..................... 5-16 Table 5-6 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (Northern San Joaquin Valley) .......................................................................................................................... 5-19 Table 5-7 Median Income by Household Type ............................................................................ 5-22 Table 5-8 High School Graduation Rates ..................................................................................... 5-31 Table 5-9 Mean Salary by Occupation ......................................................................................... 5-34 Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
vi
Table 5-10 Regional Housing Problems ......................................................................................... 5-41 Table 5-11 Large Households ........................................................................................................ 5-46 Figures
Figure 2-1 Median Household Income ......................................................................................... 2-12 Figure 2-2 Homelessness by Type Over Time, Households, Merced County ............................... 2-43 Figure 2-3 Homelessness by Type by Race (2022) ........................................................................ 2-44 Figure 2-4 Median Contract Rent ................................................................................................. 2-58 Figure 3-1 Historical Mortgage Rates in the United States (2013-2023) ....................................... 3-4 Figure 5-1 Northern San Joaquin Valley Region ............................................................................. 5-2 Figure 5-2 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Northern San Joaquin Valley) ..................... 5-11 Figure 5-3 Predominant Populations (Northern San Joaquin Valley) ........................................... 5-12 Figure 5-4 Racial Segregation and Integration (Northern San Joaquin Valley) ............................ 5-13 Figure 5-5 Disability by Type (Northern San Joaquin Valley)........................................................ 5-14 Figure 5-6 Percent of Population with a Disability (Northern San Joaquin Valley) ...................... 5-17 Figure 5-7 Female-Headed Households with Children Present, No Spouse/Partner Present (Northern San Joaquin Valley) ..................................................................................... 5-20 Figure 5-8 Married-Couple Households with Children Present (Northern San Joaquin Valley) .. 5-21 Figure 5-9 Median Household Income (Northern San Joaquin Valley) ........................................ 5-23 Figure 5-10 Percent of Low- to Moderate-Income (LMI) Population (Northern San Joaquin Valley) .......................................................................................................................... 5-24 Figure 5-11 Poverty Status (Northern San Joaquin Valley) ............................................................ 5-26 Figure 5-12 Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (Northern San Joaquin Valley) ...................... 5-27 Figure 5-13 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Northern San Joaquin Valley) .................. 5-29 Figure 5-14 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (Northern San Joaquin Valley) ....... 5-32 Figure 5-15 Population Employed by Industry ............................................................................... 5-34 Figure 5-16 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Economic Outcomes (Northern San Joaquin Valley) ........ 5-36 Figure 5-17 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Northern San Joaquin Valley) ....................... 5-38 Figure 5-18 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Environmental Outcomes (Northern San Joaquin Valley) 5-39 Figure 5-19 SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities (Northern San Joaquin Valley) .......................... 5-40 Figure 5-20 Overpayment by Home Owners (Northern San Joaquin Valley) ................................. 5-43 Figure 5-21 Overpayment by Renters (Northern San Joaquin Valley) ........................................... 5-44 Figure 5-22 Overcrowded Households (Northern San Joaquin Valley) .......................................... 5-47 Figure 5-23 Displacement Risk (Northern San Joaquin Valley) ...................................................... 5-50 Figure 5-24 Housing Choice Vouchers (Northern San Joaquin Valley) ........................................... 5-54 Appendices
Appendix A1 Survey Results Report
Introduction and Regional Collaboration
2024-2032 Housing Element 1-1
Introduction and Regional Collaboration
The Housing Element provides a coordinated strategy for preserving existing housing stock and advancing opportunities for new housing in a smart and sustainable way that enhances quality of life and equitable access to resources. It also serves as a strategy to address housing needs across the economic and social spectrum, reflecting the needs of each jurisdiction.
The County of Merced, and the cities of Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, Livingston, Los Banos, and Merced have jointly developed this Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (MJHE), coordinated by the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG). This Housing Element was prepared for the planning period of 2023 to 2031 and represents the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
1.1 Housing Element Purpose and Content
The State of California has stated that the availability of decent and suitable housing for every California family is “a priority of the highest order.” This objective has become increasingly urgent in recent years as communities across the state struggle to meet the housing needs of all their residents. The Housing Element is the primary tool for cities and counties to create a road map to meet their housing goals. The Housing Element is a comprehensive strategy for encouraging development of safe, decent, and affordable housing for all residents and preventing housing loss.
The Housing Element must include:
Identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs, resources, and constraints; A statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for preservation, improvement, and development of housing;
Identification of adequate sites for housing;
Assessment of fair housing issues; and
Adequate provision for existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
Many new state housing laws have taken effect since the last Housing Element update (the 5 th
cycle). This Housing Element update incorporates and addresses pertinent housing law changes through analysis, new policies, or new programs.
The Housing Element helps each jurisdiction determine how to address existing and future housing needs and plan for future growth. While housing policies cannot commit the jurisdictions to construct new housing units, the Housing Element identifies ways in which each jurisdiction will provide for the housing needs of current and future residents during the Housing Element update cycle. Each jurisdiction will then adjust their zoning designations to accommodate the county's housing needs.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
1-2
1.1.1 Organization of the Regional
Housing Element
The Regional Housing Element is comprised of the
following components:
Chapter 1: Introduction provides a brief overview of
the purpose and background for the Housing
Element and a summary of the document.
Chapter 2: Regional Housing Needs Assessment
analyzes demographic and socio-economic
conditions, housing conditions, and other factors to
evaluate current and future housing needs in
Merced County.
Chapter 3: Regional Housing Constraints analyzes
regulations and conditions that constitute
constraints to housing production and preservation
across the region, including governmental
regulations, infrastructure requirements and
nongovernmental market conditions such as costs
for land, construction, and labor.
Chapter 4: Regional Assessment of Fair Housing
provides an assessment of compliance with fair
housing laws, fair housing conditions, and disparities
in access to opportunities in Merced County,
compared to other counties in the region.
Chapter 5: Regional Housing Resources and
Development Trends documents resources
available for housing development and an analysis
of development trends throughout the region.
Corresponding analyses for each participating jurisdiction follow the Regional Housing Element as appendices. Jurisdictional analyses also include summaries of public participation and engagement materials.
1.2 Regional Housing Requirements
State law requires that every housing element include an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development to meet the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). MCAG plays a key role in the RHNA process. Every eight years, the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) provides MCAG with a regional determination, which represents the number of units the region must plan for across five income categories. MCAG is responsible for developing a methodology for allocating these units by income category to each city and the Merced County. Once jurisdictions have their share of the RHNA, they must adopt a Housing Element that demonstrates how they can accommodate their share of the RHNA. The 6
th Cycle RHNA is based on population projections,
income distribution, and access to jobs.
I would love to see more
diversity in housing
choices within walkable
neighborhoods to foster
connectivity and access
to essential amenities
like parks, trails, schools,
and transit.
- City of Merced Resident
“
Introduction and Regional Collaboration
2024-2032 Housing Element 1-3
The RHNA is broken down into affordability categories based on Area Median Income (AMI). For planning and funding purposes, HCD has developed the following income categories based on the AMI of a metropolitan area:
Extremely Low-income: households earning up to 30 percent of the AMI Very Low-income: households earning between 31 and 50 percent of the AMI Low-income: households earning between 51 percent and 80 percent of the AMI Moderate-income: households earning between 81 percent and 120 percent of the AMI Above Moderate-income: households earning over 120 percent of the AMI
1.3 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements
Under state law, the Housing Element is one of the eight required elements (or chapters) of each jurisdiction’s General Plan and must be consistent with all other elements. Jurisdictions may also include optional elements or combine subject areas where appropriate. Pursuant to Government Code section 65302, the mandatory elements of a General Plan include Land Use, Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety, and, for some jurisdictions, Environmental Justice. In addition, cities and counties within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District—including all jurisdictions in Merced County—must address air quality in their General Plans.
All elements bear equal weight, and no element has legal precedence over another. California Government Code Section 65583(c) requires the Housing Element to maintain internal consistency with other General Plan Elements. For example, residential density limits established by the Land Use Element are reflected in the Housing Element and form the basis for analyzing residential capacities within the jurisdiction. When any element of the General Plan is amended in the future, each jurisdiction will review its own Housing Element and, if necessary, amend it to ensure internal consistency is maintained.
Government Code Section 65302.10(a) requires each city and county to review and update the Land Use Element of its General Plan, based on available data—including, but not limited to, data and analysis developed pursuant to Government Code Section 56430—regarding unincorporated island, fringe, or legacy communities located within or near its boundaries (defined as Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities or DUCs). Pursuant to Government Code Section 65588, each local government must, on or before the due date for each subsequent revision of its Housing Element, review and, if necessary, amend its General Plan to update the analysis and address infrastructure and service deficiencies in identified DUCs.
Each jurisdiction is required under Government Code section 65302(g)(3) to update its Safety Element when it updates the Housing Element or upon adoption of its next Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Additionally, jurisdictions must incorporate environmental justice policies into their General Plans— either through a dedicated Environmental Justice Element or by integrating related goals, policies, and objectives across existing elements. This integration is required upon the adoption or revision of two or more elements. Therefore, if a jurisdiction updates its Safety Element in conjunction with its Housing Element, it must also update its environmental justice policies or Environmental Justice Element.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
1-4
The policies and implementation programs in this Housing Element are aligned and consistent with those in the other elements of each jurisdiction’s General Plan. As jurisdictions amend their General Plans in the future, local governments will review and revise the Housing Element as needed to maintain internal consistency.
1.4 Data Sources and Methods
Data from a variety of sources is used to complete the Housing Element. The most commonly cited source is the U.S. Census, which provides consistent demographic characteristics that are widely accepted. The American Community Survey is a feature offered by the U.S. Census and includes five- year estimates on population and demographic characteristics. Other data sources include the following:
U.S. Census and the American Community Survey (ACS)
California Department of Finance (DOF)
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) California Housing Finance Agency
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)
Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG)
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) lending data
Regional Homeless Point-in-Time (PIT) Count
State Employment Development Department (EDD)
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Jurisdiction Staff
1.5 Public Outreach
The Housing Element must reflect the values and preferences of the community. Accordingly, community participation is an important component of the development of this Element.
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 not only includes community members, but also participation from local agencies and housing groups, community organizations, and housing sponsors.
Each jurisdiction solicited input from stakeholders and community members through interviews, surveys, a project-specific website, community events, and public meetings. To jumpstart the outreach process and to inform the community about the Housing Element Update, the cities of Dos Palos, Merced, Los Banos, Atwater, Livingston, and Gustine, and Merced County compiled a list of 42 stakeholders and organizations that provide affordable and market-rate housing, homeless and other non-profit services, economic development services, and community members. Staff asked organizations to forward the information to their own stakeholders and requested assistance and partnership in community outreach.
Introduction and Regional Collaboration
2024-2032 Housing Element 1-5
These entities were included in all notifications associated with the Housing Element update, including community events, housing survey, and release of the public draft Housing Element. A summary of the public participation is detailed below.
1.5.1 Public Notification
To reach the largest and broadest spectrum of community members and stakeholders, the cities and the County utilized the following notification methods throughout the Housing Element update process:
Posts to the cities’ and the County’s social media accounts, including Facebook and Instagram, announcing project website launch, survey, public meetings, and release of the Draft Housing Element for public review.
Email lists of community and advocacy groups, non-profits, faith-based organizations, school- based organizations, disability advocates, and neighborhood groups to provide outreach and regular updates on the project. In addition, the cities and County are maintaining an “interested parties” list for those who have requested regular updates about the Housing Element. Flyers in English and Spanish advertised the project. Specifically, the cities and County developed and circulated a bilingual, introductory flyer informed residents about the Housing Element, the need for adequate housing, how to plan for new housing, types of housing, a project schedule, and contact information. Flyers were distributed to government facilities, community centers, and local businesses.
1.5.2 Project Website
To facilitate the distribution and gathering of information, a project website dedicated to the Housing Element update was created. The project website provided detailed background information on the Housing Element, answers to frequently asked questions, links to upcoming and past event materials, links to articles and videos on the general plan topics, including the Housing Element. Educational materials included an introduction, informational flyers, and frequently asked questions specifically on the housing element (mercedmjhe.com). Project materials associated with the Housing Element update were regularly posted on the project website, including documents available for public review, information for upcoming events, and workshop PowerPoint presentations and video recordings. A link on the website enabled people to sign up for project email updates and provide comments at any time throughout the project process.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
1-6
1.5.3 Community
Workshops
Community workshops were held in
September and October of 2023 to help
inform the 2024-2032 Merced County Multi-
Jurisdictional Housing Element.
Seven in-person workshops were conducted
to introduce new Housing Element goals and
requirements to the cities included in the
Housing Element. The workshops aimed to
educate the community on housing element
requirements and assess participants’
housing needs, priorities, and concerns in
their community. The workshops also aimed
to obtain feedback from participants about
housing needs in the community, their
experience finding housing, potential
programs to address housing needs, and
input on the housing opportunity sites.
Flyers advertising the workshops were
posted on the cities’ and the County’s
websites in advance of the workshop series
to encourage public attendance and
participation. The flyers provided meeting
details (dates, times, locations, zoom links),
the Housing Element Update website and
email, and were bilingual (English and
Spanish).
Workshops were hosted in the cities of
Merced, Atwater, Livingston, Gustine, Dos
Palos, Los Banos, and the County of Merced
on August 22
nd, August 28th, August 29th,
August 29th, August 30th, August 31st, and
September 26th, respectively. Each
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 and their experience finding housing, take part in a sticker activity to rank the most effective housing programs, and reasons it is difficult to find housing in their communities.
Participants were also asked to weigh in on the selected housing opportunity sites. The PowerPoint presentation was available in Spanish via written translation. Live Spanish translation was available upon request.
The affordability of desired
housing remains a
challenge, especially when it
comes to accessing
resources. I would prefer it if
there were resources more
readily available for middle-
class working families like
mine because the dream of
owning a home is often
hindered by lack of support.
I find that I am caught
between earning too much
to qualify for assistance yet
earning too little to save for a
down payment.
- Los Banos Resident
“
Introduction and Regional Collaboration
2024-2032 Housing Element 1-7
For more specific information on findings from each community’s workshop, please reference Chapter 7, Public Participation, for each jurisdiction.
1.5.4 Stakeholder Interviews
Jurisdictions 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 and on December 18, 2024, via Zoom. Stakeholders were identified through an iterative process with MCAG and the cities of Merced, Atwater, Livingston, Gustine, Dos Palos, and Los Banos, the County of Merced, and consultants from Rincon Consultants, Inc., and represented a variety of organizations and segments of the community.
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 coast, 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.
Community Service Providers: Key Findings
Need for deeply affordable and climate resilient housing. Community stewardship (land banking, land trusts, limited equity homeownership opportunities), allow to maintain deeply affordable housing over generations. Housing needs to be located near public transit, jobs, and resources. Tenants’ rights, particularly for minority communities that experience discrimination are needed. Housing navigators and legal assistance can help. Affordability covenants expire, properties are then purchased and existing tenants are displaced. An Affordable Housing Trust Fund can serve as a way to acquire properties or develop a land trust with residents to keep them permanently affordable. Property maintenance is a large issue. Landlords are often reluctant to make repairs. Landlords are often not held accountable.
The vast majority of community-based rent relief programs are out of funds and were strained even more by the severe weather and the ongoing recovery efforts. Need for behavioral health and substance abuse services for persons experiencing homelessness.
Cities have an aging population that require addition resources for rental assistance and in- home services to assist those on a fixed income.
Housing Developers: Key Findings
Building affordable units is very expensive. Large government subsidies are needed. However, resources are scarce. The entire Central Valley of California is at a disadvantage, as State subsidies are often directed to the coastal areas.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
1-8
There is a need for a variety of different housing types (smaller lots, ADUs, triplexes, etc.), but builders are reluctant to build more affordable housing. Minimum lot size requirements is a constraint on other types of development, particularly within rural areas. Two types of housing are developed, either 100 percent subsidized or housing for high income households. There is very little middle-income housing, which is a significant need. Rises in interest rates have reduced demands for purchasing housing. People who have low interest rates are not moving, reducing supply of available housing. Securing state funding for affordable housing is difficult because cities in Merced County lack resources to make these projects competitive in terms for state grants. Permit expediting fees are costly and often comprise a significant portion of permitting fees for affordable housing projects.
Community Members: Key Findings
Significant concerns regarding the cost of living and stagnating wages. Housing is very expensive.
Housing condition is an issue but repairs often cause an increase in rents. There are high rates of evictions in the region. Desire for a rent stabilization program to keep housing affordable, and increase code enforcement programs, such as a rental registry. Concerns over ADUs being used for short-term rentals instead of adding to the housing stock. Access to water and sewer is a concern, particularly in South Merced. Air pollution is also a concern.
Mobile homes are not protected in the same way as traditional rental units. Residents feel taken advantage of.
Need for home ownership opportunities/assistance.
Rural communities often lack access to housing and supportive services, which are primarily located within the city of Merced. Transit access from rural communities to existing services is limited.
1.5.5 Community Survey
An online survey to help inform the 2023-2031 Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element. The survey is one part of a broader community engagement and outreach strategy to inform housing needs and preferences the Merced region, specifically in the cities participating in this Housing Element: Merced, Atwater, Livingston, Gustine, Dos Palos, and Los Banos, and the County of Merced. The survey was available in English and Spanish from March 27 to December 22, 2023. The survey consisted of 16 questions and used different formats for questions: checkbox, ranking, and open-ended questions. A total of 172 people responded to the survey. The following key themes were collected from community input:
Most survey participants reported being residents of the city of Merced or the unincorporated county. Most own their own home and live in single-family homes. Most respondents’ households are multi-generational.
The top three most important aspects of housing when looking for new housing were affordability, the quality and size of housing, and location close to work and/or school. When asked to rank the largest barriers to finding affordable housing, respondents said the cost of quality housing is too high, there is a lack of available rent-restricted housing, and there is not Introduction and Regional Collaboration
2024-2032 Housing Element 1-9
enough housing overall. The most urgent housing challenges were similar, but also included homelessness.
The three most selected beneficial programs to assist residents with housing needs were: 1) Rental assistance or housing vouchers, 2) Homebuyer loan counseling services, and 3) Housing assistance for residents with special needs. Respondents also cited pathways to homeownership and programs for first-time homeowners as beneficial programs to assist with housing needs.
More than 40 percent of respondents also identified home rehabilitation assistance and over 20 percent identified landlord/tenant mediation services as beneficial programs. “Housing with 3 or more bedrooms” was ranked as most needed in the region followed by “housing with 1-2 bedrooms,” and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). “Respondents ranked areas near public transit stops, employment, and shopping centers;” “downtown or town center locations;” and “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)” as the highest priority areas for housing development.
When asked to rank preferred forms of ADU assistance, most responded “Financial assistance with construction expenses” and “Educational ‘How to’ webinar series regarding financing, construction, and permitting processes.” Thirty-five percent expressed interest in building an ADU, while 34 percent said they were not interested.
About 40 percent of respondents identified as Hispanic/Latino (of any race), and 31 percent identified as Caucasian, not Hispanic/Latino. The majority of respondents were in the age range 41 to 65 years old, followed by 26 to 40 years old (25 percent). One-quarter of respondents reported their household income as over $100,000, and the next most common income categories were less than $25,000, $25,000 to $49,999, and $50,000 to $74,999 (16 percent in each).
Full survey results can be found in Appendix 1 to the Regional Housing Element, Community Survey Results. Responses specific to jurisdictions are summarized in each jurisdictions’ housing element.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
1-10
This page left intentionally blank.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-1
2 Regional Housing Needs Assessment
This section provides a comprehensive assessment of housing needs as the basis for preparing responsive policies and implementation programs. This section summarizes demographic, employment, and housing characteristics for the Northern San Joaquin Valley (NSJV) region and the jurisdictions in Merced County. The NSJV region comprises of three counties: San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County, and Merced County. 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), which is noted in the sources for the data tables in this section. The pre- approved data package uses several data sources, including the 2020 U.S. Census, 2021 American Community Survey, 2019 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), and the California Department of Finance (DOF). Other sources of information in this section include the following: the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and local economic data (e.g., home sales prices, rents, wages). It is important to note that the ACS data is a multi-year estimate based on sample data and has a large margin of error, especially for smaller cities.
2.1 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 population characteristics and trends in the NSJV region and the jurisdictions in Merced County. The information presented on population characteristics relies on the 2017-2021 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates.
2.2 Population Growth
U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for each trend in the NSJV region and the jurisdictions in Merced County are shown in Table 2-1. Analyzing population change can help assess where there may be a need for new housing and services.
Merced County had a total population of 279,150 in 2021. The unincorporated county had the largest population of all jurisdictions with 91,287 residents, followed by the City of Merced (85,993 residents) and City of Los Banos (44,421 residents).
Merced County’s population increased by 21.5 percent from 2000 to 2010, with the cities of Los Banos, Merced, Livingston, and Atwater experiencing the highest growth rates. Between 2010 and 2021, the county population grew at a slower pace of 9.1 percent but was higher than growth statewide (5.6 percent) during this time. When compared to the counties in the NSJV region, , Merced County’s population change was more similar to Stanislaus County and higher than San Joaquin County.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-2
Table 2-1 Population Change (2000 - 2021)
Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2021
Percent
Change
2000-2010
Percent
Change
2010-2021
Merced County 210,554 255,793 279,150 21.5% 9.1%
Atwater 23,113 28,168 31,401 21.9% 11.5%
Dos Palos 4,581 4,950 5,651 8.1% 14.2%
Gustine 4,698 5,520 5,990 17.5% 8.5%
Livingston 10,473 13,058 14,078 24.7% 7.8%
Los Banos 25,869 35,972 44,421 39.1% 23.5%
Merced 63,893 78,958 85,993 23.6% 8.9%
Unincorporated Merced County 77,927 89,167 91,616 14.4% 2.7% California 33,971,648 37,253,956 39,455,353 9.7% 5.6%
Stanislaus County 563,598 685,306 771,406 21.6% 11.2% San Joaquin County 446,997 514,453 550,842 15.1% 6.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, 2010; Social Explorer tables for Census 2021.
2.3 Age Characteristics
Although population growth strongly affects total demand for new housing, housing needs are also influenced by age characteristics. Typically, different age groups have distinct lifestyles, family characteristics, and incomes. As people move through each stage of life, their housing needs and preferences also change. Age characteristics are, therefore, important in planning for the changing housing needs of residents.
Table 2-2 shows a breakdown of the NSJV region and the jurisdictions in Merced County population by age group and each group’s percentage of the total population. The age groups include preschool (under 5 years), school-age students (5 to 7 years), college-age students (18 to 24 years), young adults (25 to 44), middle-aged adults (45 to 64), and seniors (65 and over). A population with a large percentage of seniors may require unique housing, located near health care, transit, and other services. College students may need more affordable homes. Young adults and middle-aged adults, which make up the workforce, may need homes located near employment or transit centers.
Of the jurisdictions within Merced County, Gustine, Dos Palos, and Atwater have the largest senior populations, between 12 and 16 percent of the total populations of these cities. Young adults make up the largest percentage of the population in each city, varying between 25 and 31 percent. These percentages of seniors and young adults are similar to the statewide population. The City of Merced, home to the University of California at Merced, has the highest college-age student population, accounting for 12.8 percent of the total population, while Livingston has the smallest college-age student population accounting for 8.4 percent. Compared to the NSJV region, Merced County reported the largest percentage of their populations as young adults, followed by school age students.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-3
Table 2-2 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
Years
(Young
Adults)
45 to 64
Years
(Middle-
aged
Adults)
65 Years
and Over
(Seniors)
Total
Population
Merced County 20,969 61,609 31,111 75,342 59,131 30,988 279,150 Percent 7.5% 22.1% 11.1% 27.0% 21.2% 11.1%
Atwater 1,898 6,983 2,838 8,626 7,157 3,899 31,401
Percent 6.0% 22.2% 9.0% 27.5% 22.8% 12.4%
Dos Palos 427 936 541 1,553 1,290 904 5,651
Percent 7.6% 16.6% 9.6% 27.5% 22.8% 16.0%
Gustine 145 1,003 653 1,630 1,623 936 5,990
Percent 2.4% 16.7% 10.9% 27.2% 27.1% 15.6%
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%
Los Banos 4,100 11,051 4,305 11,270 9,195 4,500 44,421
Percent 9.2% 24.9% 9.7% 25.4% 20.7% 10.1%
Merced 6,291 19,636 11,048 23,620 16,962 8,436 85,993
Percent 7.3% 22.8% 12.8% 27.5% 19.7% 9.8%
Unincorporated
Merced County
6,744 19,299 10,545 24,317 19,771 10,940 91,616
Percent 7.4% 21.1% 11.5% 26.5% 21.6% 11.9%
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%
San Joaquin
County
38,789 111,502 51,569 150,618 127,019 71,345 550,842 Percent 7.0% 20.2% 9.4% 27.3% 23.1% 13.0%
Stanislaus County 52,937 156,578 73,498 210,055 180,815 97,523 771,406 Percent 6.9% 20.3% 9.5% 27.2% 23.4% 12.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B01001.
2.4 Race and Ethnicity
Table 2-3 shows race and ethnicity of residents in the NSJV region and the jurisdictions in Merced County. In terms of race, most of the population in all jurisdictions except Livingston is white alone.
Within Merced County, 46 percent of the population identified as white, similar to the 47 percent in San Joaquin County. The populations of Dos Palos, Gustine, and Atwater are more than 50 percent white, with the second largest group being Some Other Race. Livingston has the lowest population share of white residents at 22.8 percent. The second largest population is “some other race,” with a high of 47.6 percent in Livingston and representing 33.7 percent of the total population in Merced County, this differs from the NSJV region where “two or more races” is the second largest population. The proportion of white residents across the NSJV region and the jurisdictions in Merced County is lower than in California where 52 percent of residents identify as white, with Stanislaus County as the exception with 64.8 percent of its population being white. However, the proportion of Some Other Race across Merced County jurisdictions is higher than in the NSJV where Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-4
11.9 percent of residents in San Joaquin County, 11.4 percent of residents in Stanislaus County, and in California where 10.7 percent of residents identify as Some Other Race. In terms of ethnicity, most of the population of Merced County identifies as Hispanic or Latino (of any race), with 61.2 percent of the population of Merced County identifying as Hispanic or Latino. Across the NSJV region, this is higher than in California where 39.5 percent of residents identify as Hispanic or Latino.
Table 2-3 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
Two or
More Races
Hispanic or
Latino,
Any Race Total
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%
Atwater 16,026 1,252 250 1,611 257 9,475 2,530 17,360 31,401 Percent 51.0% 4.0% 0.8% 5.1% 0.8% 30.2% 8.1% 55.3%
Dos Palos 3,013 101 162 48 - 1,744 583 3,980 5,651 Percent 53.3% 1.8% 2.9% 0.8% 0.0% 30.9% 10.3% 70.4%
Gustine 3,347 - 71 161 - 1,974 437 3,423 5,990 Percent 55.9% 0.0% 1.2% 2.7% 0.0% 33.0% 7.3% 57.1%
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%
Los Banos 21,081 1,006 545 1,088 464 15,641 4,596 32,513 44,421 Percent 47.5% 2.3% 1.2% 2.4% 1.0% 35.2% 10.3% 73.2%
Merced 39,154 3,842 1,429 9,652 29 24,705 7,182 49,943 85,993 Percent 45.5% 4.5% 1.7% 11.2% 0.0% 28.7% 8.4% 58.1%
Unincorporated
Merced County
43,070 1,856 628 5,430 47 33,733 6,852 53,125 91,616 Percent 47.0% 2.0% 0.7% 5.9% 0.1% 36.8% 7.5% 58.0%
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%
Stanislaus
County
356,790 16,361 6,215 31,925 3,233 62,746 73,572 264,020 550,842 Percent 64.8% 3.0% 1.1% 5.8% 0.6% 11.4% 13.4% 47.9%
San Joaquin
County
358,383 53,843 6,006 127,533 4,717 91,957 128,967 326,185 771,406 Percent 46.5% 7.0% 0.8% 16.5% 0.6% 11.9% 16.7% 42.3%
*Note: Other race includes American Indian and Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, Two or More Races, and Some Other Race.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B02001; U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B03001.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-5
2.5 Economic Characteristics
2.5.1 Employment
Occupations held by residents determine the income earned by a household and their corresponding ability to afford housing. Higher-paying jobs provide broader housing opportunities for residents, while lower-paying jobs limit housing options. Understanding employment and occupation patterns can provide insight into present housing needs.
Table 2-4 shows employment by industry for the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County. In Merced County, the largest employment industry is educational services, and health care and social assistance with 22.0 percent of employed residents, similar to the NSJV region with 20.0 percent in San Joaquin County and 21.7 percent in Stanislaus County. This industry is also the largest employment industry in Atwater, Gustine, Livingston, Los Banos, and Merced.
The second largest industry group in Merced County is Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining which represents 11.4 percent of total jobs. This industry is the most common industry in Dos Palos (21.1 percent) and the second-largest industry in the unincorporated county (16.4 percent). By comparison this industry represents only 2.1 percent of total jobs statewide. When compared to the NSJV, Merced County had a noticeably larger Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, and Mining industry. However, educational services, and heath care and social assistance were commonly the largest employer across all three counties.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-6
This page intentionally left blank.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-7
Table 2-4 Employment by Industry (2021)
Agriculture,
Forestry, Fishing
and Hunting,
and Mining Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation
and
Warehousing,
and Utilities Information
Finance and
Insurance, and
Real Estate, and
Rental and
Leasing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Management,
and
Administrative,
and Waste
Management
Services
Educational
Services, and
Health Care and
Social Assistance
Arts,
Entertainment,
And Recreation,
and
Accommodation
and Food
Services
Other Services,
Except Public
Administration
Public
Administration
Merced County 12,326 8,623 11,778 4,036 11,804 7,626 968 3,075 7,146 23,797 7,682 4,275 5,058 Percent 11.4% 8.0% 10.9% 3.7% 10.9% 7.0% 0.9% 2.8% 6.6% 22.0% 7.1% 4.0% 4.7% Atwater 1,231 1,064 1,516 549 1,455 1,036 58 514 806 3,352 698 409 502 Percent 9.3% 8.1% 11.5% 4.2% 11.0% 7.9% 0.4% 3.9% 6.1% 25.4% 5.3% 3.1% 3.8% Dos Palos 488 314 139 107 189 139 58 126 134 315 16 183 108 Percent 21.1% 13.6% 6.0% 4.6% 8.2% 6.0% 2.5% 5.4% 5.8% 13.6% 0.7% 7.9% 4.7% Gustine 235 81 254 67 171 222 10 135 158 419 194 76 160 Percent 10.8% 3.7% 11.6% 3.1% 7.8% 10.2% 0.5% 6.2% 7.2% 19.2% 8.9% 3.5% 7.3% Livingston 859 291 1,161 157 638 538 - 129 389 1,388 418 98 90 Percent 14.0% 4.7% 18.9% 2.6% 10.4% 8.7% 0.0% 2.1% 6.3% 22.5% 6.8% 1.6% 1.5% Los Banos 1,076 2,651 1,927 575 2,434 816 191 325 1,602 2,811 1,355 554 495 Percent 6.4% 15.8% 11.5% 3.4% 14.5% 4.9% 1.1% 1.9% 9.5% 16.7% 8.1% 3.3% 2.9% Merced 2,781 1,979 2,690 902 3,639 1,927 378 1,149 2,067 8,429 3,239 1,466 2,405 Percent 8.4% 6.0% 8.1% 2.7% 11.0% 5.8% 1.1% 3.5% 6.3% 25.5% 9.8% 4.4% 7.3% Unincorporated
Merced County
5,656 2,243 4,091 1,679 3,278 2,948 273 697 1,990 7,083 1,762 1,489 1,298 Percent 16.4% 6.5% 11.9% 4.9% 9.5% 8.5% 0.8% 2.0% 5.8% 20.5% 5.1% 4.3% 3.8% California 394,881 1,235,586 1,676,715 501,378 1,919,513 1,071,181 539,683 1,107,961 2,612,859 3,990,094 1,835,141 927,253 864,476 Percent 2.1% 6.6% 9.0% 2.7% 10.3% 5.7% 2.9% 5.9% 14.0% 21.4% 9.8% 5.0% 4.6% Stanislaus County 11,560 20,918 28,580 7,634 26,904 18,073 2,104 7,590 19,890 50,950 19,681 11,530 8,911 Percent 4.9% 8.9% 12.2% 3.3% 11.5% 7.7% 0.9% 3.2% 8.5% 21.7% 8.4% 4.9% 3.8% San Joaquin County 15,758 28,719 30,593 9,014 38,168 28,577 4,334 14,746 32,997 65,604 27,218 14,821 16,942 Percent 4.8% 8.8% 9.3% 2.8% 11.7% 8.7% 1.3% 4.5% 10.1% 20.0% 8.3% 4.5% 5.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table C24050.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-8
This page intentionally left blank.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-9
According to the California Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in Merced County as of September 2024 is 7.8 percent, which is lower than the long-term average of 8.4 percent observed over the previous two years. Since 2020, Bureau of Labor Statistics Data indicates that unemployment rates have decreased significantly in Merced County and California. Merced County’s unemployment rate (7.8 percent) is much higher than the statewide average (5.3 percent).
Table 2-5 shows the major employers in Merced County, 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 Merced County include the Dignity Health- Mercy Medical Center (1,000-4,999 employees) and Foster Farms (1,000-4,999 employees).
Table 2-5 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 2-6 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, Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-10
farming, fishing, and forestry. Occupations offering the highest wages include Management, Legal, and Healthcare Practitioners.
The largest percentage of employed civilians in Merced County are in health care, manufacturing, and farming, fishing, and forestry. The “healthcare practitioners and technical” occupational group is reported to have a higher mean annual wage ($107,806) than Merced County’s Area Median Income (AMI), which was $87,900 in 2021. However, the healthcare support group is reported to have annual ($36,900) about half of AMI. Additionally, mean annual wages for manufacturing/production ($45,760) and farming, fishing, and forestry ($37,398) fall short of AMI as well. Compared to the annual income limits shown on Table 2-47, 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.
Table 2-6 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 Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-11
2.5.2 Income Definitions and Income Limits
The 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 four- person household as a reference point. Income limits for larger or smaller households are calculated by HUD (See Table 2-7). According to HUD, the AMI for a four-person household in Merced County was $80,300 in 2022.
Table 2-7 HUD Income Limits by Person per Household (dollars) 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), 2022, Grants and Funding, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/grants- and-funding/inc2k22.pdf. Accessed June 2023.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) uses the income categories shown in Table 2-8 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 2-8 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 Health and Safety Code, Section 50093.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-12
Figure 2-1 shows median household income the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County as reported by the 2017- 2021 ACS. This median income is for all households, regardless of household size. The median household income in California was $84,097 in 2021, significantly higher than the NSJV region and the jurisdictions within Merced County median of $58,861. The jurisdiction with the highest median household income in 2021 was Los Banos with $69,607. The jurisdiction with the lowest median income was Gustine with $51,376. The median income of Los Banos was 35 percent higher than the median income of Gustine. Merced County reported a significantly lower median household income compared to the other counties within the NSJV region.
Figure 2-1 Median Household Income
Note: Data not available for unincorporated area.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B19013.
Table 2-9 analyzes the 2021 median household income for the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County by race and ethnicity. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander households had the highest median income in Merced County ($125,500), this is also true in San Joaquin County ($115,032). Asian households had consistently higher median incomes across the NSJV region and all jurisdictions in Merced County compared to other racial groups, which is similar to statewide data. Black or African American households had the lowest median income in the county ($45,573), region ($54,791), and state ($58,958). However, median household incomes were notably higher among minority racial groups in San Joaquin County when compared to Merced and Stanislaus Counties.
$58,861 $59,436 $60,250
$51,376
$68,958 $69,607
$52,305
$84,097
68,368
74,962
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
Merced
County
Atwater Dos Palos Gustine Livingston Los Banos Merced California Stanislaus County
San
Joaquin
County
Median Household Income
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-13
Table 2-9 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 or
Latino,
Any Race
Merced County $60,918 $45,573 $50,214 $71,829 $125,500 $55,083 $56,355 $54,635 Atwater $59,386 $46,010 $26,823 $73,365 $73,381 $61,324 $60,909 $58,679 Dos Palos $73,145 – – – – $31,016 – $47,738
Gustine $42,177 – – – – $75,689 $55,268 $56,801
Livingston $55,776 – – $97,899 – $69,500 $72,083 $67,667 Los Banos $68,879 $54,643 $113,625 $73,516 – $70,145 $62,083 $70,507 Merced $53,261 $42,868 $19,107 $71,868 – $49,071 $54,684 $46,092 California $88,616 $58,958 $66,904 $108,477 $87,066 $63,975 $79,777 $67,327 Stanislaus
County
$70,630 $59,776 $58,676 $65,580 $70,898 $62,744 $59,787 $61,681 San Joaquin
County
$77,639 $59,023 $86,995 $99,694 $115,032 $64,807 $70,241 $65,353 Note: Data not available for Unincorporated Merced County Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B19013.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-14
State and federal housing law defines overpayment (also known as cost burden) as a household paying more than 30 percent of gross income for housing expenses. Table 2-10 lists the number of owner-occupied, renter-occupied, and total households overpaying for the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County. The total percent of households overpaying for housing costs in Merced County is 33.2 percent, slightly below the state average. The jurisdictions of Atwater, Gustine, Los Banos, and Merced have a higher rate of overpayment for housing costs than the Merced County average. Gustine has the highest percentage of owner-occupied overpaying households at 19.5 percent of households, and Dos Palos and Livingston have the lowest at 9.6 percent of households. Generally, renters are more affected by overpayment than owners. The City of Merced has the highest number of renter-occupied overpaying households at 29.6 percent.
Unincorporated Merced County and Dos Palos have the lowest percentages of overpaying renter households, approximately 14 percent in each jurisdiction. Within the NSJV region, there were fewer total cost burdened households in Merced County compared to Stanislaus; however, Merced County reported more cost burdened households than San Joaquin County.
Table 2-10 Cost Burdened Households
Jurisdiction
Owner-Occupied
Overpaying
Renter-Occupied
Overpaying
Total
Overpaying
Merced County 9,611 17,470 27,081
Percent 11.8% 21.4% 33.2%
Atwater 1,162 2,231 3,393
Percent 11.3% 21.6% 32.9%
Dos Palos 160 234 394
Percent 9.6% 14.1% 23.7%
Gustine 423 483 906
Percent 19.5% 22.3% 41.8%
Livingston 316 508 824
Percent 9.6% 15.4% 25.0%
Los Banos 1,804 2,540 4,344
Percent 15.0% 21.1% 36.1%
Merced 2,594 7,908 10,502
Percent 9.7% 29.6% 39.4%
Unincorporated Merced County 3,152 3,566 6,718
Percent 12.4% 14.0% 26.4%
California 1,904,162 3,030,934 4,935,096
Percent 14.4% 22.9% 37.3%
Stanislaus County 32,849 48,697 81,546
Percent 18.8% 27.8% 46.6%
San Juaquin County 24,361 34,308 58,669
Percent 10.4% 14.6% 25.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 06-10, 11-15, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Tables B25091 and B25070.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-15
Table 2-11 identifies the level at which cost burdened households are overpaying for housing.
Severe cost burden is when households spend more than 50 percent of income on housing costs, and moderate cost burden is when households spent 30 to 50 percent of income on housing costs.
The City of Merced has the highest percentage of households considered severely cost burdened, with one out of five households considered severely cost burdened, which is a higher rate than the county and state averages. Overall, more than 40 percent of households experience a moderate or severe housing cost burden in the city of Merced. All other jurisdictions than the City of Merced have a lower percentage of severely cost burdened households than Merced County, the NSJV region, and statewide figures. However, all incorporated cities have a higher percentage of households with a moderate cost burden than the county average. The city of Gustine has the highest percentage of overpaying households with a moderate cost burden (between 30 and 50 percent). Unincorporated Merced County has the lowest percent of households that experience housing cost burden. When comparing to the NSJV region, Merced County had a lower percentage of cost-burdened households compared to Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties.
Table 2-11 Overpayment by Tenure
Jurisdiction
Moderate Cost Burden
>30% to <=50%
Severe Cost Burden
>50% Total Households
Merced County 14,710 12,285 80,010
Percent 18.4% 15.4% 100.0%
Atwater 1,780 1,314 9,160
Percent 19.4% 14.3% 100.0%
Dos Palos 310 155 1,515
Percent 20.5% 10.2% 100.0%
Gustine 560 195 2,055
Percent 27.3% 9.5% 100.0%
Livingston 725 478 3,605
Percent 20.1% 13.3% 100.0%
Los Banos 2,300 1,585 10,775
Percent 21.3% 14.7% 100.0%
Merced 5,129 5,310 25,490
Percent 20.1% 20.8% 100.0%
Unincorporated Merced County 3,906 3,248 41,020
Percent 9.5% 7.9% 100.0%
California 2,632,205 2,427,660 13,044,265
Percent 20.2% 18.6% 100.0%
Stanislaus County 44,510 39,185 228,565
Percent 19.5% 17.1% 100.0%
San Juaquin County 33,805 28,284 173,900
Percent 19.4% 16.3% 100.0%
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2015-19 (5-Year Estimates), Table 7.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-16
2.6 Household Characteristics
A household refers to the people occupying a home, such as a family, a single person, or unrelated persons living together. This definition does not include people living in group homes. Families with children often prefer larger homes, while single people often occupy smaller housing units with fewer bedrooms. Single-person households often include seniors living alone or young adults.
Table 2-12 provides information on household type across the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County. According to 2021 ACS estimates, there are 81,618 households in Merced County, of which 39,912 are married-couple households with or without children and 6,862 are cohabitating couple households with or without children. The jurisdictions of Los Banos and Livingston have the highest percentage of households with children (married couples and cohabitating). Dos Palos and the City of Merced have the lowest percentage of households with children. The percentage of married couple households and cohabitating couple households was similar throughout the NSJV region.
Table 2-12 Households by Type
Jurisdiction
Married-Couple Household Cohabitating Couple Household
Total Children
No
Children Total Children
No
Children
Total
Households
Merced County 39,912 18,171 21,741 6,862 3,910 2,952 81,618 Percent 48.9% 22.3% 26.6% 8.4% 4.8% 3.6%
Atwater 5,096 2,192 2,904 665 350 315 10,309 Percent 49.4% 21.3% 28.2% 6.5% 3.4% 3.1%
Dos Palos 842 271 571 131 64 67 1,661
Percent 50.7% 16.3% 34.4% 7.9% 3.9% 4.0%
Gustine 863 313 550 166 21 145 2,169
Percent 39.8% 14.4% 25.4% 7.7% 1.0% 6.7%
Livingston 1,588 723 865 380 190 190 3,299 Percent 48.1% 21.9% 26.2% 11.5% 5.8% 5.8%
Los Banos 6,896 3,632 3,264 690 436 254 12,025 Percent 57.3% 30.2% 27.1% 5.7% 3.6% 2.1%
Merced 10,645 5,017 5,628 2,499 1,546 953 26,673 Percent 39.9% 18.8% 21.1% 9.4% 5.8% 3.6%
Unincorporated
Merced County
13,982 6,023 7,959 2,331 1,303 1,028 25,482 Percent 54.9% 23.6% 31.2% 9.1% 5.1% 4.0%
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%
Stanislaus County 90,944 41,534 49,410 12,124 6,308 5,816 175,067 Percent 51.9% 23.7% 28.2% 6.9% 3.6% 3.3%
San Joaquin County 123,027 58,661 64,366 17,719 9,545 8,174 234,662 Percent 52.4% 25.0% 27.4% 7.6% 4.1% 3.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B11012.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-17
2.7 Large Households
A large household is defined as any household with five or more occupants. Table 2-13 provides information on large households by tenure across the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County. Large households make up 21.7 percent of households in Merced County, higher than other NSJV counties and the 13.8 percent state average. Of large households in Merced County, 9,371 (53 percent) are renter-occupied. Livingston, Los Banos, and unincorporated Merced County have the highest percentages of large households, ranging from 22 to 36 percent. Gustine (9.9 percent), Atwater (17.8 percent), and the City of Merced (19.6 percent) have the lowest percentages of large households. The difference in ratio of owner-occupied large households to renter-occupied varies across each jurisdiction. Renter occupied households make up a significantly larger proportion of large households in Dos Palos, Gustine, Livingston, and Los Banos, while owner-occupied households make up a greater proportion of large households in the City of Merced and unincorporated Merced County.
Table 2-13 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
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%
Atwater 1,835 658 107 141 651 169 109
Percent 17.8% 6.4% 1.0% 1.4% 6.3% 1.6% 1.1%
Dos Palos 355 127 29 0 60 28 111
Percent 21.4% 7.6% 1.7% 0.0% 3.6% 1.7% 6.7%
Gustine 215 69 68 0 63 15 0
Percent 9.9% 3.2% 3.1% 0.0% 2.9% 0.7% 0.0%
Livingston 1,202 564 154 120 204 24 136
Percent 36.4% 17.1% 4.7% 3.6% 6.2% 0.7% 4.1%
Los Banos 3,137 1,003 334 367 793 336 304
Percent 26.1% 8.3% 2.8% 3.1% 6.6% 2.8% 2.5%
Merced 5,220 1,057 601 279 1,895 761 627
Percent 19.6% 4.0% 2.3% 1.0% 7.1% 2.9% 2.4%
Unincorporated
Merced County
5,746 1,259 659 742 1,714 851 521
Percent 22.5% 4.9% 2.6% 2.9% 6.7% 3.3% 2.0%
California 1,830,468 580,759 246,420 200,281 456,013 199,263 147,732 Percent 13.8% 4.4% 1.9% 1.5% 3.5% 1.5% 1.1%
Stanislaus
County
31,341 9,817 4,683 3,605 7,512 3,626 2,098
Percent 17.9% 5.6% 2.7% 2.1% 4.3% 2.1% 1.2%
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-18
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
San Joaquin
County
47,037 14,350 6,295 5,966 11,674 4,983 3,769 Percent 20.0% 6.1% 2.7% 2.5% 5.0% 2.1% 1.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25009.
2.8 Overcrowding
HCD defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by one person or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens). Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. A typical home might have a total of five rooms, excluding the kitchen (three bedrooms, living room, and dining room). If more than five people were living in that typical home, it would be considered overcrowded. Overcrowding is strongly related to household size, particularly for large households, and the availability of suitably sized housing. Overcrowding in households typically results from either a lack of affordable housing (which forces more than one household to live together) and/or a lack of available housing units of adequate size. Overcrowding increases health and safety concerns and stresses the condition of the housing stock and infrastructure. Overcrowding impacts both owners and renters; however, renters are generally more significantly impacted.
While family size and tenure are critical determinants in overcrowding, household income also plays a strong role in the incidence of overcrowding. Generally, overcrowding levels tend to decrease as income rises, especially for renters.
Table 2-14 provides information on overcrowding by tenure across the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County. In Merced County, 8.3 percent of households are overcrowded, which is similar to the NSJV region’s average of 7.9, and the state’s average of 8.1 percent. The jurisdiction with the highest rate of overcrowding is Los Banos with 10.4 percent of households being overcrowded. Dos Palos has the highest rate of overcrowded households for renter-occupied households (8.9 percent), much higher than the county average of 5.5 percent. Overall, the percentage of overcrowded owner-occupied and renter-occupied units is similar throughout the NSJV region.
Table 2-14 Overcrowding Severity by Tenure
Jurisdiction
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Total
Owner-
Occupied
1.0 to 1.5
Occupants
per Room
More than 1.5
Occupants per
Room
Total
Renter-
occupied
1.0 to 1.5
Occupants
per Room
More than 1.5
Occupants per
Room
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%
Atwater 5,366 158 76 4,943 349 132
Percent 52.1% 1.5% 0.7% 47.9% 3.4% 1.3%
Dos Palos 1,016 – 11 645 148 –
Percent 61.2% 0.0% 0.7% 38.8% 8.9% 0.0%
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-19
Jurisdiction
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Total
Owner-
Occupied
1.0 to 1.5
Occupants
per Room
More than 1.5
Occupants per
Room
Total
Renter-
occupied
1.0 to 1.5
Occupants
per Room
More than 1.5
Occupants per
Room
Gustine 1,057 30 – 1,112 30 –
Percent 48.7% 1.4% 0.0% 51.3% 1.4% 0.0%
Livingston 1,881 102 68 1,418 45 89
Percent 57.0% 3.1% 2.1% 43.0% 1.4% 2.7%
Los Banos 6,732 498 93 5,293 375 288
Percent 56.0% 4.1% 0.8% 44.0% 3.1% 2.4%
Merced 11,185 310 107 15,488 1,006 504
Percent 41.9% 1.2% 0.4% 58.1% 3.8% 1.9%
Unincorporated
Merced County
14,909 668 196 10,573 1,137 349
Percent 58.5% 2.6% 0.8% 41.5% 4.5% 1.4%
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%
Stanislaus
County
104,220 3,974 1,307 70,847 5,361 1,914
Percent 59.5% 2.3% 0.7% 40.5% 3.1% 1.1%
San Joaquin
County
138,735 5,582 1,861 95,927 8,515 3,629
Percent 59.1% 2.4% 0.8% 40.9% 3.6% 1.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 06-10, 11-15, 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25014.
2.9 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 discuss these special housing needs of six groups identified in state Housing Element Law (Government Code, Section 65583(a)(7): elderly, persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities), large households, farmworkers, single female-headed households, and families and persons experiencing homelessness. This section also describes the needs of extremely low-income households. Where possible, estimates of the population or number of households belonging to each group are shown.
2.9.1 Seniors
Table 2-15 identifies senior households by tenure across the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County. The percentage row identifies the percent of the specified age range out of all owner-occupied or renter-occupied households tenure column. There is a higher number of owner- occupied senior households across each jurisdiction compared to renter-occupied senior households. In Merced County, there are 5,030 seniors who rent housing and 12,967 who own their housing units. There is a similar distribution of senior owner-occupied and renter-occupied households in Merced County when compared to the counties in the NSJV region.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-20
Table 2-15 Senior Households by Tenure
Jurisdiction
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Total 65 to 74 75 to 84
85 and
Over Total 65 to 74 75 to 84
85 and
Over
Merced County 42,146 7,176 4,232 1,559 39,427 3,318 1,216 495 Percent 100% 17.0% 10.0% 3.7% 100% 8.4% 3.1% 1.3%
Atwater 5,366 826 545 262 4,943 409 302 105
Percent 100% 15.4% 10.2% 4.9% 100% 8.3% 6.1% 2.1%
Dos Palos 1,016 225 122 – 645 71 25 –
Percent 100% 22.1% 12.0% 0.0% 100% 11.0% 3.9% 0.0%
Gustine 1,057 216 151 – 1,112 166 21 54
Percent 100% 20.4% 14.3% 0.0% 100% 14.9% 1.9% 4.9%
Livingston 1,881 283 147 40 1,418 84 – 24
Percent 100% 15.0% 7.8% 2.1% 100% 5.9% 0.0% 1.7%
Los Banos 6,732 947 726 71 5,293 416 132 77
Percent 100% 14.1% 10.8% 1.1% 100% 7.9% 2.5% 1.5%
Merced 11,185 2,114 1,076 294 15,488 1,351 423 122 Percent 100% 18.9% 9.6% 2.6% 100% 8.7% 2.7% 0.8%
Unincorporated
County
14,909 4,679 2,541 1,186 10,573 2,172 736 235 Percent 100% 17.9% 9.7% 4.5% 100% 8.3% 2.8% 0.9%
California 7,335,247 1,386,828 679,546 288,915 5,882,339 501,465 229,153 132,237 Percent 100% 43.1% 21.1% 9.0% 100% 15.6% 7.1% 4.1%
Stanislaus
County
104,220 18,752 8,862 3,581 70,847 5,758 2,559 2,063 Percent 100.0% 18.0% 8.5% 3.4% 100.0% 8.1% 3.6% 2.9%
San Joaquin
County
138,735 23,173 11,606 4,954 95,927 7,637 3,678 1,866 Percent 100.0% 16.7% 8.4% 3.6% 100.0% 8.0% 3.8% 1.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25007.
Table 2-16 shows housing cost burden data for senior households by income level in Merced County based on data extracted through HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) database. As shown, 52.2 percent of all senior households in Merced County are considered lower income, which means their household income is less than or equal to 80 percent of the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI). Among owner-occupied senior units, 44.1 percent of senior households are lower income, compared to 73.3 percent of senior households in renter-occupied units. Additionally, in all lower income categories, senior households that rent experience significantly higher rates of cost burden than senior homeowners. Across the county, 3,700 lower- income senior households rent housing.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-21
Table 2-16 Overpayment by Tenure among Senior Households, Merced County Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Grand
Total
Elderly
Family
Elderly
Non-
Family Total %
Elderly
Family
Elderly
Non-
Family Total % %
Household Income <= 30% HAMFI Extremely Low-Income 500 925 1,425 10.9% 285 1,210 1,495 29.6% 2,920 16.1% Number w/ Cost Burden <= 30% 130 320 450 3.4% 70 360 430 8.5% 880 4.8% Number w/ Cost Burden > 30% to <= 50% 65 220 285 2.2% 75 205 280 5.5% 565 3.1% Number w/ Cost Burden > 50% 305 385 690 5.3% 140 645 785 15.5% 1,475 8.1% Household Income > 30% to <= 50% HAMFI Very Low-Income 795 1,030 1,825 13.9% 405 705 1,110 22.0% 2,935 16.1% Number w/ Cost Burden <= 30% 440 550 990 7.5% 140 165 305 6.0% 1,295 7.1% Number w/ Cost Burden > 30% to <= 50% 130 195 325 2.5% 165 280 445 8.8% 770 4.2% Number w/ Cost Burden > 50% 225 285 510 3.9% 100 260 360 7.1% 870 4.8% Household Income > 50% to <= 80% HAMFI Low-Income 1,440 1,105 2,545 19.4% 535 560 1,095 21.7% 3,640 20.0% Number w/ Cost Burden <= 30% 860 785 1,645 12.5% 265 185 450 8.9% 2,095 11.5% Number w/ Cost Burden > 30% to <= 50% 455 200 655 5.0% 175 345 520 10.3% 1,175 6.5% Number w/ Cost Burden > 50% 125 120 245 1.9% 95 30 125 2.5% 370 2.0% Subtotal Lower Income (<= 80% HAMFI) 2,735 3,060 5,795 44.1% 1,225 2,475 3,700 73.3% 9,495 52.2% Household Income > 80% to <= 100% HAMFI 605 495 1,100 8.4% 180 135 315 6.2% 1,415 7.8% Household Income > 100% HAMFI 4,645 1,590 6,235 47.5% 590 445 1,035 20.5% 7,270 40.0% Total 7,985 5,145 13,130 100.0% 1,995 3,055 5,050 100.0% 18,180 100.0% HAMFI = HUD Area Median Family Income
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2015-19 (5-Year Estimates), Table 7.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-22
Table 2-17 summarizes cost burden data for units occupied by senior households. In Merced County, 33.5 percent of all senior households are overpaying for housing, including 17.7 percent with a cost burden between 30 and 50 percent, and 15.8 percent with a cost burden greater than 50 percent. This is notably lower than the 40.3 percent all senior households are overpaying for housing in Stanislaus County and the 39.3 percent in San Joaquin County. Compared to total households (see Table 2-11), the percentage of cost burdened senior households is slightly lower than total cost burdened households in Merced County, where 18.4 percent experience a cost burden between 30 and 50 percent and 15.4 percent experience a cost burden greater than 50 percent. The City of Merced has the highest percentage of seniors who are severely cost burdened (18.1 percent); however, all jurisdictions in Merced County have a lower rate of severe cost burden for senior households than the state average (22.2 percent). The jurisdictions of Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, Livingston, and Merced have a higher rate of moderate cost burden among senior households than the state average, with the highest rate in Gustine (33.1 percent of senior households).
Table 2-17 Cost Burdened Senior Households
Jurisdiction
Cost Burden
<= 30%
Cost Burden >30% to
<=50%
Cost Burden
>50%
Total Senior
Households
Merced County 12,080 3,220 2,880 18,180
Percent 66.4% 17.7% 15.8% 100.0%
Atwater 1,260 403 315 1,978
Percent 63.7% 20.4% 15.9% 100.0%
Dos Palos 175 95 40 310
Percent 56.5% 30.6% 12.9% 100.0%
Gustine 395 240 90 725
Percent 54.5% 33.1% 12.4% 100.0%
Livingston 344 110 93 547
Percent 62.9% 20.1% 17.0% 100.0%
Los Banos 1,600 330 345 2,275
Percent 70.3% 14.5% 15.2% 100.0%
Merced 3,270 1,220 995 5,485
Percent 59.6% 22.2% 18.1% 100.0%
Unincorporated Merced County 5,036 822 1,002 6,860 Percent 73.4% 12.0% 14.6% 100.0%
California 1,963,195 620,335 736,510 3,320,040
Percent 59.1% 18.7% 22.2% 100.0%
Stanislaus County 32,915 10,255 11,975 55,145
Percent 59.7% 18.6% 21.7% 100.0%
San Joaquin County 26,055 8,365 8,480 42,900
Percent 60.7% 19.5% 19.8% 100.0%
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2015-19 (5-Year Estimates), Table 7.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-23
Resources for Senior-Headed Households
The Merced County Housing Authority manages three senior housing complexes with 67 total senior housing units. The facilities are located in the cities of Atwater (14 units), Dos Palos (25 units), and Merced (28 units) and are subsidized Section 8 housing. There is a 100-unit Section 8 development located in the City of Merced and managed by a private developer. Overland Courts, a 69-unit deed restricted affordable senior housing complex located in Los Banos, was built in 2017 with California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) funds. Additionally, the McArthur Apartments located on D Street in Los Banos provides 100 units of subsidized Section 8 housing. There are no affordable senior housing complexes strictly for the elderly population in the unincorporated area of the county.
There are a number of “assisted living” facilities in the county which offer a variety of services for seniors. The Merced County Human Services Agency (HSA) provides services to assist seniors and adults with disabilities. Through the Area Agency on Aging (AAA) programs, HSA provides seniors with transportation, health insurance counseling, home-delivered meals, legal assistance, family caregiver support, and job placement assistance. HAS also provides services to seniors who are victims of abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
The Area Agency on Aging provides meals for seniors at no cost, though contributions of $2 are suggested. Meals are provided at Living Well Café, currently located at The Rock Church, 1701 Leonard Avenue, Dos Palos.
The Merced Senior Community Center, located at 755 W. 15 th Street in Merced, offers classes,
activities, a computer lab, library, and pool room for seniors in the community. They also hold special events and host educational and social activities throughout the year.
2.9.2 Persons with Disabilities (including Developmental Disabilities)
Persons with disabilities typically have special housing needs because of their physical and/or developmental capabilities, fixed or limited incomes, and higher health costs associated with their disabilities. A disability is defined broadly by the Census Bureau as a physical, mental, or emotional condition that lasts over a long period of time and makes it difficult to live independently. The Census Bureau defines six disabilities: hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, or independent living disabilities.
Persons with disabilities have different housing needs depending on the nature and severity of the disability. Physically disabled persons generally require modifications to their housing units, such as wheelchair ramps, elevators or lifts, wide doorways, accessible cabinetry, and modified fixtures and appliances. Special design and other considerations for persons with disabilities include single-level units, availability of services, group living opportunities, and proximity to transit. While state regulations require all ground floor units of new apartment complexes with five or more units to be accessible to persons with disabilities, single family units have no accessibility requirements. If a disability prevents a person from operating a vehicle, then proximity to services and access to public transportation are particularly important. If a disability prevents an individual from working or limits income, then the cost of housing and the costs of modifications are likely to be even more challenging. Those with severe physical or mental disabilities may also require supportive housing, nursing facilities, or care facilities. In addition, many disabled people rely solely on Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which is insufficient for market rate housing.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-24
Table 2-18 identifies the populations of the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County by number of disabilities. Merced County (12.8 percent) has a similar percentage of residents with a disability compared to Stanislaus County (12.2 percent) and San Joaquin County (12.7 percent), averaging to 12.6 percent for the NSJV region. Compared to the state average of 10.6, the NSJV has a slightly higher percentage of residents with disabilities. Within Merced County, the jurisdictions of Atwater, Gustine, Los Banos, and Merced have a larger percentage of their populations having two or more disabilities than a single disability. Gustine has the highest percent of persons with disabilities among all jurisdictions (24.8 percent), while Los Banos (9.7 percent) and Dos Palos (12.0 percent) have the lowest. Except for Los Banos, all jurisdictions in Merced County have a higher percentage of residents with a disability compared to the state average (10.6 percent).
Table 2-18 Population by Number of Disabilities
Jurisdiction Total
With One Type
of Disability
With Two or More
Types of Disability No Disability
Merced County 276,304 18,099 17,266 240,939
Percent 6.6% 6.2% 87.2%
Atwater 31,214 2,266 2,144 26,804
Percent 7.3% 6.9% 85.9%
Dos Palos 5,625 375 299 4,951
Percent 6.7% 5.3% 88.0%
Gustine 5,990 615 868 4,507
Percent 10.3% 14.5% 75.2%
Livingston 14,078 1,446 539 12,093
Percent 10.3% 3.8% 85.9%
Los Banos 44,335 2,016 2,281 40,038
Percent 4.5% 5.1% 90.3%
Merced 85,330 5,542 6,097 73,691
Percent 6.5% 7.1% 86.4%
Unincorporated
Merced County
89,732 5,839 5,038 78,855
Percent 6.5% 5.6% 87.9%
California 38,946,377 2,108,406 2,037,095 34,800,876 Percent 5.4% 5.2% 89.4%
San Joaquin County 760,179 45,786 46,795 667,598 Percent 6.0% 6.2% 87.8%
Stanislaus County 547,970 35,281 34,662 478,027
Percent 6.4% 6.3% 87.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table S1810.
Table 2-19 describes disability by type for the total population of the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County. The most common disability in Merced County is ambulatory difficulty (7.2 percent), followed by independent living difficulty (6.2 percent). Persons with ambulatory difficulty make up the largest proportion of the population with a disability across each jurisdiction. This is also the case for the NSJV region, as well as the state.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-25
Table 2-19 Disability by Type
Jurisdiction
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
Merced County 9,041 8,276 13,955 18,310 6,822 11,989 Percent 3.3% 3.0% 5.5% 7.2% 2.7% 6.2%
Atwater 1,654 1,003 1,573 2,348 749 1,307
Percent 5.3% 3.2% 5.0% 7.5% 2.4% 4.2%
Dos Palos 121 159 140 438 87 267
Percent 2.2% 2.8% 2.7% 8.4% 1.7% 6.3%
Gustine 250 305 767 723 390 388
Percent 4.2% 5.1% 13.1% 12.4% 6.7% 14.2%
Livingston 436 588 728 682 164 282
Percent 3.1% 4.2% 5.7% 5.4% 1.3% 3.8%
Los Banos 1,016 921 1,642 2,264 999 1,535
Percent 2.3% 2.1% 4.1% 5.6% 2.5% 5.3%
Merced 2,594 2,971 4,926 6,224 2,730 4,109
Percent 3.0% 3.5% 6.2% 7.9% 3.5% 6.9%
Unincorporate
d Merced
County
2,970 2,329 4,179 5,631 1,703 4,101
Percent 3.3% 2.6% 4.7% 6.3% 1.9% 4.6%
California 1,126,83
6 779,81
8 1,597,22
3 2,080,28
0 950,31
4 1,640,80
2 Percent 2.9% 2.0% 4.4% 5.7% 2.6% 5.5%
San Joaquin
County
24,732 18,218 36,035 48,868 19,243 35,672
Percent 3.3% 2.4% 5.1% 6.9% 2.7% 6.5%
Stanislaus
County
21,817 14,450 26,483 34,939 14,558 26,971
Percent 4.0% 2.6% 5.2% 6.9% 2.9% 6.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table C18108.
Table 2-20 describes disability by age categories for the total population of the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County. In Merced County, the majority of residents with a disability are between the ages of 18 and 64, followed by individuals who are 65 and older. The 18 to 64 age category makes up the largest proportion of the population with a disability across each jurisdiction.
In the NSJV region, the population under 18 years age group has the lowest percentage of people with a disability, similar to Merced County.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-26
Table 2-20 Disability by Age for the Total Population
Jurisdiction Total Population Under 18 Years 18 to 64 Years 65 Years and Older Merced County 276,304 3,666 18,311 13,388
Percent 1.3% 6.6% 4.8%
Atwater 31,214 523 2,005 1,882
Percent 1.7% 6.4% 6.0%
Dos Palos 5,625 13 314 347
Percent 0.2% 5.6% 6.2%
Gustine 5,990 156 849 478
Percent 2.6% 14.2% 8.0%
Livingston 14,078 125 1,376 484
Percent 0.9% 9.8% 3.4%
Los Banos 44,335 581 1,982 1,734
Percent 1.3% 4.5% 3.9%
Merced 85,330 1,310 6,352 3,977
Percent 1.5% 7.4% 4.7%
Unincorporated Merced
County
89,732 958 5,433 4,486
Percent 1.1% 6.1% 5.0%
California 38,946,377 315,849 1,964,845 1,864,807 Percent 0.8% 5.0% 4.8%
Stanislaus County 547,970 5,586 36,155 28,202
Percent 1.0% 6.6% 5.1%
San Joaquin County 760,179 7,067 48,679 36,835
Percent 0.9% 6.4% 4.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table C18108 The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) defines developmental disabilities as a group of conditions due to an impairment in physical, learning, language, or behavior areas. These conditions begin during the developmental period, may impact day-to-day functioning, and usually last throughout a person’s lifetime. Table 2-21 identifies residents with a developmental disability by age across the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County. The state’s population is divided almost evenly amongst residents over 18 and residents under 18 that have a developmental disability, which places the population of those under 18 slightly above the state average in the NSJV and Merced County. Compared to the NJSV, Merced County has a slightly higher percentage of population over the age of 18 with a developmental disability. In Merced County, there are 2,794 residents with a developmental disability, with approximately 42.4 percent residing in the City of Merced.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-27
Table 2-21 Developmental Disability by Age
Jurisdiction Under 18 Years 18 Years and Older
Total Population with a
Developmental Disability
Merced County 1,507 1,287 2,794
Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Atwater 232 246 478
Percent 15.4% 19.1% 17.1%
Dos Palos 56 46 102
Percent 3.7% 3.6% 3.7%
Gustine 48 28 76
Percent 3.2% 2.2% 2.7%
Livingston 77 52 129
Percent 5.1% 4.0% 4.6%
Los Banos 244 158 402
Percent 16.2% 12.3% 14.4%
Merced 607 578 1,185
Percent 40.3% 44.9% 42.4%
Unincorporated Merced
County
243 179 422
Percent 16.1% 13.9% 15.1%
California 192,384 185,353 377,737
Stanislaus County 3,375 2,529 5,904
San Joaquin County 5,405 3,953 9,358
Source: Department of Developmental Services, Quarterly Consumer Report, December 2021.
Resources for Persons with Disabilities
Many mentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional living environment. However, more severely disabled individuals require a group living environment in which partial or constant supervision is provided by trained personnel. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment in which medical attention and therapy are provided within the living environment.
There are several agencies serving Merced County residents with a disability, including:
California Children Services (CCS). Provides coverage for specialized medical care and rehabilitation for children with eligible medical conditions. 260 East 15th St., Merced, CA 95341, (209) 381-1114
Central Valley Regional Center (CVRC). Administers developmental screenings for autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and intellectual disabilities and provides care coordination to supportive services. 3172 M St., Merced, CA 95348, (209) 723-4245 Challenged Family Resource Center (CFRC). Provides support and advocacy training for families with children with disabilities. 827 West 20th St., Merced, CA 95340, (209) 385-5314 Deaf and Hard of Hearing Service Center, Inc. (DHHSC). A private, non-profit social service agency that serves individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, and late-deafened, Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-28
their families, friends, and community service providers. 865 W. 18th Street, Merced, CA 95340, (209) 230-9910
Exceptional Parents Unlimited. Provides supportive services for families and children with disabilities. 4440 N First St., Fresno, CA 93726, (559) 229-2000 Table 2-22 includes data summarizing the housing situation of residents with developmental disabilities in the jurisdictions in Merced County, as well as other counties within the NSJV region and the state of California. Residents with developmental disabilities in Merced County are primarily located in the city of Merced or the unincorporated county. A majority of residents with developmental disabilities in Merced County live in the home of a parent, family member, or guardian (89 percent), as is common throughout the NSJV region and the state. Most other residents with a developmental disability live in an independent/supported living facility (seven percent) or community care facility (two percent).
Table 2-22 Developmental Disability by Residence
Jurisdiction
Residence Type
Total
Residents
Home of
Parent
/Family
/Guardian
Independent
/Supported
Living
Community
Care
Facility
Intermediate
Care Facility
Foster
/Family
Home Other
Merced County >3,309 2,937 232 80 60 <11 <11
Atwater >472 385 47 29 11 <11 <11
Dos Palos >97 84 <11 13 0 <11 0
Gustine >75 75 <11 0 0 0 0
Livingston >125 125 <11 0 0 <11 <11
Los Banos >394 377 17 <11 0 <11 <11
Merced >1,151 976 109 17 49 <11 <11
Unincorporated
Merced County
>995 915 59 21 0 <11 <11
California 380,258 309,381 27,881 23,728 6,188 8,288 4,792 San Joaquin
County
>8,608 7,181 468 732 137 90 <11
Stanislaus
County
>5,672 5,040 349 283 <11 <11 <11
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, DDS Quarterly Consumer Report, January 2022.
The U.S. Social Security Administration reports the number of persons who receive benefits through the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program, which pays monthly benefits to persons with disabilities (or certain family members) who are unable to work due to a medical condition. As of December 2023, a total of 9,942 residents in Merced County received SSDI assistance, of which 7,812 residents received benefits due to being blind or disabled.1
1 Source: U.S. Social Security administration. SSI Recipients by State and County, 2023. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_sc/2023/ca.pdf 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.) Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-29
2.9.3 Large Households
HUD defines a large household as one with five or more members. Large families may have specific needs that differ from other households due to income and housing stock constraints. The most critical housing need of large households is access to larger housing units with more bedrooms than a standard three-bedroom dwelling. As a result, large households may be overcrowded in smaller units. Table 2.11 above provides ACS data on large households by tenure across all county jurisdictions, while Table 2.12 examines overcrowding severity by tenure.
Table 2-23 below, quantifies large households in the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County by tenure compared to the number of total households. In Merced County, 17,710 households contain more than five people. These households account for 21.7 percent of total households, which is similar to the 19.9 percent in the NSJV region (17.9 in Stanislaus County and
20.0 percent in San Joaquin County). Of Merced County households, 9,372 (11.5 percent of total households) are renter-occupied households which is higher than the 7.6 in Stanislaus County and
8.7 percent in San Joaquin County. Of the Merced County jurisdictions, Livingston has the highest percentage of owner-occupied households that include five or more people at 25 percent of all households. The City of Merced has the highest percentage of renter-occupied households that include five or more people at 12.3 percent of all households. Apart from Gustine, all jurisdictions and Merced County have higher percentages of owner- and renter-occupied large households than the NSJV region and the state.
Table 2-23 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
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%
Atwater 10,309 658 107 141 651 169 109
Percent 6.4% 1.0% 1.4% 6.3% 1.6% 1.1%
Dos Palos 1,661 127 29 – 60 28 111
Percent 7.6% 1.7% 0.0% 3.6% 1.7% 6.7%
Gustine 2,169 69 68 – 63 15 –
Percent 3.2% 3.1% 0.0% 2.9% 0.7% 0.0%
Livingston 3,299 564 154 120 204 24 136
Percent 17.1% 4.7% 3.6% 6.2% 0.7% 4.1%
Los Banos 12,025 1,003 334 367 793 336 304 Percent 8.3% 2.8% 3.1% 6.6% 2.8% 2.5%
Merced 26,673 1,057 601 279 1,895 761 627 Percent 4.0% 2.3% 1.0% 7.1% 2.9% 2.4%
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%
Stanislaus
County
175,067 9,817 4,683 3,605 7,512 3,626 2,098 Percent 5.6% 2.7% 2.1% 4.3% 2.1% 1.2%
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-30
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
San Joaquin
County
234,662 14,350 6,295 5,966 11,674 4,983 3,769 Percent 6.1% 2.7% 2.5% 5.0% 2.1% 1.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25009.
Resources for Large Households
Table 2-24 compares the number of households with five or more people to the number of units with five or more bedrooms. As shown, there are a total of 86,767 housing units in Merced County, including 17,656 units with four bedrooms and 3,002 units with five or more bedrooms. These large housing units represent 25.3 percent of Merced County housing stock, more than the percentage statewide (22.5 percent). Compared to the number of large households (17,710), when only considering the number of large units of five or more bedrooms (3,002), there is a considerable resource gap in the county of 14,535 units that can accommodate large households, which likely contributes to overcrowding. However, considering all large units with four or more bedrooms (20,658) fills and exceeds the need for adequate housing for large households in Merced County.
Within the NSJV region, Merced County has a slightly higher percentage of large households compared to Stanislaus County and a significantly lower percentage of large households compared to San Joaquin County.
Table 2-24 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)
Merced County 81,618 17,710 86,767 17,656 3,002
Percent 21.7% 20.3% 3.5%
Atwater 10,309 1,835 10,580 1,291 360
Percent 17.8% 12.2% 3.4%
Dos Palos 1,661 355 1,661 224 0
Percent 21.4% 13.5% 0.0%
Gustine 2,169 215 2,302 503 124
Percent 9.9% 21.9% 5.4%
Livingston 3,299 1,202 3,407 774 267
Percent 36.4% 22.7% 7.8%
Los Banos 12,025 3,137 12,459 3,006 734
Percent 26.1% 24.1% 5.9%
Merced 26,673 5,220 28,400 5,977 746
Percent 19.6% 21.0% 2.6%
Unincorporated
Merced County
25,482 5,746 27,958 5,881 771
Percent 22.5% 21.0% 2.8%
California 13,217,586 1,830,468 14,328,539 5,881 771 Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-31
Jurisdiction
Total
Households
Large Households
(5 or more Persons) Total Units
Large Units
(4 Bedrooms)
Large Units
(5 or More Bedrooms)
Percent 13.8% 21.0% 2.8%
Stanislaus
County
175,067 31,341 182,606 34,331 7,085
Percent 17.9% 18.8% 3.9%
San Joaquin
County
234,662 47,037 249,018 55,619 14,034
Percent 20.0% 30.5% 7.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25041.
2.9.4 Female-Headed Households
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a single-headed household contains a household head and at least one dependent, which could include a related or unrelated child, or an elderly parent. Female- headed households have special housing needs because they are often either single parents or single elderly adults living on low- or poverty level incomes. Single-parent households with children often require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for affordable housing, accessible day care, health care, and a variety of other supportive services. Moreover, because of their relatively lower household incomes, single-parent households are more likely to experience difficulties in finding affordable, decent, and safe housing.
Table 2-25 identifies all single female-headed households with their own children under age 18. The table values do not include female-headed households with unrelated dependents or without children. As shown, the jurisdictions of Merced, Atwater, and Livingston have the highest percent of single female-headed households in Merced County, while unincorporated Merced County, Dos Palos, and Gustine have the lowest percentages. In Merced County, 7.8 percent of all households are single female-headed households, which is slightly higher than the NSJV region (6.2 percent), and greater than statewide (4.7 percent).
Table 2-25 Single Female-Headed Households with Own Children Jurisdiction Total Households Single Female-Headed Households* Percent Merced County 81,618 6,365 7.8%
Atwater 10,309 1,050 10.2%
Dos Palos 1,661 80 4.8%
Gustine 2,169 15 0.7%
Livingston 3,299 250 7.6%
Los Banos 12,025 841 7.0%
Merced 26,673 2,808 10.5%
Unincorporated Merced County 25,482 1,321 5.2%
California 13,217,586 614,747 4.7%
Stanislaus County 175,067 10,496 6.0%
San Joaquin County 234,662 13,448 5.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B11012.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-32
Table 2-26 provides data on all female households with no spouse present (with or without children) by tenure. In Merced County, there are 14,698 households led by single female householders, including 4,569 owner-occupied households and 10,129 renter-occupied households. Across Merced County, renter-occupied households account for a larger proportion of single female-headed households than owner-occupied households, which is also true across the NSJV region. The jurisdictions of Los Banos, Livingston, and Merced have the greatest proportions of renter-occupied single-female households. In Merced County, the proportion of single female-headed households that rent (68.9 percent) is similar to the NSJV region (61.4 percent), and higher than the proportion statewide (58.3 percent). Overall, Merced County has a larger distribution of renter-occupied single female-headed households compared to Stanislaus County and San Joaquin County.
Table 2-26 Single Female-Headed Households by Tenure
Jurisdiction Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total
Merced County 4,569 10,129 14,698
Percent 31.1% 68.9%
Atwater 806 1,201 2,007
Percent 40.2% 59.8%
Dos Palos 145 153 298
Percent 48.7% 51.3%
Gustine 208 334 542
Percent 38.4% 61.6%
Livingston 202 565 767
Percent 26.3% 73.7%
Los Banos 625 1,142 1,767
Percent 35.4% 64.6%
Merced 1,143 4,589 5,732
Percent 19.9% 80.1%
Unincorporated Merced County 1,440 2,145 3,585
Percent 40.2% 59.8%
California 713,100 996,675 1,709,775
Percent 41.7% 58.3%
San Joaquin County 13,910 21,049 34,959
Percent 39.8% 60.2%
Stanislaus County 10,805 15,500 26,305
Percent 41.1% 58.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25011.
Table 2-27 provides data on all female households with no spouse present (with or without children) by poverty level over the past 12 months. In Merced County, there are 5,470 single female householders experiencing poverty (8.8 percent of total families). This is a much higher percentage compared to the other counties in the NSJV with 5 percent of single female householders experiencing poverty in San Joaquin County and 4.8 percent in Stanislaus County. These counties are more similar to the statewide average of 4 percent, making Merced County an outlier. The jurisdictions of Atwater, unincorporated Merced County, and Merced have the greatest proportions of single-female households experiencing poverty.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-33
Table 2-27 Single Female-Headed Households Below the Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months
Jurisdiction Total Families
Total Income in the past
12 months below poverty
level
Total Female
householder, no spouse
present
Merced County 61,928 10,093 5,470
Percent 16.3% 8.8%
Atwater 7,783 1,256 584
Percent 16.1% 7.5%
Dos Palos 1,302 81 51
Percent 6.2% 3.9%
Gustine 1,473 92 45
Percent 6.2% 3.1%
Livingston 2,831 477 135
Percent 16.8% 4.8%
Los Banos 9,443 1,233 568
Percent 13.1% 6.0%
Merced 18,884 3,954 2,646
Percent 20.9% 14.0%
Unincorporated Merced
County
20,212 3,000 1,441
Percent 14.8% 7.1%
California 9,060,746 791,378 358,164
Percent 8.7% 4.0%
San Joaquin County 176,001 18,516 8,725
Percent 10.5% 5.0%
Stanislaus County 130,428 13,882 6,262
Percent 10.6% 4.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B17012.
Resources for Single-Parent and Female-Headed Households Local agencies dedicated to assisting parents are summarized in the bullets below. First 5 Merced County works to improve the lives of Merced County’s young children and their families through a comprehensive system of education, health services, and other crucial programs.
Ace Overcomers Program helps 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 supports the community by providing mental health services to children and youth ages 0 to 21.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-34
Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health (MCAH) Services provides information and services to mothers and children.
A Child Care Education Support System (ACCESS) assists families with resources and referrals to child care and after school programs.
All Dads Matter provides parenting workshops and trainings and parenting support and engagement.
All Moms Matter provides parenting support, education, and encouragement. Caring Kids provides families with parent education and support through workshops and trainings to promote healthy social and emotional development in young children. Family Resource Council provides parent support and referrals for families facing challenges, and offers child abuse and neglect prevention education and parenting skills classes.
2.9.5 Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely low-income households are defined as households with income under 30 percent of the county’s median household income. Extremely low-income households typically consist of minimum wage workers, seniors on fixed incomes, the disabled, and farmworkers. This group of households has 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. Households in this income group are more likely than at other income levels to live in overcrowded and substandard housing conditions. In recent years rising rents, higher income and credit requirements imposed by landlords, and insufficient government assistance has exacerbated the problem. Without adequate assistance this group has a high risk of homelessness.
Table 2-28 identifies extremely low-income households by tenure for the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County. Renter-occupied households make up a larger percentage of total extremely low-income households in every jurisdiction except in Dos Palos. By comparison to total households, the jurisdictions of Livingston and Merced have the largest percentages of extremely low-income residents at 25.2 percent and 19.2 percent respectively, while Dos Palos (10.9 percent) and unincorporated Merced County (7.5 percent) have the lowest. Across the state, extremely low- income households make up 15.3 percent of total households. When compared to the NSJV, Merced County had a notably higher percentage of extremely low-income households.
Table 2-28 Extremely Low-Income Households by Tenure
Jurisdiction
Income <=30% HAMFI Total
Households Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total ELI Households Merced County 2,940 8,540 11,480 80,010
Percent 3.7% 10.7% 14.3% 100.0%
Atwater 364 965 1,329 9,160
Percent 4.0% 10.5% 14.5% 100.0%
Dos Palos 85 80 165 1,515
Percent 5.6% 5.3% 10.9% 100.0%
Gustine 100 160 260 2,055
Percent 4.9% 7.8% 12.7% 100.0%
Livingston 60 345 405 1,605
Percent 3.7% 21.5% 25.2% 100.0%
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-35
Jurisdiction
Income <=30% HAMFI Total
Households Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total ELI Households Los Banos 395 970 1,365 10,775
Percent 3.7% 9.0% 12.7% 100.0%
Merced 685 4,205 4,890 25,490
Percent 2.7% 16.5% 19.2% 100.0%
Unincorporated Merced
County
1,251 1,815 3,066 41,020
Percent 3.0% 4.4% 7.5% 100.0%
California 592,010 1,427,405 2,019,415 13,217,586 Percent 4.5% 10.8% 15.3% 100.0%
San Joaquin County 7730 19,320 27,050 228,565
Percent 3.4% 8.5% 11.8% 100.0%
Stanislaus County 5355 13,360 18,715 173,900
Percent 3.1% 7.7% 10.8% 100.0%
Source: U.S. Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2015-19 (5-Year Estimates), Table 7.
Table 2-29 shows extremely low-income households overpaying by tenure in the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County. Overpaying households are those that have housing cost burdens of more than 30 percent of their income towards housing. As shown, amongst owner- occupied and renter-occupied households, most extremely low-income households have a household cost burden of at least 30 percent. Renter occupied households are more likely to experience a housing cost burden across all jurisdictions. In Merced County, 85.3 percent of extremely low-income households have either a moderate or severe housing cost burden, like the distribution across the NSJV region (88.9 percent in San Joaquin County and 86.4 percent in Stanislaus County.
Table 2-29 Extremely Low-Income Households Overpaying by Tenure Jurisdiction
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Cost
Burden
<30%
Moderate
Cost
Burden
30%-50%
Severe Cost
Burden
>50%
Cost
Burden
<30%
Moderate
Cost
Burden
30%-50%
Severe
Cost
Burden
>50%
Total ELI
Households
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%
Atwater 75 95 194 70 140 755 1,329
Percent 5.6% 7.1% 14.6% 5.3% 10.5% 56.8% 100.0%
Dos Palos 15 - 70 - 45 35 165
Percent 9.1% 0.0% 42.4% 0.0% 27.3% 21.2% 100.0%
Gustine 20 - 80 - 85 75 260
Percent 7.7% 0.0% 30.8% 0.0% 32.7% 28.8% 100.0%
Livingston 10 15 35 50 25 270 405
Percent 2.5% 3.7% 8.6% 12.3% 6.2% 66.7% 100.0%
Los Banos 90 55 250 205 140 625 1,365
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-36
Jurisdiction
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Cost
Burden
<30%
Moderate
Cost
Burden
30%-50%
Severe Cost
Burden
>50%
Cost
Burden
<30%
Moderate
Cost
Burden
30%-50%
Severe
Cost
Burden
>50%
Total ELI
Households
Percent 6.6% 4.0% 18.3% 15.0% 10.3% 45.8% 100.0%
Merced 135 160 390 405 765 3,035 4,890
Percent 2.8% 3.3% 8.0% 8.3% 15.6% 62.1% 100.0%
Unincorporated
Merced County
270 270 711 345 330 1,140 3,066
Percent 8.8% 8.8% 23.2% 11.3% 10.8% 37.2% 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%
San Joaquin
County
1,035 1,145 5,550 1,950 2,420 14,950 27,050 Percent 3.8% 4.2% 20.5% 7.2% 8.9% 55.3% 100.0%
Stanislaus
County
745 1,150 3,460 1,800 1,480 10,080 18,715
Percent 4.0% 6.1% 18.5% 9.6% 7.9% 53.9% 100.0%
Source: US Housing and Urban Development, CHAS 2015-19 (5-Year Estimates).
Resources for Extremely Low-Income Households
The Housing Authority of the County of Merced administers the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The program provides rent subsidies to families in privately owned rental units in Merced County. HUD currently administers 2,705 housing HCVs within the county.2 Similar to the HCV program, the Housing Authority of Merced County also administers Emergency Housing Vouchers (EHV). In order to be eligible for an EHV, an individual must meet one of the four eligibility categories: 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 2.9.6 Farmworkers
Due to a combination of limited English language skills and very low household incomes, the ability of farmworkers to secure rental housing or obtain housing loans for home purchase is extremely limited. Housing needs include permanent family housing as well as accommodations for migrant single men, such as dormitory-style housing, especially during peak labor activity in May through October.
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-ehv- frequently-asked-questions-faq/. Accessed June 2023.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-37
A growing number of migrant workers do not leave California during the non-farm season, but instead stay in the area and perform non-farm work such as construction and odd jobs. Housing needs of this migrant but non farmworker population are partially addressed by year-round housing units, but additional migrant units are needed.
Migrant and other seasonal farmworkers usually do not have a fixed physical address and work intermittently in various agricultural and non-agricultural occupations during a single year, with only casual employer-employee links. Many workers and/or their families live in rural, often remote areas and are reluctant to voice their housing needs and concerns to local government or housing authorities. According to California Employment Development Department, the median wage for farmworkers was $14.77 per hour in 2020 or approximately $34,561 per year for full-time work, which is considered extremely low-income in California. Many farmworkers are forced to pay market rate for their housing, since most farm owners do not provide housing for their workers, and many publicly owned or managed housing complexes are restricted to families. Because market-rate housing may be more than they can afford, many workers are forced to share a housing unit with several other workers, causing a severely overcrowded living situation. Migrant and seasonal farmworkers face several housing challenges, but primarily substandard housing conditions.
The nature of agricultural work also affects the specific housing needs of farmworkers. For instance, farmworkers employed on a year-round basis generally live with their families and need permanent affordable housing much like other lower-income households. Migrant farmworkers who follow seasonal harvests generally need temporary housing only for the workers themselves.
Table 2-30 provides data for the total farmworker population across the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County and the total farmworker population in Merced County for 2021.
There are 12,326 farmworkers in Merced County, with the largest population of farmworkers concentrated in the unincorporated areas of the county (45.9 percent), followed by the City of Merced (22.6 percent) and City of Atwater (10.0 percent). Gustine has the smallest population of farmworkers accounting for 1.9 percent of Merced County’s population. When compared to the NSJV, Merced reported a higher farmworker population than Stanislaus County and a lower population than San Joaquin County.
Table 2-30 Farmworker Population
Jurisdiction Farmworkers
Atwater 1,231
Percent 10.0%
Dos Palos 488
Percent 4.0%
Gustine 235
Percent 1.9%
Livingston 859
Percent 7.0%
Los Banos 1,076
Percent 8.7%
Merced 2,781
Percent 22.6%
Unincorporated County 5,656
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-38
Jurisdiction Farmworkers
Percent 45.9%
Merced County 12,326
Stanislaus County 11,560
San Joaquin County 15,758
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table C24050.
Table 2-31 provides USDA Census of Agriculture data for farmworkers by population over time. The most recent 2017 data shows a decrease in the number of farmworkers by 6.5 percent from 17,265 to 15,566 workers between 2012 and 2017, this is similar to the overall decrease of 6.2 percent in the NSJV region. Of the counties in the NSJV region, Merced County has the highest migrant farm labor on farms reporting contract labor. The ongoing transition from agriculture-based industries to metropolitan-oriented employment in the larger jurisdictions, including Merced, Los Banos, and Livingston, is a primary factor in the decrease in the population of farmworkers, as evidenced by the decrease in the number of farms with hired labor during the same period, from 1,253 to 1,172.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-39
Table 2-31 Farmworker Population Over Time
Type of Farm Labor
Merced County Stanislaus County San Joaquin County NSJV 2012 2017
Change
‘12 – ‘17 2012 2017
Change
‘12 – ‘17 2012 2017
Change
‘12 – ‘17 2012 2017
Change
‘12 – ‘17
Hired farm labor
(farms)
1,253 1,172 -6.5% 1,724 1,555 -9.8% 1,748 1,707 -2.3% 4,725 4,434 -6.2% Hired farm labor
(workers)
17,265 15,566 -9.8% 14,657 12,713 -13.3% 24,872 19,741 -20.6% 56,794 48,020 -15.4% Workers by days
worked – 150 days
or more
8,448 7,903 -6.5% 5,900 6,284 6.5% 9,149 8,003 -12.5% 23,497 22,190 -5.6% Workers by days
worked – less than
150 days
8,817 7,663 -13.1% 7,810 6,429 -17.7% 15,723 11,738 -25.3% 32,350 25,830 -20.2% Migrant farm labor
on farms with hired
labor
4,383 3,435 -21.6% 2,515 3,503 39.3% 11,214 9,297 -17.1% 18,112 16,235 -10.4% Migrant farm labor
on farms reporting
only contract labor
81 154 90.1% 401 281 -29.9% 1920 2800 45.8% 2402 3235 34.7% Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture, https://www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus/. Accessed June 2023.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-40
In 2022, University of California, Merced conducted a Farmworker Health Study (FWHS)4 survey funded by the California Department of Public Health and utilized active engagement of researchers from other institutions. The aim of the study was to assess the health of agricultural workers using comparable measures to those used in the initial farm study but extend that previous study (California Agricultural Health Workers Survey, conducted in 1999) with a focus on the long-term health of agricultural workers, the ability to access high quality health care, and the ability of the workforce to meet the changing demands of the industry.
The FWHS sample consisted of 1,242 participants across five major California regions5, with a profile very similar to that of the broader farmworker population. The FWHS sample was largely Latino (99%), foreign-born (91%), and low-income—the very profile that the Latino paradox would predict to have above-average health outcomes. As shown in Table 2-32, farmworkers were most likely to be renters (92%), live in single-family homes (55%), and very few renters relied on employers to pay any or all of their rent (2%). Research suggests that farmworkers generally experience substandard housing (e.g., older homes, apartments, mobile homes, motels, garages, or other similar spaces), often requiring repairs such as new roofs, plumbing, heating and cooling systems, and termite clean- up. Poor ventilation and crowded spaces put farmworkers at increased risk for respiratory illnesses such as asthma and infectious diseases like tuberculosis and COVID-19.
Farmworkers faced issues related to the built environment of their homes. More than one-third (37%) reported a "taste of water at home" that was either very bad (24%) or bad (13%) — an indicator of poor water quality and possible health risks. More than one in three also experienced problems keeping a house cool (39%) or warm (36%), issues that will only increase in time as climate change exacerbates the temperature extremes. Farmworkers also encountered problems related to water and moisture—such as rotting wood (16%), mold (14%), water damage (13%), and water leaks (12%). Lastly, many farmworkers experienced problems with cockroaches (24%) and rodents (17%).
Table 2-32 Farmworker Housing-Type
Housing Percentage
Home Type
Single-Family Home 55%
Apartment 31%
Labor camp/boarding/motel 9%
RV/ car 4%
Garage 0%
Unspecified – renting a room 0%
N= 1,205
Pays rent or mortgage
Rent 92%
Mortgage 8%
Neither 0%
4 Farmworker Health Study. University of California, Merced. 2022. https://clc.ucmerced.edu/sites/clc.ucmerced.edu/files/page/documents/fwhs_report_2.2.2383.pdf 5 The five regions in this study were: San Joaquin Valley (42%), Upper Central Coast (21%), Imperial and Coachella Valley (20%), Sonoma/Napa (12%), and Lower Central Coast (5%).
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-41
Housing Percentage
N= 1,172
Rent paid by employer
None 98%
All or part 2%
N= 1,225
Access to water inside home 90%
N= 1,224
Source: Farmworker Health Study. University of California, Merced. 2022.
Resources for Farmworkers
The Housing Authority of Merced County offers a farm labor housing program that provides housing for year-round and migrant or seasonal domestic farm laborers. The program is funded by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Housing Authority, which has one housing development in the community of Planada with a total of 50 year-round rental units (Felix Torres Farmworker Housing Center) located on North Plainsburg Road in Planada, east of the City of Merced.
The Housing Authority also helps fund four migrant housing centers in the county that provide a total of 227 temporary housing units during the peak growing and harvest season, which is typically April through November. All units are equipped with furnishings, basic amenities, and the rent includes utilities. The migrant housing centers are listed below:
Atwater Migrant Center. Located on W. Westside Boulevard, Atwater, 59 units. Merced Migrant Center. Located on N. Santa Fe Drive, Merced, 49 units. Planada Migrant Center. Located on N. Plainsburg Road, Planada, 71 units. Los Banos Migrant Center. Located on W. Henry Miller Road, Los Banos, 48 units.
Central Valley Opportunity Center provides job services and vocational training for migrant workers and low-income families.
6838 Bridget Ct., Winton, CA 95388, (209) 357-0062
Central California Child Development Services, Inc provides childcare for children ages 0-5 and supportive services for migrant families.
John O’Banion CDC: 401 Lesher Dr. Ste. G, Merced CA, 95340, (209) 726-3154 Livingston CDC: 1001 F St., Livingston, CA 95334, (209) 394-0066
2.9.7 Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Most families become homeless because they are unable to afford housing in a particular community. Nationwide, about half of those experiencing homelessness over the course of a year are single adults. Most enter and exit the system quickly. The remainder live in the homeless assistance system, or in a combination of shelters, hospitals, the streets, jails, and prisons. There are also single homeless people who are not adults, including runaway and “throwaway” youth (children whose parents will not allow them to live at home).
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-42
There are various reasons that contribute to a household experiencing homelessness. These may be any combination of factors such as loss of employment, inability to find a job, lack of marketable work skills, or high housing costs. For some, the loss of housing is due to chronic health problems, physical disabilities, mental health disabilities, drug and alcohol addictions, or an inability to access support services and long-term care. Although each household has different needs, the most urgent need is for emergency shelter capacity and case management (i.e., help with accessing needed services). Emergency shelters have minimal supportive services for homeless persons and are not limited to occupancy of six months or less. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.
For many, supportive housing, transitional housing, long-term rental assistance, and/or greater availability of low-income rental units are also needed. Supportive housing has no limit on length of stay and is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist residents in retaining housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.
Transitional housing is usually in buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated with state programs that require the unit to be cycled to other eligible program recipients after some pre-determined amount of time. Transitional housing programs provide extended shelter and supportive services for homeless individuals and/or families with the goal of helping them live independently and transition into permanent housing. Some programs require that the individual/family be transitioning from a short-term emergency shelter. Transitional housing may be configured for specialized groups within the homeless population such as people with substance abuse problems, residents with mental health challenges, domestic violence victims, veterans, or people with HIV/AIDS. In many cases transitional housing programs will provide services for up to two years or more. Supportive services may be provided directly by the organization managing the housing or by other public or private agencies in a coordinated effort with the housing provider.
The City of Merced and Merced County formed a regional Continuum of Care (CoC), a community- based organization that provides information on homeless services and information on the region’s homeless population. Figure 2-2 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.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-43
Figure 2-2 Homelessness by Type Over Time, Households, Merced County
Source: U.S. HUD, CoC Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, 2022).
Table 2-33 provides the most recent point-in-time count for homelessness across Merced County. In 2023, 49.7 percent of those experiencing homelessness were counted as unsheltered, while the remaining 50.3 percent were living in emergency shelters or transitional housing. The majority (72.8 percent) of those counted were located in the city of Merced.
Table 2-33 Homelessness by Type (2023)
Jurisdiction Sheltered Unsheltered Total
Merced County Total 394 390 784
Percent 50.3% 49.7% 100%
Atwater 9 27 36
Percent 2.3% 6.9% 4.6%
Dos Palos 2 15 17
Percent 0.5% 3.9% 2.2%
Gustine 0 0 0
Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Livingston 0 6 6
Percent 0.0% 1.5% 0.7%
Los Banos 35 78 113
Percent 8.9% 20% 14.4%
Merced 394 390 784
Percent 87.3% 58.2% 72.8%
Source: Merced City and County Continuum of Care, Point-in-Time Count (2023).
Figure 2-3 identifies people experiencing homelessness by type by race in the county for the year 2022. Among those counted, 62 percent identify as white, 10 percent as Black/African American, and 14 percent identify as more than one race.
115 9 95 107 20940
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
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-44
Figure 2-3 Homelessness by Type by Race (2022)
Source: Merced City and County Continuum of Care, Point-in-Time Count (2022).
The Merced City and County CoC data also considers ethnicity, as shown on Table 2-34. Among those counted, 279 of 855 individuals (32.6 percent) identify as Hispanic or Latino.
Table 2-34 Homelessness by Ethnicity (2022)
Jurisdiction Sheltered Unsheltered Total
Hispanic/Latino (any race) 136 143 279
Percent 15.9 16.7 32.6
Not Hispanic/Latino 232 344 576
Percent 27.1 40.2 67.4
Source: Merced City and County Continuum of Care, Point-in-Time Count (2022).
Resources for Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Table 2-35 provides an inventory of emergency, transitional, and permanent supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness in Merced County. Housing for people experiencing homelessness is concentrated in the City of Merced with nine facilities, including emergency shelters (103 beds), transitional housing (90 beds), and permanent supportive housing (17 beds) for a total of 210 beds in the city, along with one transitional housing facility in Atwater, one emergency shelter (20 beds) in Los Banos, a respite home (6 beds) in Los Banos, and one permanent supportive housing facility in Los Banos. There are a total of 131 emergency shelter beds, 153 transitional housing beds, and 71 permanent housing units. Considering the 2022 point-in-time count for the total homeless population of 855 people, there is a need for 500 beds or housing units for residents experiencing homelessness.
11 107
49 5
1 11
14 69
3 1
-
52 32
196
22 16
3 44
-
50 100
150
200
250
Black or African-
American
White Asian American Indian or
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Multiple Races
Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing Unsheltered
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-45
Table 2-35 Emergency and Transitional Housing
Provider Name Facility Name
Target
Population
Family
Units
Family
Beds
Individual
Beds Seasonal
Overflow and
Voucher Total Location
Emergency Shelter
Valley Crisis Center - A Women's
Place
Domestic Violence
Shelter
SMF+DC, DV 2 8 4 0 3 15 Merced
Merced Community Action Agency D Street Shelter SMF+DC, DV 0 0 66 0 0 66 Merced Merced County Human Services
Agency
Motel Vouchers SMF+HC 0 0 0 0 8 8 –
Merced County Rescue Mission Rescue Mission SM 0 0 22 0 0 22 Merced Emergency Shelter Subtotal 2 8 92 0 11 111 –
Transitional Housing
Community Social Model Advocate Tranquility Village SF+HC 8 22 35 N/A N/A 57 Atwater Community Social Model Advocates Hobie House SM 0 0 25 N/A N/A 25 Merced Merced County Mental Health Parsons House SF 0 0 4 0 0 4 Merced Merced County Rescue Mission New Life
Transformation
Program
SMF+SA 0 0 61 N/A N/A 61 Merced
Transitional Shelter Subtotal 8 22 125 0 0 147 –
Permanent Supportive Housing
Housing Authority VASH SMF+V 9 23 18 N/A N/A 41 –
Housing Authority Shelter Plus Care SMF+HC 0 0 5 N/A N/A 5 – Merced County Mental Health Project Hope Westside SMF+MA 0 0 8 N/A N/A 8 Los Banos Merced County Mental Health Project Home Start SMF 0 0 4 N/A N/A 4 Merced Sierra Saving Grace Homeless Project Sierra Saving Grace Homeless Project
SMF 1 2 0 N/A N/A 2 Merced
Turning Point Community Programs Turning Point SMF+HC 1 2 9 N/A N/A 11 Merced Permanent Supportive Housing
Subtotal
11 27 44 – – 71 –
Total Beds 21 57 261 0 11 329 –
Source: Mintier Harnish, 2023.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-46
2.10 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 Merced County to identify how well the current housing stock meets the needs of current and future residents.
2.11 Housing Growth
Table 2-36 indicates the growth in the housing stock by providing the total number of units over time for the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County. As shown, production has slowed considerably since 2010. Atwater and Gustine had the greatest positive percent change in total units from 2010 to 2020, at 6.9 percent and 9.6 percent respectively. Between 2010 and 2020 the housing stock in the cities of Dos Palos and Los Banos decreased. Merced County’s percent change from 2010 to 2020 is fairly similar to that of the state, but above Stanislaus County and below San Joaquin County.
Table 2-36 Total Housing Units Over Time (1980 to 2020) Jurisdiction 2010 2020 Percent Change
Atwater 9,771 10,448 6.9%
Dos Palos 1,700 1,529 -10.1%
Gustine 2,087 2,287 9.65
Livingston 3,320 3,472 4.65
Los Banos 11,375 11,358* -0.1%
Merced 27,446 28,120 2.5%
Unincorporated Merced County 27,999 29,477 5.3%
Merced County 83,089 86,691 4.3%
Stanislaus County 177,591 182,239 2.6%
San Joaquin County 231,114 245,192 6.1%
California 13,552,624 14,210,945 4.9%
*2021 ACS data for the City of Los Banos indicates a higher unit count of 12,459 units, which would indicate an increase in housing units of 8.7 percent between 2010 and 2021. For more information see Table 2-31.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25001.
2.12 Housing Type and Tenure
Table 2-37 identifies the total housing units by type across the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County. Most of the housing stock across Merced County consists of single-family detached homes, which make up 73.8 percent of the county’s total housing units. This is notably higher than the statewide average of 57.6 percent, but similar to the average 74.8 percent of the NSJV. The second most common housing type in Merced County is mobile homes, with a total of 5,775 units or
6.7 percent of the total housing stock. The third largest unit type is 3- or 4-unit dwellings, which accounts for 4,172 units or 4.8 percent of the total housing stock. Merced County had a similar distribution of housing types compared to the NSJV region, in which single-family detached homes made up over 73 percent of housing units in each county.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-47
Table 2-37 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.
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% Atwater 10,580 7,016 381 971 645 375 329 18 159 686 0
Percent 66.3% 3.6% 9.2% 6.1% 3.5% 3.1% 0.2% 1.5% 6.5% 0.0% Dos Palos 1,661 1,564 2 0 30 50 15 0 0 0 0
Percent 94.2% 0.1% 0.0% 1.8% 3.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Gustine 2,302 1,771 73 54 199 66 20 21 9 89 0
Percent 76.9% 3.2% 2.3% 8.6% 2.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.4% 3.9% 0.0% 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% Los Banos 12,459 10,368 392 252 427 544 75 104 82 172 43 Percent 83.2% 3.1% 2.0% 3.4% 4.4% 0.6% 0.8% 0.7% 1.4% 0.3% Merced 28,400 18,301 686 853 2,421 2,495 1,039 472 1,259 859 15 Percent 64.4% 2.4% 3.0% 8.5% 8.8% 3.7% 1.7% 4.4% 3.0% 0.1% Unincorporated
Merced County
27,958 22,089 319 567 386 293 51 134 140 3,919 60
Percent 79.0% 1.1% 2.0% 1.4% 1.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.5% 14.0% 0.2% 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% Stanislaus
County
182,606 138,760 7,361 3,822 6,807 4,587 3,171 2,786 6,957 8,121 234 Percent 76.0% 4.0% 2.1% 3.7% 2.5% 1.7% 1.5% 3.8% 4.4% 0.1% San Joaquin
County
249,018 185,505 10,840 4,855 8,969 8,854 6,394 5,922 9,050 8,444 185 Percent 74.5% 4.4% 1.9% 3.6% 3.6% 2.6% 2.4% 3.6% 3.4% 0.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25024.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-48
Table 2-38 summarizes housing units by tenure in the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County. As shown, there are more owner-occupied units in all jurisdictions except Gustine and Merced. Dos Palos has the highest concentration of owner-occupied units, representing 61.2 percent of the jurisdiction’s housing stock. This is greater than Merced County (51.6 percent), the NSVJ region (56.7 percent), and the state (55.5 percent). When compared to the NSJV region (40.5 percent in Stanislaus County and 40.9 in San Joaquin County), Merced County (48.4 percent) has a higher percent of renter-occupied housing units.
Table 2-38 Housing Units by Tenure
Jurisdiction Total Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Merced County 81,618 42,146 39,472
Percent 51.6% 48.4%
Atwater 10,309 5,366 4,943
Percent 52.1% 47.9%
Dos Palos 1,661 1,016 645
Percent 61.2% 38.8%
Gustine 2,169 1,057 1,112
Percent 48.7% 51.3%
Livingston 3,299 1,881 1,418
Percent 57.0% 43.0%
Los Banos 12,025 6,732 5,293
Percent 56.0% 44.0%
Merced 26,673 11,185 15,488
Percent 41.9% 58.1%
Unincorporated Merced County 25,482 14,909 10,573
Percent 58.5% 41.5%
California 13,217,586 7,335,247 5,882,339
Percent 55.5% 44.5%
Stanislaus County 175,067 104,220 70,847
Percent 59.5% 40.5%
San Joaquin County 234,662 138,735 95,927
Percent 59.1% 40.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25042.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-49
2.13 Vacancy Rate
The vacancy rate indicates the match between the demand for and supply of housing. A higher vacancy rate may indicate an excess supply of units, a softer market, and result in lower housing prices. A lower vacancy rate may indicate a shortage of housing and high competition for available housing, which generally leads to higher housing prices and reduced affordability. Table 2-39 provides data on vacancy status by type for the total vacant units across the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County. Of the total vacant units, other vacant units and units for rent make up the largest percentage of total vacant units. Out of all Merced County jurisdictions, the unincorporated county and the City of Merced had the highest percentage of total vacant units at
8.9 and 6.1 percent of total units, respectively. Within the NSJV region, Merced County had a higher percentage of vacant units (5.9 percent) compared to Stanislaus County (4.3 percent) and a lower percentage compared to San Joaquin County (6.1 percent).
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-50
Table 2-39 Vacancy Status by Type for Total Vacant Units Jurisdiction Total Vacant For Rent
Rented, Not
Occupied For Sale Only
Sold, Not
Occupied
For Seasonal,
Recreational, or
Occasional Use
For Migrant
Workers
Other
Vacant
Merced County 5,149 1,298 112 377 553 556 202 2,051 Percent 5.9% of total units 25.2% 2.2% 7.3% 10.7% 10.8% 3.9% 39.8% Atwater 271 80 0 40 58 23 0 70
Percent 2.6% of total units 29.5% 0.0% 14.8% 21.4% 8.5% 0.0% 25.8% Dos Palos – 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percent – 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Gustine 133 0 0 0 0 0 0 133
Percent 5.8% of total units 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Livingston 108 39 0 0 15 0 0 54
Percent 3.2% of total units 36.1% 0.0% 0.0% 13.9% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% Los Banos 434 0 34 36 73 105 0 186
Percent 3.5% of total units 0.0% 7.8% 8.3% 16.8% 24.2% 0.0% 42.9% Merced 1,727 983 60 166 136 35 0 347
Percent 6.1% of total units 56.9% 3.5% 9.6% 7.9% 2.0% 0.0% 20.1% Unincorporated Merced
County
2,476 196 18 135 271 393 202 1261
Percent 8.9% of total units 7.9% 0.7% 5.5% 10.9% 15.9% 8.2% 50.9% California 1,110,953 240,840 53,537 73,319 54,970 370,908 2,992 314,387 Percent 7.8% of total units 21.7% 4.8% 6.6% 4.9% 33.4% 0.3% 28.3% Stanislaus County 7,539 1,856 467 1,127 1,520 369 19 2,181 Percent 4.3% 24.6% 6.2% 14.9% 20.2% 4.9% 0.3% 28.9%
San Joaquin County 14,356 3,613 688 1,312 1,113 1,761 162 5,707 Percent 6.1% 25.2% 4.8% 9.1% 7.8% 12.3% 1.1% 39.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25004.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-51
2.14 Housing Unit Size
Table 2-40 provides housing unit size data for the NSJV region and each jurisdiction in Merced County. Three-bedroom units are the most common type across the NSJV. By comparison to statewide housing unit size trends, the NSJV region has a much larger proportion of 3-bedroom units (44.4 percent average) than the state (33.7 percent) and a considerably smaller percentages of studios, 1-, and 2-bedroom units.
Table 2-40 Housing Unit Size
Jurisdiction Total Studio
1 Bedroom
2 Bedrooms
3 Bedrooms
4 Bedrooms
5 or More
Bedrooms
Merced County 81,618 1,883 4,320 16,306 38,451 17,656 3,002 Percent 2.3% 5.3% 20.0% 47.1% 21.6% 3.7%
Atwater 10,309 237 648 2,331 5,442 1,291 360
Percent 2.3% 6.3% 22.6% 52.8% 12.5% 3.5%
Dos Palos 1,661 11 25 383 1,018 224 0
Percent 0.7% 1.5% 23.1% 61.3% 13.5% 0.0%
Gustine 2,169 135 94 459 854 503 124
Percent 6.2% 4.3% 21.2% 39.4% 23.2% 5.7%
Livingston 3,299 6 24 425 1,803 774 267
Percent 0.2% 0.7% 12.9% 54.7% 23.5% 8.1%
Los Banos 12,025 347 462 1,485 5,991 3,006 734
Percent 2.9% 3.8% 12.3% 49.8% 25.0% 6.1%
Merced 26,673 908 2,261 6,168 10,613 5,977 746
Percent 3.4% 8.5% 23.1% 39.8% 22.4% 2.8%
Unincorporated County 25,482 239 806 5,055 12,730 5,881 771 Percent 0.9% 3.2% 19.8% 50.0% 23.1% 3.0%
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% 18.0% 4.5%
Stanislaus County 175,067 3,252 12,369 37,860 80,867 33,698 7,021 Percent 1.9% 7.1% 21.6% 46.2% 19.2% 4.0%
San Joaquin County 234,662 5,509 16,709 51,085 93,896 53,915 13,548 Percent 2.3% 7.1% 21.8% 40.0% 23.0% 5.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25042.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-52
2.15 Age and Condition of Housing Stock
Housing age can be an indicator of the need for housing rehabilitation. Generally, housing older than 30 years (i.e., built before 1990), while still needing rehabilitation, will not require rehabilitation as substantial as what would be required for housing units older than 50 years old (i.e., built before 1970). Housing units older than 50 years are more likely to require complete rehabilitation of housing systems such as roofing, plumbing, and electrical if they have not been maintained. As shown in Table 2-41, Merced County, there is a total of 23,891 occupied homes 50 years or older. These units account for 29.3 percent of the housing stock, which is less than the NSJV region where 39.4 percent of San Joaquin County homes and 33.8 percent of Stanislaus County homes, and less than in California as a whole, where 40.9 percent of homes are 50 years or older.
Stanislaus County and San Joaquin County the majority of the housing stock was constructed between 1950 and 1959, which is different from Merced County where most if its construction occurred between 2000 and 2009.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-53
Table 2-41 Total Occupied Housing Units by Year Built
Jurisdiction Total
1939 or
Earlier
1940 to
1949
1950 to
1959
1960 to
1969
1970 to
1979
1980 to
1989
1990 to
1999
2000 to
2009
2010 to
2013
2014 or
Later
Merced County 81,618 3,943 5,007 7,356 7,585 14,718 11,034 11,846 16,856 3,229 44 Percent 4.80% 6.10% 9.00% 9.30% 18.00% 13.50% 14.50% 20.70% 4.00% 0.10% Atwater 10,309 218 819 1,537 1,129 2,531 1,530 752 1,464 329 0 Percent 2.10% 7.90% 14.90% 11.00% 24.60% 14.80% 7.30% 14.20% 3.20% 0.00% Dos Palos 1,661 252 141 106 126 521 163 147 174 31 0
Percent 15.20% 8.50% 6.40% 7.60% 31.40% 9.80% 8.90% 10.50% 1.90% 0.00% Gustine 2,169 169 93 75 324 450 163 320 480 95 0
Percent 7.80% 4.30% 3.50% 14.90% 20.70% 7.50% 14.80% 22.10% 4.40% 0.00% Livingston 3,299 66 201 289 156 521 368 769 870 59 0
Percent 2.00% 6.10% 8.80% 4.70% 15.80% 11.20% 23.30% 26.40% 1.80% 0.00% Los Banos 12,025 222 731 585 817 1,524 1,400 2,987 3,054 705 0 Percent 1.80% 6.10% 4.90% 6.80% 12.70% 11.60% 24.80% 25.40% 5.90% 0.00% Merced 26,673 1,243 1,368 2,610 2,096 5,040 4,091 2,706 6,271 1,217 31 Percent 4.70% 5.10% 9.80% 7.90% 18.90% 15.30% 10.10% 23.50% 4.60% 0.10% Unincorporated County 25,482 1,773 1,654 2,154 2,937 4,131 3,319 4,165 4,543 793 13 Percent 7.00% 6.50% 8.50% 11.50% 16.20% 13.00% 16.30% 17.80% 3.10% 0.10% California 13,217,586 1,162,732 753,750 1,755,123 1,728,569 2,295,943 1,980,874 1,438,264 1,451,946 634,508 15,877 Percent 8.80% 5.70% 13.30% 13.10% 17.40% 15.00% 10.90% 11.00% 4.80% 0.10% Stanislaus County 175,067 61 4,684 29,316 25,264 30,615 34,506 17,063 14,918 8,218 10,422 Percent 0.0% 2.7% 16.7% 14.4% 17.5% 19.7% 9.7% 8.5% 4.7% 6.0% San Joaquin County 234,662 387 14,593 44,551 32,855 34,711 35,286 21,863 22,975 12,238 15,203 Percent 0.2% 6.2% 19.0% 14.0% 14.8% 15.0% 9.3% 9.8% 5.2% 6.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25036.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-54
Table 2-42 provides information on substandard housing units across all county jurisdictions. The data indicates that there is a larger percentage of units lacking kitchen facilities than plumbing facilities across all jurisdictions except for unincorporated Merced County. Of the jurisdictions in Merced County, the City of Merced has the largest percent of substandard housing at 1.5 percent, while Dos Palos, Gustine, and Livingston do not have any reported substandard housing units.
Merced County has a lower percentage of substandard housing units (0.8 percent) compared to the other counties in the NSJV region (1.2 percent in Stanislaus County and 1.3 percent in San Joaquin County) and California (1.5 percent).
Table 2-42 Substandard Housing Units
Jurisdiction Total Lacking Plumbing Facilities Lacking Kitchen Facilities Merced County 81,618 298 357
Percent 0.4% 0.4%
Atwater 10,309 0 22
Percent 0.0% 0.2%
Dos Palos 1,661 0 0
Percent 0.0% 0.0%
Gustine 2,169 0 0
Percent 0.0% 0.0%
Livingston 3,299 0 0
Percent 0.0% 0.0%
Los Banos 12,025 0 40
Percent 0.0% 0.3%
Merced 26,673 162 233
Percent 0.6% 0.9%
Unincorporated County 25,482 136 62
Percent 0.5% 0.2%
California 13,217,586 53,643 149,252
Percent 0.4% 1.1%
Stanislaus County 175,067 650 1,316
Percent 0.4% 0.8%
San Joaquin County 234,662 1,031 2,117
Percent 0.4% 0.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25049 and B25036.
2.16 Housing Costs
2.16.1 Median Home Sale Price
Table 2-43 provides information on the median housing value across all county jurisdictions from 1980 to 2020. The data indicates that prices rose steadily across the county from 1980 to 2000.
Between 2000 to 2010 home prices spiked, including double- and triple-digit increases. Since 2010, home values have continued to increase but at a significantly slower pace in all jurisdictions except Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-55
for Dos Palos (94.7 percent increase) and the City of Merced (156.5 percent increase). According to Zillow, the average house prices In Merced County were $294,035 in 2020 and $407,096 in 2024.
Table 2-43 Median Housing Value Over Time (2010 to 2020) Jurisdiction 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Atwater $56,000 $89,400 $99,900 $214,600 $259,900
Percent Change 59.6% 11.7% 114.8% 21.1%
Dos Palos $44,300 $66,900 $88,500 $179,800 $350,000
Percent Change 51.0% 32.3% 103.2% 94.7%
Gustine $50,800 $96,000 $111,400 $183,700 $270,300
Percent Change 89.0% 16.0% 64.9% 47.1%
Livingston $43,400 $71,900 $92,300 $244,900 $345,100
Percent Change 65.7% 28.4% 165.3% 40.9%
Los Banos $49,000 $110,100 $138,200 $248,900 $275,700
Percent Change 124.7% 25.5% 80.1% 10.8%
Merced $57,700 $90,300 $103,200 $223,500 $573,200
Percent Change 56.5% 14.3% 116.6% 156.5%
Merced County $53,100 $90,100 $110,900 $241,000 $268,800 Percent Change 69.7% 23.1% 117.3% 11.5%
Note: Data unavailable for unincorporated county.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980(ORG STF1), 1990(STF3), 2000(SF3); ACS 06-10, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25077.
Table 2-44 provides information on the median housing value from 2000 to 2020 across the region, including Merced County and adjacent Stanislaus and Fresno County, as well as the state of California. The data indicates that prices steadily rose throughout the region and state during this period. From 2000 to 2010, Merced County experienced a similar increase in median home values (118.9 percent) to both California (116.8 percent) and a higher increase than Stanislaus County (100.3 percent) but lower than San Joaquin County (127.8 percent). From 2010 to 2020, growth of median housing value slowed across all regions compared to the previous decade. During this period, Merced County experienced a greater increase in home values (11.5 percent) than adjacent Stanislaus Couty (10.1 percent), and a lower percent change than San Joaquin County and the state (15.5 percent and 17.5 percent, respectively).
Table 2-44 Regional Median Housing Value Over Time (2000 to 2020) Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2020
Merced County $110,100 $241,000 $268,800
Percent Change 118.9% 11.5%
California $211,500 $458,500 $538,500
Percent Change 116.8% 17.5%
Stanislaus County $142,400 $285,200 $314,100
Percent Change 100.3% 10.1%
San Joaquin County $139,800 $318,600 $367,900
Percent Change 127.8% 15.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000(SF3), ACS 06-10, 16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B25077.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-56
2.17 Distribution of Owner-Occupied Units
Due to historical practices of segregation, redlining, displacement, and other discriminatory measures, accumulating wealth through homeownership has been difficult for non-white households. Table 2-45 provides data on the number of owner-occupied housing units by race across all county jurisdictions. In Merced County, out of the total owner-occupied units, 59.3 percent are owned by households identifying as white and 22.7 are owned by residents identifying as some other race. Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, and American Indian and Alaskan Native populations have the lowest proportion of homeowners in Merced County. These trends are consistent with the NSJV region and statewide data. When considering ethnicity, 43.5 percent of all owner-occupied units in Merced County are owned by residents identifying as Hispanic or Latino, which is lower than the percent of owner-occupied units statewide that are owned by residents identifying as Hispanic or Latino (52.6 percent).
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-57
Table 2-45 Owner-Occupied Units by Race and Ethnicity
Jurisdiction
Total Owner-
occupied Units White Black
American
Indian and
Alaska Native Asian
Native Hawaiian
and Other Pacific
Islander
Some
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic or
Latino of any
Race
Merced County 42,146 25,012 1,182 436 2,801 43 9,588 3,084 18,341 Percent 100% 59.3% 2.8% 1.0% 6.6% 0.1% 22.7% 7.3% 43.5% Atwater 5,366 3,210 272 49 294 11 1,123 407 2,406
Percent 100% 59.8% 5.1% 0.9% 5.5% 0.2% 20.9% 7.6% 44.8% Dos Palos 1,016 557 57 24 15 0 323 40 344
Percent 100% 54.8% 5.6% 2.4% 1.5% 0.0% 31.8% 3.9% 33.9% Gustine 1,057 784 - 0 0 0 154 119 649
Percent 100% 74.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.6% 11.3% 61.4% Livingston 1,881 510 - 38 470 0 734 129 193
Percent 100% 27.1% 0.0% 2.0% 25.0% 0.0% 39.0% 6.9% 10.3% Los Banos 6,732 3,779 149 75 258 0 1,839 632 2,308
Percent 100% 56.1% 2.2% 1.1% 3.8% 0.0% 27.3% 9.4% 34.3% Merced 11,185 6,677 485 79 1,065 0 2,030 849 4,609
Percent 100% 59.7% 4.3% 0.7% 9.5% 0.0% 18.1% 7.6% 41.2% Unincorporated County 14,909 9,495 219 171 699 32 3,385 908 7,832 Percent 100% 63.7% 1.5% 1.1% 4.7% 0.2% 22.7% 6.1% 52.5% California 7,335,247 4,660,216 287,300 53,643 1,150,895 18,216 633,875 531,102 3,859,780 Percent 100% 63.5% 3.9% 0.7% 15.7% 0.2% 8.6% 7.2% 52.6% Stanislaus County 104,220 74,992 2,268 1,215 5,664 548 9,224 10,309 34,700 Percent 100.0% 72.0% 2.2% 1.2% 5.4% 0.5% 8.9% 9.9% 33.3% San Joaquin County 138,735 80,616 7,218 945 22,519 580 11,992 14,865 40,689 Percent 100.0% 58.1% 5.2% 0.7% 16.2% 0.4% 8.6% 10.7% 29.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25003.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-58
2.18 Housing Rents
The U.S. Census Bureau defines contract rent as the monthly rent agreed upon regardless of any furnishings, utilities, or services that may be included. According to the 2017-2021 ACS, the median contract rent for Merced County was $923 per month, which is lower than the median rent of the other counties in the NSJV region ($1,167 in San Joaquin County and $1,094 in Stanislaus County).
Of the jurisdictions in Merced County, Los Banos had the highest median contract rent of $1,101, followed by the City of Merced with a median of $933 per month. Dos Palos and Atwater had the lowest median contract rents of $776 and $844 per month, respectively.
Figure 2-4 Median Contract Rent
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25058.
Table 2-46 below provides an overview of median rent for rental housing by number of bedrooms based on 2021 ACS data. As shown, rents in Merced County were considerably less than in California and slightly less than the NSJV region across all unit sizes. Among the jurisdictions in Merced County, Atwater and Los Banos had the highest median rents. Comparatively, Merced County’s median rent costs in Stanislaus County and San Joaquin County were higher than what was seen in both Atwater and Los Banos, the most expensive cities to rent within Merced County. statewide median rent costs were much higher than those seen across Merced County, Stanislaus County, and San Joaquin County. Rents were lower in Dos Palos and Livingston; however, these cities lack studio and 1- bedroom units.
$923 $902 $813
$930 $888
$1,117
$941
$1,547
$1,167 $1,094
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
Merced
County
Atwater Dos Palos Gustine Livingston Los Banos Merced California San Joaquin
County
Stanislaus
County
Median Contract Rent
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-59
Table 2-46 Median Rent by Number of Bedrooms
Jurisdiction Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Merced County $708 $795 $989 $1,234 $1,548
Atwater $692 $732 $962 $1,312 $1,460
Dos Palos – – $891 $1,133 –
Gustine – $1,074 $1,006 $1,590 –
Livingston – – $747 $1,185 $1,559
Los Banos $669 $1,011 $1,015 $1,378 $1,844
Merced $862 $890 $1,041 $1,242 $1,533
California $1,293 $1,450 $1,737 $1,938 $2,326
Stanislaus County $892 $1,083 $1,256 $1,551 $2,018
San Joaquin County $860 $977 $1,237 $1,622 $2,053 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25031
2.19 Housing Affordability
Housing affordability can be inferred by comparing the cost of renting or owning a home in the city with housing affordability for different income levels. This information indicates the number of households likely to experience displacement, overcrowding, and overpayment.
Housing affordability levels are determined by HUD, which conducts annual nationwide household income surveys to determine household eligibility for federal housing assistance. HCD determines annual income limits for monthly housing costs, including housing payments (rent or mortgage), utilities, and taxes (if housing owner). These income limits are further broken down by household size. Table 2-47 shows the maximum amount that a household can pay for housing each month without incurring a cost burden (overpayment).
Table 2-47 Housing Affordability Matrix – Merced County (2022) 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) $16,350 $409 $226 $143 $183 $70,178 2-Person (1 BR) $18,700 $468 $241 $164 $227 $79,367 3-Person (2 BR) $23,030 $576 $276 $202 $300 $88,631 4-Person (3 BR) $27,750 $694 $311 $243 $383 $97,821 5-Person (4 BR) $32,470 $812 $381 $284 $431 $105,232 Very Low Income (30-50% AMI)
1-Person $27,300 $683 $226 $239 $457 $116,963
2-Person $31,200 $780 $241 $273 $539 $132,279
3-Person $35,100 $878 $276 $307 $602 $147,719
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-60
Annual
Income
Limits
Affordable
Monthly
Housing
Costs
Rental Utility
Allowance
(2020)
Taxes,
Insurance,
Homeowners
Association
Fees
Affordable
Rent
Affordable
Home Price
4-Person $38,950 $974 $311 $341 $663 $163,035
5-Person $42,100 $1,053 $381 $368 $672 $175,387
Low Income (50-80% AMI)
1-Person $43,650 $1,091 $226 $382 $865 $187,140
2-Person $49,850 $1,246 $241 $436 $1,005 $211,646
3-Person $56,100 $1,403 $276 $491 $1,127 $236,350
4-Person $62,300 $1,558 $311 $545 $1,247 $260,856
5-Person $67,300 $1,683 $381 $589 $1,302 $280,618
Median Income (80-100% AMI)
1-Person $43,650 $1,091 $226 $382 $865 $187,140
2-Person $49,850 $1,246 $241 $436 $1,005 $211,646
3-Person $56,100 $1,403 $276 $491 $1,127 $236,350
4-Person $62,300 $1,558 $311 $545 $1,247 $260,856
5-Person $67,300 $1,683 $381 $589 $1,302 $280,618
Moderate Income (100-120% AMI)
1-Person $62,856 $1,571 $226 $550 $1,345 $280,710
2-Person $71,784 $1,795 $241 $628 $1,554 $317,468
3-Person $80,784 $2,020 $276 $707 $1,744 $354,524
4-Person $89,712 $2,243 $311 $785 $1,932 $391,284
5-Person $96,912 $2,423 $381 $848 $2,042 $420,928
Assumptions:
1. Income limits are the 2021 HCD limits for Merced County.
2. Affordable housing costs are 30 percent of gross household income.
3. Utility costs are based on Merced County Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule for 2022.
4. Taxes, insurance, private mortgage insurance, and homeowners association dues are calculated at 35 percent of monthly affordable cost.
5. Affordable home price assumes a 30-year fixed mortgage with a 7 percent interest rate and 10 percent down payment.
6. Taxes and insurance costs apply to owners only.
Sources: 2022 HCD Income Limits, Merced County Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule, 2022.
Extremely Low-income Households
Extremely low-income households earn 30 percent or less of the County AMI. According to HCD estimates, extremely low-income households have an annual income of $16,350 or below for a one- person household and $32,470 or below for a five-person household. Extremely low-income households cannot afford market-rate rental or ownership housing in Merced County.
Very Low-income Households
Very low-income households earn between 31 and 50 percent of the County AMI—up to $27,300 for a one-person household and up to $42,100 for a five-person household in 2022. A very low- income household can generally afford homes offered at prices between $116,963 and $175,387, Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-61
adjusting for household size. After deductions for utilities, a very low-income household can afford to pay approximately $457 to $672 in monthly rent, depending on household size. Given the cost of housing in Merced County, very low-income households could not afford to purchase a home or rent an adequately sized unit without experiencing a housing cost burden.
Low-Income Households
Low-income households earn between 51 and 80 percent of the County AMI—up to $43,650 for a one-person household and up to $67,300 for a five-person household in 2022. A low-income household can generally afford homes offered at prices between $187,140 and $280,618, adjusting for household size. After deductions for utilities, a low-income household can afford to pay approximately $865 to $1,302 in monthly rent, depending on household size. Based on this data, finding appropriately sized market-rate rental housing in the county is likely to be challenging to households in this income group.
Median-Income Households
Median-income households earn between 80 and 100 percent of the County’s AMI—up to $52,380 for a one-person household and up to $80,760 for a five-person household in 2022. The affordable home price for a median-income household ranges from $233,925 to $350,773. After deductions for utilities, a one-person median-income household could afford to pay up to $1,084 in rent per month and a five-person low-income household could afford to pay as much as $1,638. Despite increased household incomes, finding appropriately sized market-rate rental housing may still be challenging for households in this income group.
Moderate-Income Households
Moderate-income households earn between 100 and 120 percent of the County’s AMI—up to $62,586 for a one-person household and up to $92,912 for a five-person household in 2022. The maximum affordable home price for a moderate-income household is $280,710 for a one-person household and $420,928 for a five-person family. The maximum affordable rent payment for moderate-income households is between $1,345 and $2,042 per month. Appropriately sized market-rate rental housing is generally affordable to households in this income group.
2.19.1 Cost Burden
As mentioned in Section 2.5.2, a housing cost burden occurs when households spend 30 percent or more of their monthly income on housing-related costs. Table 2-48 and Table 2-49 identify cost- burdened households by tenure over time in each Merced County jurisdiction. As shown, there has been a steady decrease in the number of owner-occupied cost-burdened households since 2010 in each jurisdiction. In contrast, there were increases in the number of renter-occupied cost-burdened households in nearly most cities during the same time except for Dos Palos, Livingston, and the unincorporated county. The jurisdiction with the greatest percent increase in cost burdened renter- occupied households was the City of Gustine, with nearly twice as many cost-burdened renter- occupied households from 2010 to 2020.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-62
Table 2-48 Cost-Burdened Owner-Occupied Households Over Time Jurisdiction 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Atwater 350 456 673 1,446 1,104
Percent 30.3% 47.6% 114.9% -23.7%
Dos Palos 78 128 224 391 219
Percent 64.1% 75.0% 74.6% -44.0%
Gustine 56 123 188 329 213
Percent 119.6% 52.8% 75.0% -35.3%
Livingston 63 106 307 551 368
Percent 68.3% 189.6% 79.5% -33.2%
Los Banos 270 380 1,165 2,556 1,135
Percent 40.7% 206.6% 119.4% -55.6%
Merced 809 1030 1,762 2,993 2,131
Percent 27.3% 71.1% 69.9% -28.8%
Unincorporated Merced
County
853 1,186 2,422 5,309 3,136
Percent 39.0% 104.2% 119.2% -40.9%
Note: Data are not inflation-adjusted to current 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 2-49 Cost-Burdened Renter-Occupied Households Over Time Jurisdiction 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Atwater 533 968 895 1415 1,728
Percent 81.6% -7.5% 58.1% 22.1%
Dos Palos 120 213 197 190 181
Percent 77.5% -7.5% -3.6% -4.7%
Gustine 74 166 201 212 420
Percent 124.3% 21.1% 5.5% 98.1%
Livingston 141 152 268 598 509
Percent 7.8% 76.3% 123.1% -14.9%
Los Banos 413 702 621 1,523 1,828
Percent 70.0% -11.5% 145.2% 20.0%
Merced 2,409 3,828 4,058 6,529 6,536
Percent 58.9% 6.0% 60.9% 0.1%
Unincorporated Merced
County
1,164 1,559 1,785 3,443 2,496
Percent 33.9% 14.5% 92.9% -27.5%
Note: Data are not inflation-adjusted to current 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.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-63
2.20 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.
2.20.1 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 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.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-64
2.20.2 Preservation of At-Risk Units
California housing element law requires all jurisdictions to include a study of low-income housing units which may at some future time be lost from the affordable inventory by the expiration of some type of affordability restrictions. The planning period for this at-risk housing analysis extends from 2023 through 2033. Table 2-50 provides an inventory of public assisted housing in the unincorporated county. Units at-risk of expiring based on the existing assisted use period.
The California Housing Partnership provides an assessment of the risk level for each facility based on ownership and expected affordability expiration date. Of the units listed, 233 units are at risk of being converted to market rate during the planning period. Of the 233 at-risk units, 136 are at high risk and 97 are at moderate risk. There are a total of 2,700 affordable housing units in Merced County, equating to 8.6 percent of total affordable units at moderate to high risk of conversion.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-65
Table 2-50 Inventory of Public Assisted Complexes – Merced County Name Address City Zip
Affordable
Units
Total
Units
Active
Program(s)
Estimated
Affordability
End
Year/Date Risk Level
Atwater Apartments - (Site A) 1191 Willow Street Atwater 95301 35 36 LIHTC; HUD 2070 Low Magnolia Gardens 9760 Gordon Avenue Delhi 95315 34 34 USDA 4/19/2034 Low Almond Garden Family 16240 W. Delhi Ave. Delhi 95315 15 31 HCD 4/24/2043 Low Almond Garden Elderly Apts 16200 West Delhi Avenue Delhi 95315 33 34 LIHTC; USDA 2048 Low Palos Verde Apartments 21797 South Reynolds Avenue Dos Palos 93665 31 32 LIHTC; USDA 2026 Low Dos Palos Apts/Meredith Manor Apts
(Site A)
21100 State Highway 33 Dos Palos 93620 78 80 LIHTC; USDA 2063 Low Gustine Garden Apartments 394 Wallis Avenue Gustine 95322 33 34 LIHTC; USDA 2069 Low 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 Los Banos Apartments 44 West I Street Los Banos 93635 66 68 LIHTC; USDA 2066 Low Central Valley Apts 1100 D Street Los Banos 93635 40 40 USDA 3/29/2035 Low Pacheco Place MHSA 232 W. J Street Los Banos 93965 10 11 CalHFA 1/1/2042 Low Central Valley II Apartments 1130 D Street Los Banos 93635 40 40 USDA 08/11/2038 Low Carrington Pointe 1985 San Luis Street Los Banos 93635 79 80 LIHTC 2052 Low Los Banos Family Apartments (Aka
Pacheco Village)
2235 Gilbert Gonzales Jr. Drive Los Banos 93635 105 105 LIHTC; HCD 1/22/2065 Low Los Banos II Family Apartments 2125 Gilbert Gonzalez Jr. Drive Los Banos 93635 79 80 LIHTC 2064 Low Macarthur Apartments 1130 F Street Los Banos 93635 49 50 LIHTC; HUD; USDA
2060 Low
Heritage Village Apartments 1156 San Luis Street Los Banos 93635 49 50 LIHTC; USDA 2059 Low Overland Court Apartments 405 Rockport Dr. Los Banos 93635 69 70 LIHTC 2069 Low Willowbrook Apartments II 1756 Willowbrook Drive Merced 95348 21 96 LIHTC; CalHFA 4/1/2024 High Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-66
Name Address City Zip
Affordable
Units
Total
Units
Active
Program(s)
Estimated
Affordability
End
Year/Date Risk Level
Willowbrook Apartments 1756 Willowbrook Drive Merced 95348 16 80 CalHFA 9/1/2024 High Sierra Meadows Apartments 720 West 15th Street Merced 95340 99 99 LIHTC 2027 High Merced Golden Manor 338 T St Merced 95341 50 50 HUD 9/30/2030 Moderate Merced Gardens 3299 Meadows Ave Merced 95348 47 47 HUD 1/22/2032 Moderate Merced Commons I 290 Q St. Merced 95340 76 76 HUD 1/31/2025 Low* Merced Commons II 290 Q St. Merced 95340 71 71 HUD 9/30/2031 Low* Gateway Terrace 410 Lesher Dr. Merced 95340 65 66 LIHTC; CalHFA 2067 Low Childs Avenue Apartments 1296 West First Street Merced 95340 27 27 CalHFA 2022 Low Alamar Apartments 218 South Canal St. Merced 95340 24 24 LIHTC 2050 Low Alamar Apartments II 286 South Canal Street Merced 95340 79 80 LIHTC 2050 Low The Grove Apartments 340 South Parsons Avenue Merced 95340 202 204 LIHTC 2058 Low Sunnyside Apartments 988 D Street Merced 95340 120 121 LIHTC 2059 Low Sunny View Apartments 1108 D Street Merced 95341 111 113 LIHTC 2062 Low Woodbridge Place 3028 Willowbrook Dr. Merced 95348 74 75 LIHTC 2066 Low Gateway Terrace II Apartments K Street And W. 12th Street Merced 95340 49 50 LIHTC 2073 Low Childs & B Street Tod Affordable
Housing
1137 B Street Merced 95341 118 119 LIHTC; HCD 2074 Low
Laurel Glen 777 Lougborough Dr Merced 95348 127 128 LIHTC 2055 Low Homekey CC915 Merced 73 South R Street Merced 95341 21 21 HCD 2077 Low Twelvethirteen 1213 V Street Merced 95341 96 96 HCD 2077 Low Felix Torres Year Round Center 925 N. Plainsburg Road Unincorporate d Merced
95365 53 53 USDA; HCD 7/1/2047 Low
Bear Creek Apts 1509 N. Plainsburg Road Unincorporate
d Merced
95365 64 64 USDA; HCD 3/15/2060 Low
Le Grand Apartments 13171 East Brice Street Unincorporate d Merced
95333 34 35 LIHTC; USDA 2047 Low
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-67
Name Address City Zip
Affordable
Units
Total
Units
Active
Program(s)
Estimated
Affordability
End
Year/Date Risk Level
Casa Del Sol 9370 West Bigler Dr Unincorporate
d Merced
95365 53 54 LIHTC; HCD 2052 Low
Note: All locally assisted or restricted developments may not be included in this list. *These developments are owned by the Merced County Housing Authority and are at low risk of conversion.
Source: California Housing Partnership, Inventory of Publicly Assisted Housing, 2023.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-68
Acquisition/Rehabilitation
If these units were 100 percent deed restricted affordable housing with an expiring regulatory agreement, transferring ownership of an at-risk project to a non-profit housing provider is one of the least costly ways to ensure that the at-risk units remain affordable for the long term. By transferring property ownership to a non-profit organization, low-income restrictions can be secured, and the project would become potentially eligible for a greater range of governmental subsidies.
Under AB 1521, there are now prescribed steps for owners of deed-restricted properties to take prior to the expiration of those affordability requirements. This law requires that the owner consider an offer to purchase the deed-restricted units. Since only a portion of the property has deed-restricted units, it is unclear how a transaction like this could occur. Also, the feasibility of this option depends on funding sources to buy and potentially rehabilitate the property which might be challenging since it is not a 100 percent deed-restricted property.
Another option to preserve the affordability of this at-risk project is to support a Joint Power Authorities purchase of the property. If this option is exercised, it would require deed restrictions for 100 percent of the residential units but also allows for bond financing that would allow the owner to maintain the project as affordable housing.
Construction of Replacement Units
To understand the significance if these at-risk units are lost from the supply of city affordable housing, Chapter 3: Housing Constraints includes a hypothetical analysis that identifies the cost of construction of new regulated housing to replace these at-risk units if they are converted to market- rate units. The cost of developing housing depends upon a variety of factors, including density, size of the units (i.e., square footage and number of bedrooms), location, land costs, and type of construction, as discussed in the Non-governmental Constraints section of Chapter 3: Housing Constraints. Based on recent projects, the cost of construction in the county is estimated to be between $400,000 and $675,000 per unit, including land costs and administrative costs. 6 The total
cost to replace the 136 high-risk affordable units with new construction would be between $54,000,00 and $91,000,000.
Rental Subsidies
The Housing Authority of Merced County provides rental assistance to very low and moderate- income families, seniors and the handicapped throughout the county. The Housing Authority offers many different programs, including the conventional public housing program, the housing choice voucher program, the farm labor program for families with farm labor income, senior housing programs, and other housing programs. All programs are handicap accessible. Reasonable accommodation may be requested from Housing Authority staff and will be reviewed on a case-by- case basis. A detailed list of rental assistance programs offered throughout the county are provided below.
6 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.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
2024-2032 Housing Element 2-69
Housing Choice Voucher Program. The Housing Authority of the County of Merced administers Housing Choice Vouchers through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Merced County currently administers 2,705 Housing Choice Vouchers. Conventional Public Housing Program. The Conventional Public Housing Program provides rental assistance to low and moderate-income families and individuals. The Housing Authority owns and manages 421 public housing units consisting of a variety of apartments, duplexes, and single-family homes.
Project Based Voucher (PBV) Housing. PBV is one part of the Housing Choice Voucher program and helps pay for rent in privately owned rental housing in select privately-owned buildings or units.
Migrant Housing Centers. The Housing Authority manages four Migrant Centers throughout Merced County. All units are furnished with a stove, refrigerator, beds, kitchen table, chairs, and all utilities are included in the cost of rent.
HUD Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH). The VASH program provides voucher rental assistance through HUD funding specifically for qualifying homeless veterans. Emergency Housing Vouchers (EHV). The EHV Program is a tenant-based voucher program providing housing vouchers to people experiencing homelessness, people at risk of homelessness, people fleeing domestic violence, and people recently experiencing homelessness.
Qualified entities identified by HCD within Merced County include:
ACLC, Inc.
Eskaton Properties Inc.
ROEM Development Corporation
Self-Help Enterprises
Volunteers of America National Services
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
2-70
This page left intentionally blank.
Regional Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 3-1
Regional Housing Constraints Analysis
Actual or potential constraints to the provision of housing affect the development of new housing and the maintenance of existing units for all income levels. State housing element law requires cities and counties to review both governmental and non-governmental constraints to the maintenance and production of housing for all income levels. Since local governmental actions can restrict the development and increase the cost of housing, state law requires the housing element to “address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing” (Government Code Section 65583(c)(3)). The housing element must also analyze potential and actual constraints upon the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities.
Non-governmental constraints are not specific to each community and are described in this section at the regional level. Governmental constraints, on the other hand, are specific to each local government and are described only generally in this section. The appendices contain a more detailed governmental constraints analysis for each local government.
3.1 Non-Governmental Constraints
The availability and cost of housing is strongly influenced by market forces over which local governments have little or no control. Nonetheless, state law requires that the housing element contain a general assessment of these constraints, which can serve as the basis for actions to offset their effects. The primary non-governmental constraints to the development of new housing are land costs, construction costs, and availability of financing. This section also addresses environmental constraints that might affect housing development.
3.1.1 Land Costs
The cost of land can be a major impediment to 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. As shown in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 larger sites (over 10 acres) have a much lower cost-per-acre in both the cities and unincorporated areas.
Table 3-1 summarizes land prices for properties available for sale in August 2023. Data indicates that the price per acre for small parcels in incorporated areas is significantly higher than large parcels in both incorporated and unincorporated areas. Small parcels range from 0.06 acres to 9.7 acres and have an average listed price of $620,389.39 per acre in incorporated areas and $209,575.81 per acre in unincorporated areas. Large parcels range from 11.8 to 1,000.2 acres and have an average listed price per acre of $313,157.89 in incorporated areas and $119,282.49 in unincorporated areas. The average list price for small and large parcels is $598,444.28 per acre in incorporated areas and $119,282.49 in unincorporated areas.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
3-2
Table 3-1 Listed Land Prices – Merced County
Lot Size
Average Price Per Acre (Listed)
Incorporated Unincorporated
Less than 10 acres $620,389.39 $209,575.81
10 or more acres $313,157.89 $57,011.23
Average $/acre $598,444.28 $119,282.49
Source: Zillow, Inc., 2023.
Table 3-2 includes the average prices paid for land per acre in the county in 2022. Average prices for land sold were less for both small parcels and for large parcels when compared to prices for currently listed land. Small parcels range from 0.1 acres to 8.0 acres and have an average sale price of $459,598 per acre in incorporated areas and $369,403.24 in unincorporated areas. Large parcels range from 11.8 to 79.6 acres and have an average sale price of $44,526.60 per acre in unincorporated areas. No land over 10 acres in size has been sold in incorporated areas of the county in the year 2022. The average list price for all parcels combined is $459,598.50 per acre in incorporated areas and $241,739.75 in unincorporated areas.
Table 3-2 Sold Land Prices – Merced County
Lot Size
Average Price Per Acre (Sold)
Incorporated Unincorporated
Less than 10 acres $459,598.50 $369,403.24
10 or more acres No Available Data $44,526.60
Average $/acre $459,598.50 $241,739.75
Source: Zillow, Inc., June 2023.
3.1.2 Construction Costs
Construction costs can be broken down into two primary categories: materials and labor. A major component of the cost of housing is the cost of building materials, including wood and wood-based products, cement, asphalt, roofing materials, and pipe. The availability and demand for such materials affect prices for these goods.
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 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 This 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.
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.
Regional Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 3-3
Table 3-3 shows the estimated cost of constructing a basic 1,500 square foot single family home to be $300,252.19 in incorporated areas of the county and $243,977.58 in unincorporated areas. This estimate includes construction costs such as materials, labor, and equipment costs, but does not include the price of land, development impact fees, administrative costs, or developer profit.
Table 3-3 Estimated Construction Cost
Cost
Item Incorporated Unincorporated
Material1 $180,151.32 $146,386.55
Labor2 $114,095.83 $92,711.48
Equipment3 $6,005.04 $4,879.55
Total $300,252.19 $243,977.58
Notes: Based on average costs of lots and units sold in 2022 and 2023. Typical 6,000 sq. ft. residential lot and 1,500 sq. ft. single-family unit; assumed 20 percent administrative costs and developer profit (margin). 1: Calculated as 60 percent of cost after removing 20 percent margin. 2: Calculated as 38 percent of cost after removing 20 percent margin. 3: Calculated as two percent of cost after removing 20 percent margin.
Source: Zillow, Inc, June 2023; Mintier Harnish., 2023.
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.
3.1.3 Availability of Financing
Financing for affordable housing projects and programs are available through federal, state, and local funding sources. Funding through these programs can help developers, local governments, and non-profit organizations offset the cost to build new affordable housing units, preserve or rehabilitate existing affordable housing, and fund programs that offer homebuyer assistance to low- income households.
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.
As shown in Figure 3-1, in the past 10 years mortgage rates across the United States remained relatively steady (between 3.5 and 4.8 percent through 2019, then dropped below three percent between 2020 and 2021). During 2022, mortgage rates increased significantly, reaching a high of
7.08 percent for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at the end of 2022. As shown in Figure 3-1 below, in 2023, mortgage rates started to decline slightly, but have since rebounded, making it difficult for households to purchase a home.
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.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
3-4
Figure 3-1 Historical Mortgage Rates in the United States (2013-2023)
Source: Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey.
Interest rates are determined by national policies and economic conditions and there is little that a local government can do to affect these rates. However, to extend homebuying opportunities to lower-income households, jurisdictions can offer interest rate write-downs. Additionally, government insured loan programs may be available to reduce mortgage down payment requirements.
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.
Mortgage and Rehabilitation Financing
In 2022, the most recent data set available for the County of Merced, shows that 10,760 households applied for a home financing loan which includes loans for home purchase, home improvement, and refinancing. Table 3-4 shows that of the total applications received for home purchase, 47.7 percent of the loans originated while 15.7 percent were denied. The term “Loan Origination” refers to the entire process of receiving a mortgage for a home purchase, including all steps from the loan application to the dispersal of funds. A loan becomes originated once all purchase loan documents have been completed in full and funds are approved to be dispersed.
Regional Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 3-5
Table 3-4 Loan Purpose and Action Taken
Loan Action
Home Purchase
(% of total)
Home
Improvement
(% of total)
Refinancing
(% of total)
Other
(% of total)
Total
(% of total)
Loan Originated 2,700 (25.1%) 258 (2.4%) 526 (4.9%) 1,651 (15.3%) 5,135 (47.7%) Application Approved
but not Accepted
160 (1.5%) 24 (0.2%) 43 (0.4%) 101 (0.9%) 328 (3.0%)
Application Denied 325 (3.0%) 266 (2.5%) 232 (2.2%) 861 (8.0%) 1,684 (15.7%) Application
Withdrawn
707 (6.6%) 58 (0.5%) 294 (2.7%) 689 (6.4%) 1,748 (16.2%) Purchased Loan 840 (7.8%) 9 (0.1%) 82 (0.8%) 252 (2.3%) 1,183 (11.0%) Other 133 (1.2%) 56 (0.5%) 137 (1.3%) 356 (3.3%) 682 (6.3%) Total Loans 4,865 (45.2%) 671 (6.2%) 1,314 (12.2%) 3,910 (36.3%) 10,760 (100.00%) Source: FFIEC Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. 2022 Dataset 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 (FHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Rural Housing Services/Farm Service Agency (RHA/FSA), 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. Table 3-5 shows that 37 percent of the conventional loans originated, and 12.6 percent of the applications were denied. The table also shows that 10.7 percent of the government backed loans originated and 3.1 percent of the applications were denied.
County data shows that the white racial group has the highest amount of loans originated (2,819).
The white racial group also had the highest percentage of loans originated (55.1 percent) when looking at the total of loans received within each racial group’s share of applications received.
Within ethnic groups, Hispanic or Latino made up 37.2 percent of the total applications of loans received while Non-Hispanic or Latino made up 31.6 percent. Of the share of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity that applied, 53.0 percent of loans originated and 17.7 percent were denied. Of the Non- Hispanic or Latinos that applied, 53.1 percent of loans originated and 16.7 percent were denied.
Table 3-5 Loan Action and Loan Type
Loan Type Conventional Loan Government Backed Loan
Loan Originated 3,979 (37.0%) 1,156 (10.7%)
Application Approved but not Accepted 237 (2.2%) 91 (0.8%) Application Denied 1,355 (12.6%) 329 (3.1%)
Application Withdrawn 1,281 (11.9%) 467 (4.3%)
Other 1,176 (10.9%) 689 (6.4%)
Total Loans 8,028 (74.6%) 2,732 (25.4%)
Source: FFIEC Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. 2022 Dataset Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
3-6
Table 3-6 Race and Loan Action
Racial Group
Loan
Originated
Application
Approved
but Not
Accepted
Application
Denied
Application
Withdrawn
Purchased
Loan Other Total
2 or more Minority
Races
9 (39.1%) 1 9 (39.1%) 2 1 1 23
American Indian or
Alaska Native
44 (37.9%) 4 36 (31.0%) 15 3 14 116
Asian 596 (54.6%) 31 172 (15.8%) 201 52 40 1,092
Black or African
American
116 (49.4%) 8 51 (21.7%) 46 1 13 235
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
34 (45.3%) 0 19 (25.3%) 19 0 3 75
White 2,819 (55.1%) 161 814 (15.9%) 898 69 351 5,112
Other 1,517 (36.1%) 123 583 (14.2%) 567 1,057 260 4,107 Source: FFIEC Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. 2022 Dataset Table 3-7 Ethnicity and Loan Action
Ethnicity
Loan
Originated
Application
Approved but
Not Accepted
Application
Denied
Application
Withdrawn
Purchased
Loan Other Total
Hispanic or Latino 2,122 (53.0%) 133 707 (17.7%) 695 48 297 4,002 Not Hispanic or
Latino
1,806 (53.1%) 102 568 (16.7%) 635 82 205 3,398
Joint 209 (59.9%) 15 41 (11.7%) 52 9 23 349
Ethnicity not
Available
996 (33.1%) 78 367 (12.2%) 366 1,044 157 3,008
Source: FFIEC Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. 2022 Dataset
3.2 Governmental Constraints
City policies and regulations can impact the feasibility and cost of housing development. Policies and regulatory actions include land use controls, development standards, site improvement requirements, building codes, and development fees. The following section describes these governmental constraints.
3.2.1 Land Use Controls
Land use controls provided in the general plan and the zoning code 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.
Regional Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 3-7
3.2.1.1 General Plan
Each city and county in California must prepare a comprehensive, long-term general plan to guide growth and development. The land use element of the general plan must contain land use designations, which establish the basic allowed land uses and density of development for the different ranges and areas within the jurisdiction. Under state law, zoning districts must be consistent with the general plan land use designations. The general plan land use designations must provide suitable locations and densities to accommodate each jurisdiction’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) and implement the policies of the housing element.
3.2.1.2 Zoning Code
Land use controls provided in the zoning code 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 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 a given area, and the range and type of buildings and uses that will be located throughout the jurisdiction.
Local governments regulate the type, location, and scale of residential development primarily through the zoning code. The zoning code implements the general plan. It contains development standards for each zoning district consistent with the land use designations of the general plan.
3.2.2 Residential Development Standards
Each jurisdiction’s zoning code contains development standards for each zoning district. These standards vary by jurisdiction, but typically include density, parking requirements, lot coverage, height limits, lot size requirements, setbacks, and open space requirements. The Housing Element must analyze whether development standards impede the ability to achieve maximum allowable densities.
3.2.2.1 Parking
Parking requirements may present a constraint to housing by reducing the amount of available lot areas for residential development. Specific parking constraints within the participating jurisdictions are discussed in their respective Housing Constraints appendices.
3.2.2.2 Open Space and Park Requirements
Open space and park requirements can decrease the affordability of housing by increasing developer fees and/or decreasing the amount of land available on a proposed site for constructing units. Some jurisdictions require that park space is set aside in new subdivisions, or that developers pay a fee in lieu of providing parks. If such requirements are too onerous or expensive to implement, they can constrain a developer’s ability to develop housing.
3.2.2.3 Density Bonus
A density bonus allows a parcel to accommodate additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned. California density bonus law (Government Code Section 65915) establishes the following minimum affordability requirements to qualify for a density bonus:
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
3-8
The project is eligible for a 20 percent density bonus if at least five percent of the units are affordable to very low-income households, or 10 percent of the units are affordable to low- income households.
The project is eligible to receive a five percent density bonus if 10 percent of for-purchase units are affordable to moderate-income households.
A project can receive additional density based on a sliding scale. A developer can receive the maximum density bonus of 50 percent when the project provides either 15 percent very low-income units, 24 percent low-income units, or 44 percent moderate-income units.
Density bonus law also requires cities and counties to grant a certain number of incentives depending on the percentage of affordable units developed. Incentives include reductions in zoning standards, reductions in development standards, reductions in design requirements, and other reductions in costs for developers. Projects that satisfy the minimum affordable criteria for a density bonus are entitled to one incentive from the local government. Depending on the amount of affordable housing provided, the number of incentives can increase to a maximum of three incentives from the local government. If a project uses less than 50 percent of the permitted density bonus, the local government must provide an additional incentive.
Additionally, density bonus law provides density bonuses to projects that donate land for residential use. The donated land must satisfy all the following requirements:
The land must have general plan designations and zoning districts that allow for the construction of very low-income affordable units as a minimum of 10 percent of the units in the residential development;
The land must be a minimum of one acre in size or large enough to allow development of at least 40 units; and
The land must be served by public facilities and infrastructure.
Density bonus law also imposes statewide parking standards that a jurisdiction must grant upon request from a developer of an affordable housing project that qualifies for a density bonus. These parking standards are summarized in Table 3-8. These numbers are the total number of parking spaces including guest parking and handicapped parking. The developer may request these parking standards even if they do not request the density bonus.
Table 3-8 Statewide Density Bonus Parking Standards
Number of Bedrooms Required On-Street Parking (spaces)
0 to 1 bedroom 1.0
2 to 3 bedrooms 1.5
4 or more bedrooms 2.5
Source: California Government Code, Section 65915.
3.2.2.4 On- and Off-Site Improvement Standards
On/off-site improvement standards establish infrastructure or site requirements to support new residential development such as streets, sidewalks, water, sewer, drainage, curbs, and gutters, street signs, park dedications, utility easements, and landscaping. While these improvements are necessary to ensure public health and safety and that new housing meets the local jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 3-9
development goals, the cost of these requirements can sometimes represent a significant share of the cost of producing new housing.
Although improvement requirements and development fees increase the cost of housing, jurisdictions have little choice in establishing such requirements due to the limitations on property taxes and other revenue sources needed to fund public improvements.
3.2.3 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.
3.2.3.1 Manufactured Housing
Manufactured housing can serve as an alternative form of affordable housing in low-density areas where the development of higher-density multi-family residential units is not allowed or not feasible because of infrastructure constraints. California Government Code Sections 65852.3 and 65852.4 specify that a jurisdiction must allow manufactured homes on a foundation on all “lots zoned for conventional single family residential dwellings.” Permanently sited manufactured homes built to the HUD Code are subject to the same rules as site-built homes, except architectural requirements concerning the manufactured home’s roof overhang, roofing materials, and siding materials may be imposed.
The only two exceptions that local jurisdiction are allowed to make to the manufactured home siting provisions are if: 1) there is more than 10 years difference between the date of manufacture of the manufactured home and the date of the application for the issuance of an installation permit; or 2) if the site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and regulated by a legislative body pursuant to Government Code Section 37361.
3.2.3.2 Accessory Dwelling Units
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is an additional self-contained 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.
To encourage ADUs, 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 residential uses.
3.2.3.3 Multi-Family Housing
Multi-family housing includes duplexes, apartments, condominiums, or townhomes, and is the primary source of affordable housing.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
3-10
3.2.3.4 Group Homes / Residential Care Facilities
The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Lanterman Act) sets out the rights and responsibilities of persons with developmental disabilities. A state-authorized, certified, or licensed family care home, foster home, or a group home serving six or fewer disabled persons or dependent and neglected children on a 24-hour-a day basis must be considered a residential use that is permitted in all residential zones. Group homes and residential care facilities with seven or more residents must be allowed by right in all residential zones. .
3.2.3.5 Emergency Shelters
Emergency shelters are defined as:
“Housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.”
Government Code Section 65583 requires every jurisdiction in California to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use permit or other discretionary permit. To address this requirement, a local government may amend an existing zoning district, establish a new zoning district, or establish an overlay zone. The zone(s) must provide sufficient opportunities for new emergency shelters to meet the homeless need identified in the analysis and must in any case accommodate at least one year-round emergency shelter.
Emergency shelters may only be subject to those development and management standards that apply to residential or commercial use within the same zone, except the local government may apply certain objective standards, as follows:
The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the facility. Off-street parking based upon demonstrated need, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than for other residential or commercial uses within the same zone.
The size and location of exterior and interior on-site waiting and client intake areas. The provision of on-site management.
The proximity to other emergency shelters if emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart.
The length of stay.
Lighting.
Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.
Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022 (AB 2339), adds additional specificity on how cities and counties plan for emergency shelters and ensure sufficient capacity for low-income housing in their housing elements.
3.2.3.6 Low-Barrier Navigation Centers
Government Code Section 65662 requires that the development of low-barrier navigation centers be allowed as a use by right in zones where mixed uses are allowed or in nonresidential zones that permit multi-family housing. For a navigation center to be considered “low barrier,” its operation Regional Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 3-11
should incorporate best practices to reduce barriers to entry, which may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Permitting the presence of partners if it is not a population-specific site, such as for survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault, women, or youth.
Pets.
Ability to store possessions.
Providing privacy, such as private rooms or partitions around beds in a dormitory setting or in larger rooms with multiple beds.
3.2.3.7 Transitional and Supportive Housing
State law requires cities and counties to treat transitional housing and supportive housing as a residential use and allow transitional and supportive housing in all zones that allow residential uses, subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
Transitional housing is a type of housing used to facilitate the movement of homeless individuals and families to permanent housing. Residents of transitional housing are usually connected to supportive services designed to assist the homeless in achieving greater economic independence and a permanent, stable living situation. Transitional housing can take several forms, including group quarters with beds, single-family homes, and multi-family apartments; and typically offers case management and support services to help return people to independent living (often six months to two years). State law (Government Code Section 65582 (j)) defines transitional housing as:
“Transitional housing” means buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculating of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at a predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than six months from the beginning of the assistance.
Supportive housing links the provision of housing and social services for the homeless, people with disabilities, and a variety of other special needs populations. Similar to transitional housing, supportive housing can take several forms, including group quarters with beds, single-family homes, and multi-family apartments. State law (Government Code Section 65582 (g)) defines supportive housing as:
“Supportive housing” means housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.
State law (Government Code Section 65582 (i)) defines the target population as:
“Target population” means persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health condition, or individuals eligible for services provided pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 4500) of the Welfare and Institutions Code) and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
3-12
3.2.3.8 Farmworker Housing / Employee Housing Act
The Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6) requires that any employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household, shall be deemed an agricultural land use. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of employee housing that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone. The permitted occupancy in employee housing in a zone allowing agricultural uses shall include agricultural employees who do not work on the property where the employee housing is located. Under Assembly Bill 1783, certain multi-family farmworker housing projects are allowed to be approved with a streamlined, ministerial approval process. Eligible farmworker housing must be located on agricultural land which is not environmentally sensitive or subject to certain hazards and must meet other eligibility requirements pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17021.8.
3.2.3.9 Single-Room Occupancy Units
Single-room occupancy (SRO) units means 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.
3.2.4 On- and Off-Site Improvement Standards
On- and off-site improvement standards establish infrastructure or site requirements to support new residential development such as streets, sidewalks, water, sewer, drainage, curbs, and gutters, street signs, park dedications, utility easements, and landscaping. While these improvements are necessary to ensure public health and safety and that new housing meets the local jurisdiction’s development goals, the cost of these requirements can sometimes represent a significant share of the cost of producing new housing.
Each jurisdiction-specific analysis describes specific site improvement standards for each jurisdiction. Although improvement requirements and development fees increase the cost of housing, jurisdictions have little choice in establishing such requirements due to the limitations on property taxes and other revenue sources needed to fund public improvements.
3.2.5 Housing for Persons with Disabilities
In accordance with Senate Bill 520 (Chapter 671, Statutes of 2001), jurisdictions must analyze the potential and actual governmental constraints on the development of housing for persons with disabilities.
Definition of Family
There are several state and federal rules that govern the definition of “family”, including the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, the California Fair Housing and Employment Act, the California Supreme Court case City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980), and the California Constitution privacy clauses. The laws surrounding the definition of family have several purposes: to protect people with disabilities, to protect non-traditional families, and to protect privacy. According Regional Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 3-13
to HCD and Mental Housing Advocacy Services, there are three major points to consider when writing a definition of family:
Jurisdictions may not distinguish between related and unrelated individuals. The definition may not impose a numerical limit on the number of persons in a family; and Land use restrictions for licensed group homes for six or fewer individuals must be the same as those for single families.
3.2.5.1 Reasonable Accommodation Procedures
Both the federal Fair Housing Amendment Act (FHAA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act direct local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e., modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. It may be reasonable to accommodate requests from persons with disabilities to waive a setback requirement or other standards of the zoning code to ensure that homes are accessible for the mobility impaired.
Whether a particular modification is reasonable depends on the circumstances and must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
3.2.5.2 California Building Code
The 2022 California Building Code Title 24 regulations provide for accessibility for persons with disabilities. The Housing Element must identify the version of the Building Code adopted in each jurisdiction and whether a jurisdiction has adopted any amendments to the Code that might diminish the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities.
3.2.5.3 Zoning and Land Use Policies
Restrictive land use policies and zoning provisions can constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities. The Housing Element must analyze compliance with fair housing laws, provisions for group homes, and whether or not jurisdictions have adopted any minimum distance requirements or other zoning procedures or policies that would limit housing for persons with disabilities.
3.2.6 Planning and Development Fees
The County collects various fees to cover the costs of processing permits and development impact fees. These include fees for planning and zoning approvals, subdivision map act approvals, environmental review, building permits, among others. Permitting fees and development impact fees are determined by the County and posted in the Master Fee Schedule online. Permitting and development fees are periodically updated and approved by a city council or County board of supervisors.
State law limits fees charged for development permit processing to the reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. Local governments charge various fees and assessments to cover the costs of processing permit applications and providing services and facilities, such as, parks, and infrastructure. Almost all of these fees are assessed based on the magnitude of a project’s impact or on the extent of the benefit that will be derived. Additional fees and/or time may be necessary for required environmental review, depending on the location and nature of a project. A 2019 National Impact Fees Survey surveyed 37 jurisdictions in California. The study reports average impact fees of $37,471 per single-family unit and $21,703 per multi-family unit.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
3-14
3.2.6.1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Fees Merced County is within the regulatory jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The air basin as a whole does not meet ambient air quality standards set at the state and federal levels and is within a “non-attainment” area for ozone, PM10 (state), and PM2.5.
As a consequence of these conditions, the SJVAPCD has implemented an Indirect Source Review (ISR) process to reduce the impacts of growth in emissions from all new land development. An Air Impact Assessment (AIA) and potential mitigation fees are required for residential projects with 50 or more dwelling units and when there is discretionary approval required. Fees are also exacted by the SJVAPCD to offset emissions created by typical operational sources. These fees can add hundreds of dollars to the cost of development. However, the cost is applied to all jurisdictions in the air basin and may be eliminated for a lesser number of units or reduced with additional mitigation measures. The SJVAPCD also offers a variety of grants and incentive programs to public agencies, residents, and businesses to help offset fees.
3.2.7 Local Ordinances
3.2.7.1 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Implemented by local jurisdictions, inclusionary housing ordinances require developers to reserve a certain percentage of units for very low- and low-income households as a way to ensure new development incorporates affordable housing. Whether rented or sold, affordability requirements are based on the Area Median Income (AMI) with very low-income defined as household making up to 50 percent of the AMI and low-income households making between 50 and 80 percent of the AMI. Actual rents cannot exceed 30 percent of the income for the associated income group.2
3.2.7.2 Permit Procedures and Processing Times
The processing of applications and permits for development can increase project time and costs.
Processing times vary widely from a few weeks to several months depending on the type of permit required for development and if any discretionary review is required for approval. The time required to process a project varies greatly from one project to another and is directly related to the size and complexity of the proposal and the number of actions or approvals needed to complete the process.
3.2.7.3 Short-Term Housing Rentals
Short-term housing rental ordinances regulate the ways in which residential units can be converted to short-term vacation rentals in a jurisdiction. Jurisdictions are not required to adopted short-term housing rental ordinances. However, in areas with high demand for vacation rentals, jurisdictions often adopt such policies to ensure that the existing housing stock is not diminished and that housing options are maintained throughout the community.
3.2.8 Code Enforcement
Building codes and their enforcement can increase the cost of housing and impact the feasibility of rehabilitating older properties that must be upgraded to current code standards. In this manner,
2 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Income Limits, 2023. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-and- funding/income-limits. Accessed July 2023.
Regional Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 3-15
building codes and their enforcement can act as a constraint on the supply of housing and its affordability.
The California Building Standards Code, Title 24, serves as the basis for the design and construction of buildings in California. State law prohibits the imposition of additional building standards that are not necessitated by local geographic, climatic, or topographic conditions, and requires that local governments making changes or modifications in building standards must report such changes to the California Department of Housing and Community Development and file an expressed finding that the change is needed.
3.3 Environmental Constraints
Typical environmental constraints to the development of housing in Merced County include flooding, earthquakes, and wildfires. In many cases, development of these areas is constrained by state and federal laws (e.g., FEMA floodplain regulations, Alquist-Priolo Act).
3.3.1 Floodplains
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.
Principal flooding problems exist in the central portion of the county, as identified by FEMA. The primary cause of local flooding is due to the drainage patterns that flow towards the San Joaquin River Basin and Merced County. The numerous tributaries of the San Joaquin—the Fresno, Chowchilla, Merced, Tuolumne, Mariposa Creek, Calaveras, Mokelumne, and other rivers—flowed freely across alluvial flood plains to join the river. All of the major tributaries of the river originate in the Sierra Nevada. Most of the streams that start in the Coast Range are intermittent and contribute little to the flow of the San Joaquin. During the winter, spring, and early summer, storms, and snowmelt swell the river. A large portion of Merced County continues to be subject to inundation during flood events, as approximately 380,010 acres have been determined to be in the FEMA floodplain. Both a 100-year and 500-year flood event scenario are critical events in Merced County as the flooding would cover at least 35 to 50 percent of the County. 3 Development within a flood zone typically is required to be protected against flood damage. FEMA requires developers to obtain a flood zone elevation certificate when they apply for their permit.
These certificates require elevating the developed area (i.e., house pad) above the known flood level of that flood zone. Projects must obtain a flood zone elevation certificate, which may increase the cost of a development but is necessary to protect against flood risks.
Each jurisdiction’s sites inventory identifies parcel-specific environmental constraints, including whether or not the site is within the FEMA 100-year flood zone. While residential development can certainly occur within these zones, it does add an additional constraint.
3 Merced County, Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2021-2026. https://web2.co.merced.ca.us/pdfs/oes/MercedCounty-MJHMP- 2021-2016.pdf. Accessed May 2023.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
3-16
3.3.2 Seismic Zones
There are a number of active and potentially active faults within and adjacent to Merced County.
The nearest faults of major significance are the San Andreas to the west of Merced County, a distance of approximately 15 miles from the county line; the Hayward and Calaveras faults to the northwest; the White Wolf, Garlock, and Sierra Nevada faults to the south; and the Bear Mountain Fault Zone about five miles east of and parallel to the eastern border of Merced County. These faults have been and will continue to be the principal source of seismic activity affecting the County of Merced. The only fault known inside the County is the “Ortigalita,” also known as the “Telsa- Ortigalita Fault,” located in the western quarter of the County, dissecting the Coast Range in a northwesterly direction. This fault has not been active in historic times; however, there is no guarantee that it will never become active again.
There have been no records of major seismic activity originating in the county, with most epicenters in the county being below a magnitude 4.0. However, the county has been shaken by earthquakes originating elsewhere. There is documented evidence of six earthquakes that shook the area, those of 1872, 1906, 1952, 1966, 1984, and 1989. Major damage occurred in Los Banos in 1906, with minor damage recorded throughout the county from other occurrences. 4 Although all development must consider earthquake hazards, there is no specific threat or hazard from seismic ground shaking to residential development within the county, and all new construction will comply with current local and state building codes. Between the minimal historical hazard of earthquakes in the county and the use of the most current building codes and construction techniques, earthquakes pose a less than significant danger to residential development.
3.3.3 Wildfire
A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels, posing danger and destruction to property and watersheds. While wildfires are often the direct result of lightning strikes, they can be caused by downed powerlines or mechanical equipment or are the result of human activities like landscape debris burns, carelessness, or arson. Wildfires often start in undeveloped areas and public land areas, such as state and federal lands, but can spread to urban areas where structures and other human development are more concentrated. The predominant dangers from wildfires are:
Injury or loss of life to people in the affected area; and The destruction of vegetation, property, wildlife.
Communities throughout California are increasingly concerned about wildfire safety as increased development in the foothills and mountain areas and subsequent fire control practices have affected the natural cycle of the ecosystem. Wildfire risk is predominantly associated with wildland- urban interface areas, a general term that applies to development adjacent to landscapes that support wildfire. However, significant wildfires can also occur in heavily populated areas.
Both urban and wildland fires conditions exist in Merced County which increases the chances for damage to property, loss of life and/or injury. In the wildland-urban interface, where development has expanded into rural, higher risk areas, fires can result in major losses of property and structures.
In most of Merced County, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) ranks fuel loading as low. Fuels are mainly crops and grasses. In the southwest corner, there are
4 Merced County, Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2021-2026. https://web2.co.merced.ca.us/pdfs/oes/MercedCounty-MJHMP- 2021-2016.pdf. Accessed May 2023.
Regional Housing Constraints Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 3-17
some brush, pine, and grass fuels, which are ranked as moderate fuel hazards, primarily in the area west of Interstate 5. Based on CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones, there are no areas in Merced County classified as Very High Fire Hazard Zones and the areas ranked High are primarily located west of Interstate 5.
5 5 Merced County, Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2021-2026. https://web2.co.merced.ca.us/pdfs/oes/MercedCounty-MJHMP- 2021-2016.pdf. Accessed May 2023.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
3-18
This page intentionally left blank.
Regional Housing Resources Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 4-1
4 Regional Housing Resources Analysis
4.1 Introduction
A critical part of the Housing Element is the site inventory, which identifies a list of sites that are suitable for future residential development. State law mandates that each jurisdiction ensures availability of an adequate number of sites that have appropriate zoning, development standards, and infrastructure capacity to meet its fair share of the regional housing need at all income levels.
This inventory of sites is a primary tool that assists in determining if a jurisdiction has enough available land to support its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), given the current regulatory framework.
The following section provides an overview of the resources available to support continued development, preservation, and rehabilitation of housing in the jurisdictions throughout Merced County. This section also summarizes development trends that occurred during the 5 th Cycle
Housing Element period to inform the site inventory for each of the seven jurisdictions.
4.1.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Requirement
This update of the Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element covers the planning period of January 2023 through January 2031 (the 6th Cycle Housing Element). The Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) is responsible for preparing the RHNA for the Merced County region based on recent growth trends, income distribution, and capacity for future growth. Each jurisdiction must identify adequate land with appropriate zoning and development standards to accommodate its assigned share of the region’s housing needs. Merced County’s combined regional future housing need is 22,620 total units. The number of units is distributed among five income categories and among each jurisdiction, as shown below in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 Merced County Regional Housing Needs Determination Allocation Total
RHNA
Allocation
Units
Very Low-Income
Allocation
Low-Income
Allocation
Moderate-Income
Allocation
Above Moderate-
Income Allocation
Jurisdiction Units
Percent
of Total
RHNA Units
Percent
of Total
RHNA Units
Percent
of Total
RHNA Units
Percent
of Total
RHNA
Atwater 3,017 768 25.5% 526 17.4% 508 16.8% 1,215 40.3% Dos Palos 261 56 21.5% 39 14.9% 49 18.8% 117 44.8%
Gustine 346 77 22.3% 53 15.3% 64 18.5% 152 43.9%
Livingston 1,097 311 28.4% 213 19.4% 169 15.4% 404 36.8% Los Banos 3,132 719 23.0% 493 15.7% 566 18.1% 1,354 43.2% Merced 10,517 2,543 24.2% 1,742 16.6% 1,838 17.5% 4,394 41.8% Unincorporated
County
4,250 1,042 24.5% 714 16.8% 736 17.3% 1,758 41.4%
Total 22,620 5,5166 24.4% 3,780 16.7% 3,930 17.4% 9,394 41.5% Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
4-2
In addition to identifying available land to accommodate their share of the RHNA, jurisdictions must identify adequate land with appropriate zoning and development standards. Jurisdictions can use planned and approved projects, estimated accessory dwelling unit (ADU) production, and vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the RHNA. In addition, jurisdictions may also identify sites in non-residential zones to be rezoned to help reach RHNA numbers. Each of these topics are addressed further in each jurisdiction’s Housing Resources section.
4.2 Development Trends
Development trends inform the assumptions behind each jurisdiction’s site inventory. Example projects described in this section provide the basis for assumed densities and the suitability of both vacant and underutilized sites included in jurisdictional sites inventories.
During the previous housing cycle, all developments were on previously vacant or underutilized land throughout the region. Two out of the 17 sites discussed in this section included affordable housing units; all other developments were mostly market-rate single-family homes. The densities of these projects range from 1.64 to 51.34 dwelling units per acre. Of the affordable housing mentioned in Section 4.2, Development Trends, the average density was around 8.8 dwelling units per acre.
Projects located in low-density residential zones averaged 67 percent density achieved, projects located in medium-density residential zones averaged 60 percent density achieved, and projects in high-density residential zones achieved 84 percent of allowable density. Table 4-2 summarizes the allowable density and achieved density for each project. In some cases, the percent density achieved is higher than 100 percent. A higher percentage is likely due to density bonuses provided by the jurisdiction.
Table 4-2 Development Trends for Recent Projects
Project Name
Total
Units
Site
Acreage
Achieved
Density
(du/ac)
Zoning
District
Allowable
Density
(du/ac)
Number
of units
allowed
Percent
Density
Achieved Affordability
Bell Crossing 188 40.43 4.65 Single-
Family
(low
density)
5.81 234.90 80% Market-rate
Nebela Drive
Planned
Development
127 28.34 4.48 Single-
Family
(low
density)
5.81 164.66 77% Market-rate
Sandstone Way
Planned
Development
122 30.85 3.95 Single-
Family
(low
density)
5.81 179.24 68% Market-rate
Pollitt Court
Planned
Development
11 2.33 4.72 Single-
Family
(low
density)
5.81 13.54 81% Market-rate
Connor Avenue 33 7.64 4.32 Single-
Family
(medium
density)
7.3 55.77 59% Market-rate
Regional Housing Resources Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 4-3
Project Name
Total
Units
Site
Acreage
Achieved
Density
(du/ac)
Zoning
District
Allowable
Density
(du/ac)
Number
of units
allowed
Percent
Density
Achieved Affordability
Stocking Street 44 9.83 4.48 Single-
Family
(medium
density)
7.3 71.76 61% Market-rate
North Avenue
Developments
5 3.04 1.64 Single-
Family
(low
density)
3.5 10.64 47% Market-rate
Manzanita 213 51.33 4.15 Single-
Family
(low
density)
7.5 384.98 55% Market-rate
Sundance
Village
97 21.63 4.48 Single-
Family
(low
density)
7.5 162.23 60% Market-rate
Overland Court
Apartments
70 4.68 14.96 Multi-
Family
(high
density)
30 140.40 50% Market-rate
The Villas 231 58.95 3.92 Single-
Family
(medium
density)
6 353.70 65% Market-rate
Sunrise Ranch 197 43 4.58 Single-
Family
(low
density)
6 258.00 76% Market-rate
Westbrook 162 37.81 4.28 Single-
Family
(low
density)
6 226.86 71% Market-rate
Retreat
Apartments
119 5.07 23.47 Multi-
Family
(medium
density)
24 121.68 98% Very Low
Income
and Low
Income
Twelve Thirteen
V Street Housing
Project
96 1.87 51.34 Multi-
Family
(high
density)
30 56.10 171% Very Low
Income
Lantana 99 20.6 4.81 Single-
Family
(low
density)
8 164.80 60% Market-rate
Stoneridge
South
160 29.75 5.38 Single-
Family
(low
density)
30 892.50 18% Market-rate
Average 116 23.36 8.80 11.5 205.40 70%
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
4-4
Bell Crossing
APN: Varies Developer: D.R. Horton
Location: Bell Drive & Truckee Drive, Atwater Year Built: 2019 Development Type: Low-density, single-family residential Previous Use: Vacant Parcel Size: 40.43 ac FAR/Density: 0.28/4.65 dwelling units per acre Bell Crossing is a suburban neighborhood located in the western portion of Atwater at the intersection of Bell Drive and Truckee Drive. This gated community was developed in 2019 and features 188 single-family homes and two neighborhood parks. This project is in a single-family zone which allows a maximum density of 5.81 units per acre, meaning the maximum unit capacity on this site would be approximately 235 units. Since this project was developed with 188 units, the project achieved 80 percent of allowable density.
Regional Housing Resources Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 4-5
Nebela Drive Planned Development
APN: Varies Developer: –
Location: Nebula Drive & N Buhach Road, Atwater Year Built: 2015 Development Type: Low density, single-family residential Previous Use: Vacant Parcel Size: 28.34 ac FAR/Density: 0.27/4.48 dwelling units per acre The planned development located along Nebela Drive is in the eastern-most part of Atwater, just east of N Buhach Road. As of 2022, the neighborhood features 127 single-family homes. This development is in a single-family zone which allows a maximum density of 5.81 units per acre, meaning the maximum unit capacity on this site would be approximately 165 units. Since this project was developed with 127 units, the project achieved 77 percent of allowable density.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
4-6
Sandstone Way Planned Development
APN: Varies Developer: –
Location: Stone Creek Drive & E Bellevue Road,
Atwater
Year Built: 2017
Development Type: Low density, single-family residential Previous Use: Vacant Parcel Size: 30.85 ac FAR/Density: 0.32/3.95 dwelling units per acre The planned development along Sandstone Way is a suburban neighborhood located in the east- central portion of Atwater, south of E Bellevue Road. This neighborhood was built in 2017 and features 122 single-family homes. This project is in a single-family zone which allows a maximum density of 5.81 units per acre, meaning the maximum unit capacity on this site would be approximately 179 units. Since this project was developed with 122 units, the project achieved 68 percent of allowable density.
Regional Housing Resources Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 4-7
Pollitt Court Planned Development
APN: Varies Developer: –
Location: Pollitt Court & E Juniper Ave, Atwater Year Built: 2017 Development Type: Low density, single-family residential Previous Use: Vacant Parcel Size: 2.33 ac FAR/Density: 0.28/4.72 dwelling units per acre The Pollitt Court planned development is located in the center of Atwater, near the intersection of E Juniper Avenue and Shaffer Road. This cul-de-sac features 11 single-family homes along a main arterial street built in 2017. This development is in a single-family zone which allows a maximum density of 5.81 units per acre, meaning the maximum unit capacity on this site would be approximately 13 units. Since this project was developed with 11 units, the project achieved 81 percent of allowable density.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
4-8
Connor Avenue
APN: Varies Developer: –
Location: Connor Avenue & Marguerite Street, Dos
Palos
Year Built: 2017
Development Type: Medium density, single-family residential Previous Use: Vacant Parcel Size: 7.64 ac FAR/Density: 0.22/4.32 dwelling units per acre The development located along Connor Avenue is in the western portion of Dos Palos, west of Elgin Avenue. This neighborhood features 33 single-family homes built in 2017. This project is in a single- family zone which allows a maximum density of 7.3 units per acre, meaning the maximum unit capacity on this site would be approximately 56 units. Since this project was developed with 33 units, the project achieved 59 percent of allowable density.
Regional Housing Resources Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 4-9
Stocking Street
APN: Varies Developer: –
Location: W Carmellia Avenue & Nidever Avenue,
Dos Palos
Year Built: 2017
Development Type: Medium density, single-family residential Previous Use: Agriculture Parcel Size: 9.83 ac FAR/Density: 0.22/4.48 dwelling units per acre The development located along Stocking Street is in the northern-most portion of Dos Palos, south of Carmellia Drive. This neighborhood was built in 2017 and features 44 single-family homes. This project is in a single-family zone which allows a maximum density of 7.3 units per acre, meaning the maximum unit capacity on this site would be approximately 72 units. Since this project was developed with 44 units, the project achieved 61 percent of allowable density.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
4-10
North Avenue Developments
APN: Varies Developer: –
Location: North Avenue & Sycamore Avenue,
Gustine
Year Built: 2020
Development Type: Low density, single-family residential Previous Use: Vacant Parcel Size: 3.04 ac FAR/Density: 0.13/1.64 dwelling units per acre These five single-family homes are located along North Avenue in the northern end of Gustine. They were developed in 2020 and are in a single-family zone which allows a maximum density of 3.5 units per acre, meaning the maximum unit capacity on this site would be approximately 11 units. Since this project was developed with 5 units, the project achieved 47 percent of allowable density.
Regional Housing Resources Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 4-11
Manzanita
APN: Varies Developer: Legacy Homes
Location: Wakami Drive & Hammatt Avenue,
Livingston
Year Built: 2021
Development Type: Low density, single-family residential Previous Use: Agriculture Parcel Size: 51.33 ac FAR/Density: 0.25/ 4.15 dwelling units per acre Manzanita is located in the northeastern part of Livingston and contains 213 single-family homes and a neighborhood park. The development contains seven styles of homes ranging from 1,500 square feet to just over 2,500 square feet, with up to five bedrooms. This project is in a single-family zone which allows a maximum density of 7.5 units per acre, meaning the maximum unit capacity on this site would be approximately 385 units. Since this project was developed with 213 units, the project achieved 55 percent of allowable density.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
4-12
Sundance Village
APN: Varies Developer: Bright Development
Location: Trigger Lane & Aldrich Avenue, Livingston Year Built: 2019 Development Type: Low density, single-family residential Previous Use: Agriculture Parcel Size: 21.63 ac FAR/Density: 0.27/ 4.48 dwelling units per acre Sundance Village is located in the heart of Livingston and is located near schools, parks, medical facilities, employment opportunities, and Highway 99. This new community features 97 single- family homes, with single- and two-story home designs ranging from 1,835 to 2,536 square feet.
This project is in a single-family zone which allows a maximum density of 7.5 units per acre, meaning the maximum unit capacity on this site would be approximately 162 units. Since this project was developed with 97 units, the project achieved 60 percent of allowable density.
Regional Housing Resources Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 4-13
Overland Court Apartments
APN: 424-120-016 Developer: Willow Partners, LLC
Location: Rockport Drive and Overland Avenue, Los
Banos
Year Built: 2017
Development Type: High density, multi-family residential Previous Use: Vacant Parcel Size: 4.68 ac FAR/Density: 0.30/14.96 dwelling units per acre The Overland Court Senior apartments are a 62+ age-restricted community with one and two- bedroom apartments. The property has a total of 69 units surrounding a large community building that houses the on-site manager’s office along with a full kitchen and community space to host special events and gatherings. This complex is in a multi-family zone which allows a maximum density of 30 units per acre, meaning the maximum unit capacity on this site would be approximately 140 units. Since this project was developed with 69 units, the project achieved 50 percent of allowable density.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
4-14
The Villas
APN: 431-270-004 & 431-270-010 Developer: Stonefield Homes Location: 309 Amabile Drive, Los Banos Year Built: –
Development Type: Medium density, single-family residential Previous Use: Agriculture Parcel Size: 58.95 ac FAR/Density: -/3.92 dwelling units per acre The Villas is a 231-unit single-family residential private gated community. The project consists of custom, semi-custom, production homes, and four-acre dual use park and detention basin. This neighborhood is in a single-family zone which allows a maximum density of 6 units per acre, meaning the maximum unit capacity on this site would be approximately 354 units. Since this project proposes 231 units, the project will achieve 65 percent of allowable density.
Regional Housing Resources Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 4-15
Sunrise Ranch
APN: 428-080-001 Developer: Meritage Homes
Location: 338 Lolly Way, Los Banos Year Built: –
Development Type: Low density, single-family residential Previous Use: Vacant Parcel Size: 43 ac FAR/Density: -/4.58 dwelling units per acre Sunrise Ranch is a 197-unit single-family residential community currently under construction. The project features five unique residences and is located less than one mile from schools for children of all ages and provides easy access to Highway 33 and Interstate 5. This neighborhood is in a single- family zone which allows a maximum density of 6 units per acre, meaning the maximum unit capacity on this site would be approximately 258 units. Since this project proposes 197 units, the project will achieve 76 percent of allowable density.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
4-16
Westbrook
APN: Varies Developer: Anderson Homes
Location: 1664 Dolomite Drive, Los Banos Year Built: –
Development Type: Low density, single-family residential Previous Use: Agriculture Parcel Size: 37.81 ac FAR/Density: -/4.28 dwelling units per acre Westbrook is a 162-unit single-family residential community located in the western part of Los Banos. This community features single and two-story homes ranging from 1,409 to 2,460 square feet. Westbrook is within walking distance of major retailers, restaurants, parks, and a new school.
This project is in a single-family zone which allows a maximum density of 6 units per acre, meaning the maximum unit capacity on this site would be approximately 227 units. Since this project proposes 162 units, the project will achieve 71 percent of allowable density.
Regional Housing Resources Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 4-17
Retreat Apartments
APN: 035-010-071 Developer: The Richman Group of California Development Company
Location: 1137 B Street, Merced Year Built: 2020
Development Type: Vacant Previous Use: Vacant
Parcel Size: 5.07 ac FAR/Density: -/23.47 dwelling units per acre The Retreat Apartments are 119 one-, two-, and three-bedroom affordable rental apartments ranging from 573 to 1,302 square feet. There are 30 units affordable to extremely low-income households and 88 units affordable to low-income households. This complex is in a multi-family zone which allows a maximum density of 24 units per acre, meaning the maximum unit capacity on this site would be approximately 122 units. Since this project was developed with 119 units, the project achieved 98 percent of allowable density.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
4-18
Twelve Thirteen V Street Housing Project
APN: 031-271-017 Developer: UPholdings & RH Community
Builders
Location: 1213 V Street, Merced Year Built: 2020
Development Type: High density, multi-family residential Previous Use: Motel Parcel Size: 1.87 ac FAR/Density: 0.27/51.34 dwelling units per acre The Twelve Thirteen Housing Project, which repurposes the former motel at 1213 V Street, will include 96 units of permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless persons with incomes equal to or less than 30 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). Fifteen units will be accessible for those with mobility disabilities. Each unit will include a kitchenette, refrigerator, stove or hot plate, and microwave, and will be furnished. Residents will have access to supportive services such as intensive case management services, linkages to behavioral and physical health services, assistance obtaining benefits and essential documentation, and educational and employment services. This redevelopment project is in a commercial zone and as a motel its density is high. A high-density multi-family zone which allows a maximum density of 30 units per acre is an appropriate zone for this type of use. Using this density would provide a maximum unit capacity of approximately 56 units on this site. Since this project redevelops 96 units, the project will achieve 171 percent of allowable density.
Regional Housing Resources Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 4-19
Lantana
APN: 206-030-021 & 206-030-022 Developer: D.R. Horton
Location: 1348 Eagle Crest Court, Merced Year Built: –
Development Type: Low density, single-family residential Previous Use: Vacant Parcel Size: 20.6 ac FAR/Density: -/ 4.81 dwelling units per acre Lantana is a 99-unit single-family residential community located in north Merced, near schools, shopping, and easy access to Highway 99. The community features single- and two-story homes ranging from 1,515 to 2,814 square feet with four to five bedrooms. This project is in a single-family zone which allows a maximum density of 8 units per acre, meaning the maximum unit capacity on this site would be approximately 165 units. Since this project will be developed with 99 units, the project will achieve 60 percent of allowable density.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
4-20
Stoneridge South
APN: 259-130-018 Developer: D.R. Horton
Location: 333 Rubicon Court, Merced Year Built: –
Development Type: Low density, single-family residential Previous Use: Vacant Parcel Size: 29.75 ac FAR/Density: –
Stoneridge South is a single-family development of 160 units that features single- and two-story homes ranging from 1,515 to 2,814 square feet with four to five bedrooms. Stoneridge South is conveniently located near schools, shopping, and easy access to Highway 99. This neighborhood is in a multi-family zone which allows a maximum density of 30 units per acre, meaning the maximum unit capacity on this site would be approximately 892 units. Since this project is proposing 160 units, the project will achieve 18 percent of allowable density.
Regional Housing Resources Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 4-21
4.3 Summary of Developer Stakeholder Interview
As part of the outreach process, Rincon Consultants engaged various stakeholder representatives, service providers, and housing developers to inform and educate local organizations about the Housing Element Update. Staff solicited input on their organization’s experience with affordable and attainable housing across Merced County.
On August 9, 2023, Rincon Consultants, on behalf of the participating jurisdictions, met with representatives from the development community, including:
Building Industry Association Greater Valley, an advocate for the housing and building industry, representing the collective interests of builders and developers engaged in residential and commercial projects.
Bernard Partnership, a marketing consulting firm that collaborates with buyers and developers during the construction or renovation of residential developments. UPholdings, an affordable housing development and management company committed to being community partners and working with the most vulnerable community members to design, build, and own housing that exceeds the industry’s standards for both quality and efficiency.
Participants were asked to provide their thoughts on the following topic areas:
Challenges to building housing or affordable housing. Difficulty of developing mixed-income and affordable housing in the Merced region compared to other Central Valley regions.
Feasibility of housing development based on current market conditions. Supportive measures by cities in the Merced region for affordable or mixed-income housing development.
Incentives and policies to increase the production of mixed-income or affordable housing. Identification of specific residents in the Merced region in need of housing and suitable housing types for them.
Stakeholders offered a range of insights into the housing market in Merced County and indicated that the main challenge to building market rate and affordable housing in the region is cost.
Constructing affordable housing units requires significant financial resources, and subsidies are necessary to facilitate their development. Stakeholders emphasized that costs associated with permits and planning, among other fees, pose a major obstacle to achieving affordability.
Additional difficulties arise due to competition with neighboring counties like Stanislaus and San Joaquin. To address this challenge, Merced County must enhance its competitiveness by improving its appeal through amenities, infrastructure, and downtown revitalization strategies to make the area more attractive to potential residents. Encouraging more individuals to settle in the Central Valley is a broader challenge, particularly due to lack of transit options.
Stakeholders agreed that one of the most significant hurdles to constructing affordable housing in the Central Valley is the scarcity of financial resources, particularly when compared to coastal regions. The concentration of political influence along the coastline rather than within the Central Valley, along with a denser population, means that state and federal funding for housing is often channeled to the coastal regions. This creates an imbalance in resource allocation. Moreover, there is significant political resistance to building affordable, denser housing in rural areas of Merced Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
4-22
County, compounding the difficulties in development. Participants agreed that mandating higher density housing in certain areas would be the most impactful policy to encourage housing development.
4.4 Regional Financial Resources for Affordable
Housing
4.4.1 Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)
The California Department of Housing and Community Development PLHA program provides funding to local governments in California for housing-related projects and programs that address the unmet housing needs of their local communities. Jurisdictions throughout Merced County have been recently awarded PLHA funding. The City of Merced, for example, is using PLHA funds to provide assistance in the form of low-interest, deferred loans to project sponsors for the development of Affordable Multi-Family Rental Housing.
4.4.2 Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
The HOME program provides federal funds for the development and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing for households with incomes not exceeding 80 percent of area median income. The program gives local governments the flexibility to fund a wide range of affordable housing activities through housing partnerships with private industry and non-profit organizations. HOME funds can be used for activities that promote affordable rental housing and homeownership by low-income households, including:
Building acquisition
New construction and reconstruction
Moderate or substantial rehabilitation
Homebuyer assistance
Rental assistance
Security deposit assistance
Of all jurisdictions in Merced County, only the City of Merced qualifies for HOME funding. In 2022, the City of Merced received $603,192 of HOME funds. Other jurisdictions may qualify as a HOME Consortium, and during the planning period, may consider establishing a consortium.
4.4.3 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
The CDBG Program is administered by HUD. Through this program, the federal government provides funding to jurisdictions to undertake community development and housing projects.
Projects proposed by the jurisdictions must meet the objectives and eligibility criteria of CDBG legislation. The primary CDBG objective is the development of viable urban communities, including decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded economic opportunity, principally for persons of low- and moderate-income. Each activity must meet one of the three following national objectives:
Benefit to low- and moderate-income families;
Regional Housing Resources Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 4-23
Aid in the prevention of elimination of slums or blight; or Meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community.
Of all jurisdictions in Merced County, only the City of Merced receives CDBG funding as an entitlement jurisdiction. In 2022, the City of Merced received $1,099,911 of CDBG funds. Other jurisdictions can apply for CDBG funds through the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
Other jurisdictions also may qualify for funding together as a HUD-designated Urban County, and may explore qualification during the planning period.
4.4.4 Continuum of Care (CoC) Program
The Continuum of Care (CoC) Program is designed to promote communitywide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness; provide funding for efforts by nonprofit providers, and state and local governments to quickly rehouse homeless individuals and families while minimizing the trauma and dislocation caused to homeless individuals, families, and communities by homelessness; promote access to and effect utilization of mainstream programs by homeless individuals and families; and optimize self-sufficiency among individuals and families experiencing homelessness.
CoC funding for Merced County is administered through the Merced City and County CoC. In 2021, the following organizations were awarded 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.
4.5 Administrative Resources
4.5.1 Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) is an association of city and county governments. Members coordinate to solve regional problems related to transportation, solid waste, and air quality. MCAG administers the state-funded Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) program, which provides housing-related grants to member jurisdictions, and coordinated the RHNA allocation process.
4.5.2 San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies Policy Council
MCAG is one of eight San Joaquin Valley Councils of Government that make up the San Joaquin Valley Regional Planning Agencies Policy Council. The Policy Council provides a platform for the Valley to connect on regional issues that impact each agency such as transportation, air quality, and advocacy efforts. The council works to identify successful action items implemented by regional planning agencies that can result in a vision for the entire Valley.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
4-24
4.5.3 Non-Profit Organizations
Non-profit housing developers and service providers are a critical resource for accomplishing the goals and objectives of this Housing Element. This can be accomplished through private/public partnerships. Non-profit organizations that have developed affordable housing in the county include the following:
Housing Authority of the County of Merced
Self-Help Enterprises
4.6 Infrastructure
A major constraint to the development of new housing units across Merced County is the lack of sewer and water service. The expense of providing a new system is prohibitive unless there is sufficient population density to support it.
Merced County has 15 independent water and/or sewer districts, each of which is governed by its own Board of Directors. Future development in Merced County is contingent upon the construction of additional facilities. Most districts plan to pay for new facilities through development fees, connection fees, and/or service agreements under which developers are required to construct and dedicate wells, lift stations, and other needed facilities.
A Water and Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Capacity Assessment conducted by MKN & Associates for MCAG determined that the cities of Atwater, Dos Palos, Livingston, and Los Banos currently have the capacity to collect and process sewage both for their current population and to meet RHNA requirements. The assessment found that the City of Merced is not able to meet its current requirements for peak flows but is in the process of implementing capacity increases that will meet its current needs, as well as RHNA requirements. The study did not include information about capacities for the City of Gustine and unincorporated communities in Merced County and was therefore unable to conclude if adequate service could be provided in these areas. The study recommended that a study be conducted by the City of Gustine and the County to fill this information gap. Programs to address information gaps are found in jurisdictions’ Housing Plans.
4.7 Opportunities for Energy Conservation
State law requires an analysis of the opportunities for energy conservation in residential development. Energy efficiency has direct application to affordable housing since higher energy bills result in less money available for rent or mortgage payments. High energy costs have particularly detrimental effects on low-income households that do not have enough income or cash reserved to absorb cost increases and many times must choose between basic needs such as shelter, food, and energy.
4.7.1 California Building Code, Title 24
California Title 24 regulations require higher energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. The building code provides a great deal of flexibility for individual builders to achieve a minimum "energy budget" through the use of various performance standards. These requirements apply to all new residential construction, as well as all remodeling and rehabilitation construction.
Regional Housing Resources Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 4-25
4.7.2 Utility Programs
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), which provides electricity service in Merced County, provides a variety of energy conservation services for residents as well as a wealth of financial and energy-related assistance programs for low-income customers:
The Balanced Payment Plan (BPP). Designed to eliminate big swings in customer monthly payments by averaging energy costs over the year.
CARE (California Alternate Rates for Energy). PG&E provides a 20 percent discount on monthly energy bills for low-income households.
Energy Partners Program. The Energy Works Program provides qualified low-income tenants free weatherization measures and energy-efficient appliances to reduce gas and electricity usage.
Energy Efficiency for Multi-Family Properties. The Energy Efficiency for Multi-Family Properties program is available to owners and managers of multi-family residential dwellings. The program encourages energy efficiency by providing rebates for the installation of certain energy saving products such as high-efficiency appliances, compact fluorescent light bulbs, attic and wall insulation, and efficient heating and cooling systems.
The Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA) Program. PG&E provides a rate reduction program for low-income households of three or more people.
REACH (Relief for Energy Assistance through Community Help). The REACH program is sponsored by PG&E and administered through the Salvation Army. PG&E customers can enroll to give monthly donations to the REACH program. Through the REACH program, qualified low- income customers who have experienced unforeseen hardships that prohibit them from paying their utility bills may receive an energy credit up to $200.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
4-26
This page intentionally left blank.
Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-1
Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing Analysis
5.1 Introduction and Overview
In 2018, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 686 to expand upon the fair housing requirements and protections outlined in the federal Fair Employment and Housing Act.
The law requires all State and local public agencies to facilitate deliberate action to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities. AB 686 created new requirements that apply to all housing elements due for revision on or after January 1, 2021. The passage of AB 686 ensures that all local governments in California affirmatively further fair housing.
AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing” (AFFH) to mean “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.” AB 686 added to the Housing Element requirements an assessment of fair housing which includes the following components:
A summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity
An analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities An assessment of contributing factors
An identification of fair housing goals and actions.
1 5.1.1 Regional Analysis
The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California. In 2004, the PPIC published a policy report analyzing migration trends to, from, and within the Central Valley and the implications of those trends. This policy paper, The Central Valley at a Crossroads: Migration and its Implications, 2 identifies factors
that drive migration, including economic, educational, and social factors. These factors differ dramatically throughout the Central Valley; therefore, the policy paper identifies four subregions of the valley: Upper Sacramento Valley, Sacramento Metro, Northern San Joaquin Valley, and Southern San Joaquin Valley. These four subregions are shown on the inset map of California in Figure 5-1 .
Seeing as Merced County is in the northern portion of the San Joaquin Valley region, this AFFH analysis assesses the Northern San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Subregion comprised of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced Counties, shown in Figure 5-1.
The settlement patterns described in The Central Valley at a Crossroads: Migration and its Implications provide insight on the level of access to opportunity and fair housing based on the following factors: race and ethnicity, education level, age, economics, and other social indicators specific to the subregion. Research from this paper is supported by U.S. Census data, regression modelling, interviews with community leaders, and published research.
1 Housing and Community Development (HCD). 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml 2 Hayes, Joseph and Hans Johnson. The Central Valley at a Crossroads: Migration and its Implications. Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/pubs/report/R_1104HJR.pdf Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-2
Figure 5-1 Northern San Joaquin Valley Region
Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-3
The PPIC report concluded that residents in the North SJV subregion (San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced counties) have access to jobs in the Bay Area and cheaper housing in the Valley, whereas residents in South SJV subregion (Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and Kern counties) do not have access to jobs in the Bay Area and rely on agriculture as the primary economic industry, with nearly 17 percent of its residents working within the industry. Access to educational opportunity is also more prevalent in the North SJV as opposed to the South SJV; however, the North SJV experiences longer commute times, traffic congestion, and poor air quality.
5.2 Methodology
This AFFH analysis has been prepared consistent with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements which provides guidance on the preparation of housing elements and ensures statutory requirements are satisfied, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(c)(10). HCD’s AFFH Guidance instructs that AFFH analyses should examine local patterns and trends and compare them to the broader region to provide a broader context for local fair housing issues. Recognizing differences between local areas and the broader region, especially when identifying spatial patterns, is important to identify and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues that affect the locality.
This AFFH analysis is part of the Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element for the 6 th
cycle, a collaborative effort between Merced County, and the cities of Atwater, Dos Palos, Gustine, Livingston, Los Banos, and Merced, with coordination assistance from the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG). This analysis identifies patterns and trends at the regional scale (Northern SJV) to be used for comparison for the local scale analyses, located in each jurisdiction’s chapter of this document.
The regional and local AFFH analyses evaluate the following fair housing issues:
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
Each local AFFH analysis also includes the following that is not discussed in this section:
Local Area Knowledge and Stakeholder and Community Input Other Relevant Factors, such as a history of preferential investment for certain neighborhoods or types of housing
Analysis of the Housing Sites Inventory using AFFH indicators Identification and prioritization of Contributing Factors to fair housing issues The local AFFH analyses also identify and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues. Fair housing issues are conditions that restrict fair housing choice or access to opportunity in the geographic area of interest. Fair housing choice means realistic housing opportunities exist, can be accessed without discrimination towards protected characteristics such as race, color, religion, sex, disability, etc., and are informed with adequate information regarding options. Each local AFFH Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-4
analysis addresses impediments through AFFH-specific goals and actions based on the contributing factors for each identified fair housing issue.
5.3 Data Sources
California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires cities and counties to analyze areas of segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.
Data from a variety of sources was utilized to conduct this analysis, detailed below.
5.3.1 HCD AFFH Data Viewer
The AFFH Data Viewer and updated AFFH Data Viewer Version 2.0 are tools developed by HCD that features census block group and census tract level data from an expansive collection of sources including United States (U.S.) Census American Community Survey (ACS), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), Urban Displacement Project (UDP), and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). 3 The Data
Viewer tool serves as a resource for local and regional governments and provides the ability to explore spatial data patterns concerning fair housing enforcement, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, and disparities in access to opportunities and housing. The Data Viewer is intended to assist in the creation of policies that alleviate disparities, combat discrimination, and increase access to safe and affordable homes.
5.3.2 Urban Displacement Project (UDP)
The UDP was developed to track neighborhood change and identify areas that are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement in California.
4 The UDP measures indicators of gentrification and
displacement at the census tract level based on data from the 2015-2019 ACS. UDP indicators examine census tracts to identify areas that qualify as disadvantaged neighborhoods. Additionally, census tracts identified as disadvantaged neighborhoods by UDP’s criteria are further analyzed to explore changes in the percentage of college educated residents, non-Hispanic/Latino white population, median household income, and median gross rents over time to determine levels of gentrification and displacement risk.
5.3.3 CalEnviroScreen
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed a screening methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution.
5 This tool, called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), utilizes existing environmental, health, and socioeconomic data to rank census tracts based on 20 distinct indicators. In general, if a community has a high score for that indicator, it is more likely to have greater degree of pollution burden and a higher rate of residents vulnerable to the effects of that pollution exposure as compared to census tracts statewide. Designated disadvantaged communities are those with CalEnviroScreen percentile scores of 75 or higher,
3 HCD AFFH Data Viewer. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60 4 Urban Displacement Project. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/ 5 CalEnviroScreen 4.0. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-5
meaning that they scored within the highest 25 percent of census tracts for pollution and other social and economic burden indicators across California.
5.3.4 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps
To assist fair housing analysis, HCD and TCAC created the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals. 67 The California
Fair Housing Task Force created Opportunity Maps to identify resource levels across the state.
Opportunity mapping is a way to measure and visualize place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes, such as educational attainment, earnings from employment, and economic mobility. 2 Opportunity Maps reflect scores in three different domains made up from a set of indicators shown in Table 5-1, as well as a composite score combining all three domains.
Table 5-1 Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, median home value Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values Education Math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, student poverty rates Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020
5.3.5 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data
Each year, HUD receives custom tabulations of ACS data from the U.S. Census Bureau. These data, known as the CHAS data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), demonstrate the extent of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for low-income households. 8 CHAS data is
estimated by the number of households that have certain housing problems and have income low enough to qualify for HUD’s programs (primarily 30, 50, and 80 percent of median income). It is also important to consider the prevalence of housing problems among different types of households, such as the elderly, disabled, minorities, and different household types.
5.3.6 U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS)
The ACS, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, is an ongoing survey that collects information on demographic, social, economic, and housing characteristics of the U.S. population.9 ACS uses independent monthly samples, each with a sample size of 250,000 addresses (consisting of housing units and group quarters), surveyed via internet, mail, telephone, and personal visit. ACS data uses one-year and five-year estimates. The one-year data is collected over a period of 12 months and is useful for showing year-to-year fluctuations in data for geographic areas with at least 65,000 people. The five-year estimates represent data collected over a period of five years and are considered statistically more reliable than the one-year estimates, particularly for less populated areas and small population subgroups.
6 TCAC Opportunity Maps. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen 7Office of The State Treasurer (STO). 2021. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2020-tcac-hcd-methodology.pdf 8 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html 9 U.S. Census American Community Survey. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-6
5.3.7 AllTransit
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.
10 5.3.8 Comprehensive Housing Report for the San Joaquin Valley In response to housing supply and affordability challenges, the San Joaquin Valley Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Committee commissioned a study of housing trends, impediments, and best practices in the San Joaquin Valley. Funded by the REAP grant program, and with the coordination of HCD staff, the 2022 study was conducted through outreach to the eight counties in the SJV, stakeholders, city and county staff, metropolitan planning organization staff, and the public.
Interviews with builders, developers, housing advocates, and staff supported an analysis of barriers to housing affordability and production in the San Joaquin Valley.
The study concluded that while the region has become more diverse in the past few decades, there are existing disparities in income, poverty, and homeownership among racial and ethnic groups.
Stakeholder interviews provided insight into trends and challenges in housing affordability, and also provided a list of opportunity areas for affordable housing.
5.4 Fair Housing Resources
Fair housing issues include, but are not limited to:
Housing design that makes a dwelling unit inaccessible to an individual with a disability; Discrimination against an individual based on race, national origin, familial status, disability, religion, sex, or other characteristics when renting or selling a housing unit; and Disproportionate housing needs, including cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing, and risk of displacement.
5.4.1 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity is the ability of a local jurisdiction and fair housing agencies to provide fair housing and tenants’ rights information to community members.
Enforcement and outreach capacity also includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, resolving issues, and conducting fair housing testing.
A number of organizations provide fair housing services throughout the Merced County region .
Resources specific to each jurisdiction are discussed in the local AFFH sections. Table 5-2 lists organizations that address housing and community needs by providing the following services:
Fair housing testing and complaints
Fair housing counseling and education
Tenant/landlord counseling and mediation
Homeless prevention program
Rental assistance program
10 AllTransit. https://alltransit.cnt.org/
Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-7
Rent/deposit grant program
Homeseeking services
Shared housing counseling placement
Homebuyers’ education learning program
Table 5-2 Fair Housing Organizations Active in Merced County Organization Name Website Services Provided
Fair Housing Council of Central
California
http://fhc-cc.org/about.html Mediation, counseling, advocacy, research, and fair housing training and workshops for consumers as
well as housing providers.
Project Sentinel https://www.housing.org/ Education and counseling to community members, housing providers, and tenants about fair housing
laws. Investigation of complaints and advocacy for
people experiencing housing discrimination.
Central California Legal Services https://centralcallegal.org/ Free civil legal assistance to low-income individuals, families, organizations, and
communities.
California Rural Legal Assistance https://crla.org/ Free civil legal services to low-income residents of rural counties in the areas of employment and
labor, housing, education, rural health, and
leadership development.
5.5 Ability to Address Complaints
Fair housing complaints can be used as an indicator to identify characteristics of households experiencing discrimination in housing. Pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act Government Code Section 12921 (a), the opportunity to seek, obtain, and hold housing cannot be determined by an individual’s “race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, genetic information, or any other basis prohibited by Section 51 of the Civil Code.”
Initiated by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in 1991, fair housing testing is a technique used to uncover evidence of discrimination in rental housing. Fair housing testing involves one or more individuals who pose as prospective renters for the purpose of determining whether a landlord is complying with local, state, and federal fair housing laws. Enforcement actions may be taken when investigations yield evidence of a pattern or practice of illegal housing discrimination.
Testing may be initiated following the filing of a specific housing discrimination complaint or, as is the case when testing for discrimination against a specific class, as part of an overall effort to determine whether the discrimination is happening in a consistent systemic pattern in a city or region. Fair housing testing is used to identify unlawful housing discrimination practices based on the real or perceived race, ethnicity, color, religion, gender identity or expression, national origin, disability, familial status, marital status, age, ancestry, sexual orientation, and source of income of prospective renters.
The California Civil Rights Department (CRD), formerly the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), maintains a record of housing discrimination complaints filed in local jurisdictions.
HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) also collects fair housing complaint data.
Fair housing complaints may be filed with either the CRD or FHEO, however, the FHEO may refer Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-8
complaints to the state or local agency for investigation. Between January 2006 and June 2020, a total of 207 cases were filed with the FHEO in San Joaquin County, 180 in Stanislaus County, and 46 in Merced County (Table 5-3). Disability-related discrimination comprised the largest proportion of cases (48.8 percent of cases), followed by race (18.4 percent of cases). Most of the race-based cases were filed by Black/African American residents (80.4 percent of race-based cases).
Table 5-3 Northern San Joaquin Valley Fair Housing Complaints (2006-2020) Basis
Number in San
Joaquin County
Number in Stanislaus
County
Number in Merced
County
Northern SJV
Percent Total
Disability 100 113 31 48.8%
Race/Color 60 21 11 18.4%
Familial Status 34 29 4 13.4%
Sex 17 27 6 10.0%
National Origin 27 14 3 8.8%
Religion 3 0 0 0.6%
Total* 241 204 55 100%
* The total number is higher than the data reported above since some cases have multiple biases.
Source: Data.gov, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Filed Cases, 2020
5.6 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
To inform priorities, policies, and actions, the housing element must include an analysis of integration and segregation, including patterns and trends. Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability in a specific geographic area. Segregation generally means the opposite condition, in which there is a high concentration of the characteristics described above in a specific geographic area. To identify socio-economic and demographic spatial trends across these jurisdictions, this analysis utilizes HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer, which provides an expansive collection of data from sources including the ACS, HCD, HUD, UDP, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and other regional and federal agencies.
In its AFFH guidance document published in April 2021, HCD describes the importance of segregation and integration analysis in relation to fair housing:
Residential segregation and exclusion, whether by race, ethnicity, disability, or income, is a result of numerous housing policies, practices, and procedures—both public and private—that have had enduring and pervasive negative impacts. Overt and covert housing discrimination through land use policy, shifting housing markets, and patterns of investment and disinvestment, have restricted meaningful fair housing choice and equitable access to opportunity, particularly for communities of color. Historic patterns of segregation persist in California despite the long-standing federal mandate, established by the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA), that federal agencies and federal grantees affirmatively further the purposes of the FHA. Past and present discriminatory policies and practices, including long-term disinvestment, have resulted in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and poor housing stock, limited access to opportunity, unsafe environmental conditions, underfunded schools, dilapidated infrastructure, and other disproportionately experienced problems. In addition, governmental policies have subsidized the development of segregated, high-resourced suburbs in Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-9
metropolitan areas by constructing new highway systems—often through lower income communities of color— to ensure access to job opportunities in urban centers. This physical and policy infrastructure supports patterns of discrimination and high levels of segregation that continue to persist in California and across the country. All of these conditions persist despite the over 50-year-old obligation to prohibit discrimination and affirmatively further fair housing.11
5.6.1 Race and Ethnicity
The ethnic and racial composition of a region relates to fair housing concerns such as household size, locational preferences, and economic opportunity. Historic exclusionary governmental policies, biased mortgage lending practices, and other tactics have caused racial and ethnic segregation and spatial inequities.
Within the region, the most diverse areas are in city centers, containing populations with at least 60 percent non-white residents (Figure 5-2). These cities include Stockton, Tracy, Modesto, Merced, Los Banos, and Livingston. Comparatively, the central-eastern area of the region, which is relatively less urbanized, less densely populated, and is located in or near the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, is less diverse and contains a higher percentage of white residents.
Hispanic/Latino residents comprise the largest racial/ethnic group in the region, equaling approximately 48 percent of the total population in 2021 (Table 5-4). In the last decade, the racial/ethnic diversity has somewhat increased regionally. The white population of the region comprised approximately 40 percent of the population in 2010 but decreased to approximately 32 percent in 2021.
Table 5-4 Population by Racial Group
Percent of Population
Merced County San Joaquin County Stanislaus County NSJV Race 2011 2021 2011 2021 2011 2021 2011 2021
Hispanic/Latino (of
any race)
54.4% 61.2% 38.3% 42.3% 41.3% 47.9% 42.2% 47.5%
Not Hispanic/Latino
White 32.4% 25.9% 36.5% 29.6% 47.4% 39.6% 39.7% 32.4%
Asian
American/Pacific
Islander
7.5% 7.6% 14.5% 16.7% 5.6% 6.1% 10.1% 11.5%
Other or Multiple
Races
1.7% 2.4% 3.4% 4.6% 2.5% 3.1% 2.7% 3.7%
Black/African
American
3.5% 2.7% 6.9% 6.7% 2.6% 2.8% 4.8% 4.7%
Native
American/Native
Alaskan
0.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.2% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2007-2011, 2017-2021), Table DP05.
11 HCD 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-10
The HCD AFFH Data Viewer identifies areas by racial/ethnic composition. A racial/ethnic group with a predominant majority has more than a 50 percent difference above the percentage of the population in the second most populated racial/ethnic group. Regionally, there are four predominant populations: White and Hispanic/Latino (found in all three counties), and Asian and Black or African American (found only in San Joaquin County). The south-western portion of the region and parts of northeastern San Joaquin County have moderate predominance, where most city centers have much higher predominance of Hispanic/Latino residents, compared to the predominant white population along the east (Figure 5-3).
Data gathered from the Othering and Belonging Institute (OBI) at the University of California, Berkeley, indicates that most of the eastern portion of the county is racially integrated or has low- medium segregation (Figure 5-4). Most of the northern portion of the region has high white segregation, overlapping with a high ratio of white residents in these areas. Throughout the region, there are a few areas with high people-of-color (POC) segregation 12 seen mostly in city centers like
Stockton, Lodi, and parts of Modesto.
12 Othering & Belonging Institute uses “people of color” segregation to describe segregated Black and/or Latino neighborhoods. (Source:
University of California, Berkeley, Othering & Belonging Institute, “The Roots of Structural Racism Project.” 2021. Accessed May 16, 2023. https://belonging.berkeley.edu/roots-structural-racism) Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-11
Figure 5-2 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-12
Figure 5-3 Predominant Populations (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-13
Figure 5-4 Racial Segregation and Integration (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-14
5.6.2 Persons with Disabilities
For persons with disabilities, fair housing choice and access to opportunity include access to accessible housing and housing in the most integrated setting appropriate to an individual’s needs as required under federal civil rights law, including equitably provided disability-related services that an individual needs to live in such housing. For example, persons with disabilities who are unable to use stairs or need a zero-step shower may not have housing choice if there are not sufficient housing units with these accessibility features.
13 High spatial segregation of persons with disabilities may indicate fair housing issues related to not only physical needs, but also economic disparities. According to the 2020 Annual Report on People with Disabilities in America, more than 25 percent of persons with disabilities (including physical, intellectual, and developmental; sensory; and other disability categories) live below the Census Bureau-designated poverty line, which is 14.5 percentage points higher than people without a disability.
14 Persons with disabilities may be more reliant than persons without disabilities on fixed incomes or access to public transit.
As referenced in Chapter 2, Housing Needs Assessment, approximately 197,889 residents, equal to
12.5 percent of the total population in the Northern SJV region, are living with one or more disabilities. The most common disability in the region is hearing difficulty, followed by self-care difficulty (Figure 5-5). Disabilities are most prevalent amongst the ages 35 to 64 years (40.4 percent) and senior residents aged 65 and over (39.6 percent).
Figure 5-5 Disability by Type (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
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 up.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2017-2021), Table S1810.
13 HCD, 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 14 Annual Disability Statistics Compendium, 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
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
Merced County San Joaquin County Stanislaus County
0.5%
3.8%
10.5%
0.6%
0.0%
0.7%
Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-15
In most of the Northern SJV region, 10 to 20 percent of the population have a disability. Throughout the central part of the region, there are some areas with a lower concentration of persons living with a disability (less than 10 percent of the population), as seen in Figure 5-6.
Approximately four percent of the total employed population in the region have one or more disabilities. Just under one percent of the unemployed population have one or more disabilities (Table 5-5).
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-16
Table 5-5 Employment Status by Disability Status (Northern San Joaquin Valley) Disability
Status
Merced County San Joaquin County Stanislaus County Northern San Joaquin Valley Employed
2017-2021
(Percent of
Total Employed)
Unemployed
2017-2021
(Percent of
Total
Unemployed)
Employed
2017-2021
(Percent of
Total Employed)
Unemployed
2017-2021
(Percent of
Total
Unemployed)
Employed
2017-2021
(Percent of
Total Employed)
Unemployed
2017-2021
(Percent of
Total
Unemployed)
Employed
2017-2021
(Percent of
Total Employed)
Unemployed
2017-2021
(Percent of
Total
Unemployed)
No Disability 97,220
59.6%
11,512
7.1%
293,085
64.1%
21,720
4.8%
210,936
64.3%
18,615
5.7%
601,241
63.4%
51,847
5.5%
With a Disability 6,176
3.8%
1,178
0.7%
18,051
4.0%
2,057
0.5%
11,346
3.5%
1,855
0.6%
35573
3.8%
5,090
0.5%
Total 103,396
63.4%
12,690
7.8%
311,136
68.1%
23,777
5.2%
222,282
67.8%
20,470
6.2%
636,814
67.2%
56,937
6.0%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2017-2021 Estimates.
Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-17
Figure 5-6 Percent of Population with a Disability (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-18
5.6.3 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 laws.
The Northern SJV had a total of 491,347 households in 2021. Households with children present comprised approximately 37 percent (182,601 households) of the total households in the region.
Married-couple families with children comprised the largest share of households with children (24 percent), highest in San Joaquin County (49 percent). Most single-parent households are female single-parent households (8 percent). Single-parent, female-headed households are more likely to rent than own, comprising approximately 15 percent of renter-occupied households but only five percent of owner-occupied households (Table 5-6).
Urban parts of the region have higher percentages of children residing in female-headed, single- parent households. Major cities located along Highway 99 (Stockton, Modesto, and Merced) have higher percentages of children residing in female-headed, single-parent households, with between 40 and 60 percent of children in female-headed, single-parent households in some census tracts. In contrast, the outer edges of the region have less than 20 percent of children residing in female- headed, single-parent households (Figure 5-7). However, the outer edges of the region have a higher percentage of married-couple households with children present (Figure 5-8).
Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-19
Table 5-6 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (Northern San Joaquin Valley) Household Type
Merced County San Joaquin County Stanislaus County Northern San Joaquin Valley Owner-
Occupied
(Percent of
Total Owner-
Occupied)
Renter-
Occupied
(Percent of
Total Renter-
Occupied
Owner-
Occupied
(Percent of
Total Owner-
Occupied)
Renter-
Occupied
(Percent of
Total Renter-
Occupied
Owner-
Occupied
(Percent of
Total Owner-
Occupied)
Renter-
Occupied
(Percent of
Total Renter-
Occupied
Owner-
Occupied
(Percent of
Total
Owner-
Occupied)
Renter-
Occupied
(Percent of
Total Renter-
Occupied)
Married Couple Family,
with Children Present
9,542
22.6%
8,617
21.8%
36,488
26.3%
22,124
23.1%
26,074
25.0%
15,437
21.8%
72,104
25.3%
46,178
22.4%
Single-Parent, Male
Householder, no Spouse
Present, with children
1,260
3.0%
1,849
4.7%
8,247
5.9%
5,544
5.8%
2,094
2.0%
3,929
5.5%
11,601
4.1%
11,322
5.5%
Single Parent, Female
Householder, No Spouse
Present, with children
1,544
3.7%
7,115
18.0%
5,258
3.8%
13,729
14.3%
3,234
3.1%
10,516
14.8%
10,036
3.5%
31,360
15.2%
Total Households with
Children Present
12,346
29.3%
17,581
44.5%
49,993
36.0%
41,397
43.2%
31,402
30.1%
29,882
42.2%
93,741
32.9%
88,860
43.1%
Total Households 42,146 39,472 138,735 95,927 104,220 70,847 285,101 206,246 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25115
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-20
Figure 5-7 Female-Headed Households with Children Present, No Spouse/Partner Present (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-21
Figure 5-8 Married-Couple Households with Children Present (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-22
5.6.4 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 low- income households must have an actual 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 low- or moderate-income is based on HUD income definitions of up to 80 percent of the area median income (AMI). Data for this analysis are from the HUD Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data based on the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (most recent available data). 15 The Northern SJV region has a median household income of $68,368, as Table 5-7 displays. Median household income in the region is highest in rural areas outside of major cities such as Tracy, Modesto, and Merced (Figure 5-9). In most other parts of the region, the median household income is lower than the 2021 state median income of $84,097. Census tracts in urban areas of the region, including the cities of Merced, Modesto, and Stockton, have some of the lowest household median incomes in the region (less than $30,000 per year).
LMI populations are prevalent throughout the region, especially in western parts of Merced and Stanislaus County, and in major city centers (Figure 5-10). Most of the larger cities within the region have census tracts that contain the highest percentage of LMI populations in the region. Rural areas in San Joaquin County have the lowest percentage of LMI populations. Geographically, LMI populations overlap with census tracts with greater racial diversity (Figure 5-2) and census tracts that are predominantly Hispanic/Latino (Figure 5-3).
Table 5-7 Median Income by Household Type
Merced
County
San Joaquin
County
Stanislaus
County
Northern San
Joaquin Valley California
All Family Households $58,861 $74,962 $68,368 $68,368 $84,097 Families* $64,175 $82,719 $75,348 $75,348 $95,971 Married-Couple Families $77,637 $100,279 $90,553 $90,553 $115,013 Nonfamily Households $36,048 $42,546 $41,637 $41,637 $54,019 *The U.S. Census defines “family” as a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together; all such people (including related subfamily members) are considered as members of one family.
Source: ACS 5 Year, 2017-2021, S1901
15 HUD Exchange 2022: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/acs-low-mod-summary-data/ Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-23
Figure 5-9 Median Household Income (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-24
Figure 5-10 Percent of Low- to Moderate-Income (LMI) Population (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-25
5.6.5 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty To identify racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (known as R/ECAPs), 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. HUD developed thresholds based on racial and ethnic concentration and income level. The threshold for racial and ethnic concentration is a non-white population of 50 percent or more in metropolitan or micropolitan areas. The income threshold is based on areas of “extreme poverty,” where 40 percent or more of households earn incomes at or below the federal poverty line, or where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate in the metropolitan area, whichever is less. An area that meets both thresholds for racial or ethnic concentration and “extreme poverty” is considered a R/ECAP.
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. 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 (Figure 5-12). These areas overlap with census tracts that are predominantly Hispanic/Latino and high poverty (Figure 5-3).
5.6.6 Poverty and Segregation
Poverty rates are high in more urban areas of the region (Figure 5-11). Rates are highest (over 40 percent of population with an income below the poverty level) in Stockton, Modesto, and Merced.
Areas of the region that have more than 30 percent of the population living below the poverty line within the region are Lodi, Stockton, Modesto, Turlock, Merced, Planada, and just north of Los Banos. Parts of the region with the lowest poverty rates are along the western and eastern edge of San Joaquin and Stanislaus, with less than 10 percent of the population living below the poverty line. Areas in the region with a high percentage of residents living below the poverty line generally overlap with areas that are predominantly Hispanic/Latino (Figure 5-3).
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-26
Figure 5-11 Poverty Status (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-27
Figure 5-12 Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-28
5.6.7 Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are defined as affluent, white communities.16 According to a policy paper published by HUD, white residents are the most racially segregated group in the United States and typically more affluent than majority non-white communities. In addition to having a higher median income, areas of affluence experience less overcrowding, less housing cost burden on renters, and are generally less susceptible to displacement compared to LMI areas.
HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer identifies RCAAs as census tracts that have a white population that is 1.25 times higher than the Council of Governments region and a household median income 1.5 times higher than the AMI. RCAAs are located throughout the region and are seen in areas surrounding major cities in San Joaquin County, in rural, scarcely populated areas in Stanislaus County, and near major cities in Merced County (Figure 5-13). Per the definition, RCAAs in the Northern SJV region are predominantly white (Figure 5-3) and primarily have household median incomes much greater than the regional average of $68,368 (Figure 5-9).
16 Goatz, Damanio and Williams, 2019. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol21num1/ch4.pdf Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-29
Figure 5-13 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-30
5.7 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Land use policies and urban planning impact the ability of residents to access neighborhoods of opportunity, with high-performing schools, greater availability of jobs that afford entry to the middle class, and convenient access to transit and services. The limits on housing choice and access experienced by people within protected classes, such as race, sexual orientation, or disability, have far-reaching impacts on access to job opportunity, quality education, and mental and physical health.17 This section analyzes the following place-based characteristics linked to opportunity indicators: quality education, employment, transportation, and healthy environment. The primary objective is to understand the disparity between communities in terms of access to real and potential economic benefits and quality of life.
5.7.1 Transit Access and Walkability
Reliable public transit access and active transportation options such as walking, and biking are imperative for low-income residents and/or persons with disabilities to connect to employment opportunities. Lack of transportation options can impede fair housing choice and continue to reinforce barriers for low-income communities in accessing housing and employment opportunities.
Commuting patterns within the region are characterized by substantial intercity and intercounty travel. Major cities within the region like Stockton, Modesto, and Merced contain a higher percentage of the region’s jobs and population, and therefore are a major destination and point of origin for commuters. The average commute time for Northern SJV residents is 32.1 minutes, which is more than the state average of 29.5 minutes.18 Out of the counties within the Northern SJV region, San Joaquin County residents have the highest average commute time of 35.2 minutes, with the highest percentage of commuters traveling 60 or more minutes (22 percent). This could be due to the county’s proximity to job centers in the San Jose area and cheaper land prices further from San Jose.
The combined average AllTransit performance score for the Northern SJV is 3; likely due to a low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible by transit. 19 A little over one percent
of commuters use transit.
Urban areas in the central part of the region, along Highway 99, have the greatest access to transit, particularly Stockton, Modesto, and Merced. Smaller cities, such as Lodi, Tracy, Turlock, and Atwater have less access to transit compared to larger cities in the region.
Each county in the region has different transit services. A more detailed breakdown of transit services for Merced County jurisdictions is provided in each jurisdiction’s respective AFFH chapter.
5.7.2 Access to Quality Education
Educational outcomes are measured through the educational opportunity index, which measures the percentage of fourth-grade students testing proficient in reading and math within three miles of a census block group. Scores range from 0-1, with 1 being the most positive educational outcome, and 0 being the least positive educational outcome.
17 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 18 U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table S0801 19 AllTransit.Org, 2021. https://alltransit.cnt.org/
Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-31
Economics literature has consistently found about a 10 percent increase in wages/salary with each additional year of education.20 Therefore, educational attainment is directly linked to income and housing opportunities. To assess educational opportunities by geography, this analysis uses TCAC education domain scores, which incorporate a variety of indicators including math and reading proficiency scores, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates at the census tract level.
Educational outcomes vary across the Northern SJV region. Areas in the north, east central, and west central edges of the region have more positive education outcomes compared to the rest of the region (Figure 5-14). The least positive education outcomes are found in city centers of urbanized jurisdictions like Stockton, Tracy, Modesto, and Los Banos. Out of the counties, Merced County has the most census tracts that have less positive education outcomes.
According to Kidsdata.org, a data compilation program of the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health, high school graduation rates in the Northern SJV are highest among Filipino students (95.6 percent), Asian American students (93.0 percent), Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander students (89.2 percent), and white students (88.4 percent). Comparatively, Black/African American students (77.5 percent) and American Indian/Alaska Native students (76.8 percent) have lower graduation rates (Table 5-8).
Table 5-8 High School Graduation Rates
Merced
County
San Joaquin
County
Stanislaus
County
Northern San
Joaquin Valley
African American/Black 83.1% 74.5% 74.9% 77.5%
American Indian/Alaska Native 80.8% 70.9% 78.8% 76.8%
Asian 96.1% 89.9% 93.1% 93.0%
Filipino 100.0% 91.7% 95.0% 95.6%
Hispanic/Latino 90.0% 78.6% 83.5% 84.0%
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander - 86.1% 92.2% 89.2%
White 91.6% 85.9% 87.7% 88.4%
Multiracial 91.4% 76.2% 82.9% 83.5%
Source: Kidsdata.org 2021
20 Annual Disability Statistics Compendium, 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-32
Figure 5-14 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-33
5.7.3 Economic Outcomes
Housing opportunities are directly related to economic opportunities. Access to high-quality employment close to desired and affordable housing results in more housing opportunities and shorter commute times. The analysis for economic opportunities uses TCAC opportunity maps, employment participation data from the ACS, and the HUD Jobs Proximity Index which assesses accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level. The TCAC economic opportunity maps evaluate several indicators and score each census tract, a higher economic index score reflecting more positive economic outcomes. Scores are based on the following indicators:
Poverty (the percent of the population with an income above 200 percent of the federal poverty line)
Adult education (the percent of adults with a bachelor’s degree or above) Employment (the percent of adults between age 20-64 who are employed in the civilian labor force or armed forces)
Job proximity (the number of jobs filled with less than a bachelor’s degree that fall within a determined radius)
Median home values (the value of owner-occupied units) Throughout the Northern SJV region, more positive economic scores are in areas surrounding major cities in primarily agriculture zones. Areas with a less positive economic outcome are found within major cities and away from agriculture, as seen in Figure 5-16. This could be attributed to the key role and value that agriculture plays throughout the region.
The Northern SJV region has a labor force participation rate of 60.3 percent for persons 16 years and over.
21 Estimates from the California Employment Development Department show that the average salary in the Northern SJV region in 2021 was $55,958. Occupations with the highest average salaries in the region are management occupations, healthcare practitioners and technical occupations, and legal occupations, all with an average salary of over $100,000 (Table 5-9).
Occupations with the lowest salaries include healthcare support occupations, food preparation and serving related occupations, and farming, fishing, and forestry occupations, all with average salaries under $37,000. A little less than half of the workforce in the region are employed in industries with lower-than-average salaries. Figure 5-15 shows the percentage of the employed population in occupations with salaries less than the average annual wage of $55,958.
21 U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table DP03 Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-34
Figure 5-15 Population Employed by Industry
Access to employment opportunities has a significant impact on the type and size of housing a household can afford. HUD’s Jobs Proximity Index utilizes origin-destination employment statistics to examine the distance from a given neighborhood to all job locations in the region and assess the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level. Because the size of employment centers and the supply of labor differ across the region, the distance from any single job location is positively weighted by the size of employment (job opportunities) at that location and inversely weighted by the labor supply (competition) to that location. 22 Table 5-9 Mean Salary by Occupation
Occupation
Merced County
Average Salary/
Percent of
Population
San Joaquin
County
Average Salary/
Percent of
Population
Stanislaus County
Average Salary/
Percent of
Population
Northern San
Joaquin Valley
Average Salary/
Percent of
Population
Management Occupations $109,952
5.3%
$115,955
4.4%
$113,947
4.6%
$113,285
4.8%
Healthcare Practitioners and
Technical Occupations
$98,657
7.0%
$114,974
3.9%
$114,518
5.3%
$109,383
5.9%
Legal Occupations $100,874
0.5%
$113,928
0.3%
$95,467
0.4%
$103,423
0.4%
22HUD, 2020. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf
15.5%
11.0%
8.8%
7.8%
6.3%
5.9%
3.8%
2.5% 1.4%
Percent of Population
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
Office and Administrative Support Occupations
Sales and Related Occupations
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations
Production Occupations
Healthcare Support Occupations
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations Personal Care and Service Occupations
Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-35
Occupation
Merced County
Average Salary/
Percent of
Population
San Joaquin
County
Average Salary/
Percent of
Population
Stanislaus County
Average Salary/
Percent of
Population
Northern San
Joaquin Valley
Average Salary/
Percent of
Population
Architecture and Engineering
Occupations
$89,769
0.7%
$89,624
0.5%
$93,177
0.6%
$90,857
0.6%
Computer and Mathematical
Occupations
$80,476
1.1%
$88,847
0.8%
$86,464
0.8%
$85,262
0.9%
Business and Financial Operations
Occupations
$70,438
3.5%
$76,977
3.4%
$77,328
3.6%
$74,914
3.5%
Life, Physical, and Social Science
Occupations
$65,868
0.9%
$75,016
1.2%
$80,610
0.9%
$73,831
0.9%
Educational Instruction and Library
Occupations
$72,996
6.8%
$70,561
10.8%
$71,266
6.3%
$71,608
7.1%
Protective Service Occupations $60,584
1.7%
$66,842
2.2%
$65,339
2.8%
$64,255
2.3%
Community and Social Service
Occupations
$56,389
2.4%
$66,780
2.4%
$61,030
1.6%
$61,400
2.0%
Construction and Extraction
Occupations
$58,103
4.3%
$64,087
3.6%
$61,260
4.1%
$61,150
4.1%
Installation, Maintenance, and
Repair Occupations
$57,790
4.0%
$59,134
3.8%
$57,718
3.7%
$58,214
3.8%
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports,
and Media Occupations
$56,555
0.6%
$57,529
0.5%
$55,167
0.7%
$56,417
0.7%
Production Occupations $42,530
6.5%
$44,049
7.7%
$65,339
5.7%
$50,639
6.3%
Office and Administrative Support
Occupations
$45,320
11.1%
$48,484
10.1%
$47,027
11.2%
$46,944
11.0%
Transportation and Material
Moving Occupations
$42,789
11.0%
$46,087
9.8%
$42,715
20.3%
$43,864
15.5%
Sales and Related Occupations $40,093
9.9%
$45,176
9.1%
$44,134
8.1%
$43,134
8.8%
Building and Grounds Cleaning and
Maintenance Occupations
$39,924
2.5%
$41,171
2.5%
$41,246
2.6%
$40,780
2.5%
Personal Care and Service
Occupations
$38,879
1.7%
$38,325
1.2%
$37,845
1.3%
$38,350
1.4%
Healthcare Support Occupations $34,583
6.4%
$38,900
6.4%
$37,493
5.5%
$36,992
3.8%
Food Preparation and Serving
Related Occupations
$35,180
8.5%
$35,649
7.6%
$35,222
7.3%
$35,350
7.8%
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry
Occupations
$33,050
3.8%
$34,670
8.1%
$33,091
2.7%
$33,604
3.8%
All Occupations $52,958 $57,245 $57,672 $55,958
Source: California Employment Development Department, Occupational Wage data, 2022 Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-36
Figure 5-16 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Economic Outcomes (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-37
5.7.4 Healthy and Safe Housing Environment
Healthy Environment in AFFH addresses disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods by protected class groups. An assessment of environmentally healthy neighborhoods can include air and water quality, safety, environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions. Recent California laws (Assembly Bill (AB) 1550, Senate Bill (SB) 535 and SB 1000) emphasize the importance of environmental justice as a fair housing issue. HUD defines environmental justice as ensuring that people have equal access to safe and healthy housing. HUD requires all entitlement jurisdictions to conduct reviews under the National Environmental Protection Act to determine if a proposed project creates adverse impacts due to environmental conditions. It furthers the requirement that human health deserves equal protection for all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. Under Executive Order 12898, federally assisted projects may also target funding to communities that have disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts on minority and low-income populations due to environmental conditions. 23 The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed CalEnviroScreen, a mapping tool that uses spatial data collected by various regulatory agencies (e.g., air quality indicators from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, monitored chemical releases into the air or water table from Environmental Protection Agency, HUD socio-economic indicators).
The dataset uses a methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by exposures to pollution, environmental effects of existing pollutants in communities, among other indicators of sensitive populations or socioeconomic factors. Residents in census tracts with high CalEnviroScreen scores as compared to other California census tracts (shown as percentiles) are disproportionately burdened by pollution and are more vulnerable to related effects.
The CalEnviroScreen map for the Northern SJV region identifies the degree to which communities are considered burdened by pollution. CalEnviroScreen identified higher pollution burden in the northern end of the region, in most of San Joaquin County (Figure 5-17). A higher pollution burden can be seen in and around the cities of Lodi, Stockton, Tracy, Modesto, Turlock, and Merced.
Pollution burden is higher in San Joaquin County due to ozone, particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, pesticide use, and groundwater threats. Pollution burden caused by drinking water contaminants and solid waste sites are high throughout the region. Similar to the CalEnviroScreen map, the TCAC opportunity map indicates environmental outcomes in the southern portion of the region are generally more positive and the environmental outcomes in the northern portion of the region are less positive (Figure 5-18). This difference could be due to the higher number of highways throughout San Joaquin County compared to the rest of the region.
Most of the southern Northern SJV region is considered a disadvantaged community under SB 535.
Disadvantaged communities are low-income areas that are disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards, and are seen predominantly in Merced County, the eastern portion of Stanislaus County, and central San Joaquin County (Figure 5-19). Disadvantaged communities include census tracts receiving the highest 25 percent of overall scores in CalEnviroScreen. SB 535 disadvantaged communities in the region include both rural and urban areas. Most major cities within the region (Lodi, Stockton, Tracy, Modesto, Turlock, Merced, and Los Banos) contain SB 535 disadvantaged communities. There are no SB 535 disadvantaged communities in the northeastern portion of the region.
23 HUD, 2021. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/environmental-justice/ Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-38
Figure 5-17 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-39
Figure 5-18 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Environmental Outcomes (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-40
Figure 5-19 SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-41
5.8 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 data on housing cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing conditions (collectively known as “housing problems”); homelessness; and displacement risk. Information for this section relies on the HUD CHAS data.
5.8.1 Housing Problems
According to federal law, “housing problems” refers to any of four housing issues: cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing conditions.
Approximately 41 percent of total households in the Northern SJV region experienced housing problems and 23 percent of households experienced severe housing problems from 2015 to 2019 (Table 48).
Table 5-10 Regional Housing Problems
Merced County San Joaquin County Stanislaus County Northern SJV Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter Owner Renter
Housing Problems
Household has at
least 1 of 4 Housing
Problems
11,785 19,830 39,445 55,780 30,760 39,360 81,990 114,970 31,615
40%
95,225
42%
70,120
40%
196,960
41%
Household has none
of 4 Housing
Problems OR cost
burden not available
no other problems
30,010 18,385 89,975 43,370 69,815 33,960 189,800 95,715 48,395
60%
133,345
58%
103,775
60%
285,515
59%
Total 80,010 228,565 173,900 482,475
Severe Housing Problems
Household has at
least 1 of 4 severe
housing problems
5,980 12,485 20,270 34,680 14,700 24,700 40,950 71,865
18,465
23%
54,950
24%
39,400
23%
112,815
23%
Household has none
of 4 Housing
Problems OR cost
burden not available
no other problems
35,815 25,725 109,150 64,465 85,875 48,620 230,840 138,810 61,540
77%
173,615
76%
134,495
77%
369,650
77%
Total 80,010 228,565 173,900 482,475
Source: CHAS Data 2015-2019
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-42
Substandard Housing Conditions
HUD considers housing units to be “standard units” if they comply with local building codes.
According to 2017-2021 ACS estimates 99.6 percent of occupied housing units within the NSJV region had complete plumbing facilities and 99.2 percent of units had complete kitchen facilities.
Approximately 63.1 percent of the region’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.
Many federal and state programs use the age of housing as a factor to determine a community’s housing rehabilitation needs. Housing age can be an important indicator of housing condition in a community. Like any other tangible asset, housing is subject to gradual physical or technological deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly maintained, housing can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighboring property values, and eventually impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. Typically, housing over 30 years old is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include replacing plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs.
Housing units built before 1978 may have health risks such as lead-based paint and asbestos.
Housing issues prompted by disrepair such as mold may elevate health conditions such as asthma.
Spatial data on housing conditions is not available, but more information can be found in Chapter 2, Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
Housing Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is defined as the proportion of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs. Households that spend at least 30 percent of their total gross income on housing costs (rent, mortgage, utilities, and other housing-related costs) are considered “cost burdened,” and households spending over 50 percent on housing costs are considered “severely cost burdened.” The higher the housing cost burden, the more likely residents are to live in overcrowded and substandard conditions and are less likely to afford to relocate. Low-income households and persons in protected classes disproportionately experience severe housing problems.
Cost burden by homeowners and renters is moderate throughout the Northern SJV region.
Approximately 56 percent of owner households are cost burdened, and 44 percent of renter households are cost burdened
24. Cost burden by homeowners is lowest in and around the major cities throughout the region, as seen in Figure 5-20. In all other parts of the region, most census tracts fall within the 20 and 40 percent range of homeowners who are cost burdened. This is similar for renter households, where between 20 and 40 percent of households are cost burdened throughout most of the region (Figure 5-21). Some of the highest rates of overpayment by renters are in more urban areas, including the cities of Stockton, Modesto, Merced, and Los Banos where between 60 and 80 percent of renters are cost burdened.
24 2015-2019 CHAS Data. https://www.huduser.gov/PORTAL/datasets/cp.html Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-43
Figure 5-20 Overpayment by Home Owners (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-44
Figure 5-21 Overpayment by Renters (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-45
Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as a housing unit with more than one person residing per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen) while severe overcrowding refers to more than 1.5 persons residing per room. Overcrowding is often an issue for large families, where there are five or more people per household. Generally, large households have special housing needs due to lower per capita income and the need for housing with three or more bedrooms.
Some large households may not be able to accommodate high-cost burdens for housing and accept housing with too few rooms. Potential fair housing issues emerge if non-traditional households are discouraged or denied housing due to a perception of overcrowding. Household overcrowding reflects various living situations, including housing units that are inadequately sized to meet a household’s needs; the necessity or desire to have extended family members reside in an existing household; or unrelated individuals or families that share a single housing unit.
Not only is overcrowding a potential fair housing concern, but it can also potentially strain electrical systems in older housing that have not been updated or contribute to a perceived shortage of parking. As a result, some property owners/managers may be more hesitant to rent to large households, thus making access to adequately sized housing even more difficult. According to local fair housing service providers and property managers, addressing the issue of large households is complex as there are no set guidelines for determining the maximum capacity for a unit. Fair housing issues may arise from policies aimed to limit overcrowding that have a disparate impact on specific racial or ethnic groups with different preferences for housing size and/or ability to pay according to the household size standards identified.
The Northern SJV region has 192,176 large households, approximately 39 percent of total households, as shown in Table 5-11.
Additionally, the Northern SJV region has a greater portion of large households compared to the state average. Often, large households face significant difficulty in locating adequately sized, affordable housing due to the limited supply of appropriately sized homes. A higher percentage of renter households (21 percent) were considered large households compared to owner households (19 percent).
Overcrowded housing is seen throughout the region, with higher concentrations in and around major cities (Figure 5-22). The cities of Lodi, Stockton, and Modesto all have census tracts where over 20 percent of households were experiencing overcrowding. However, in most of the region less than 5 to 10 percent of households experience overcrowding.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-46
Table 5-11 Large Households
Number of Households (Percent of Households)
Merced
County
San Joaquin
County
Stanislaus
County
Northern San
Joaquin Valley California
Total Occupied Housing Units 81,618 234,662 175,067 491,347 13,217,586 Total Large Households (5 or
More Persons)
17,710
21.7%
47,037
20.0%
31,341
17.9%
96,088
19.6%
1,830,468
13.8%
5-Person Household 10,117
12.4%
26,024
11.1%
17,329
9.9%
53,470
10.9%
1,036,772
7.8%
6-Person Household 4,136
5.1%
11,278
4.8%
8,309
4.7%
23,723
4.8%
445,683
3.4%
7-or-More Person Household 3,457
4.2%
9,735
4.1%
5,703
3.3%
18,895
3.8%
348,013
2.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 17-21 (5-year Estimates), Table B25009 Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-47
Figure 5-22 Overcrowded Households (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-48
5.8.2 Persons Experiencing Homelessness
For the Northern SJV region, the three counties’ 2022 point-in-time (PIT) counts showed a combined 5,031 persons experiencing homelessness.25 This represents no net change since 2019. There was an increase of 248 homeless individuals in Merced County and a decrease of 310 homeless individuals in San Joaquin County due to prevention efforts such as the expansion of emergency shelters in major cities. In 2022, the total number of homeless individuals in each county were 855 in Merced County, 1,857 in Stanislaus County, and 2,319 in San Joaquin County – compared to 607 in Merced County, 1,795 in Stanislaus County, and 2,629 in San Joaquin County in 2019.
State law (Section 65583(a)(7)) requires municipalities to address the special needs of persons experiencing homelessness within their boundaries. “Homelessness,” as defined by HUD, describes the condition of an individual, who is not imprisoned or otherwise detained, who:
Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and Has a primary nighttime residence that is:
A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.
Nearly half (46 percent) of persons experiencing homelessness in the Northern SJV region were located in San Joaquin County, 37 percent were located in Stanislaus County, and 17 percent were located in Merced County. Across the region, homelessness is consistently 0.3 percent of the total population, meaning there are no outliers.
The combined 2022 PIT found that most persons experiencing homelessness identified as white (67 percent), 17 percent identified as Black/African American, and 4 percent identified Native American/Alaskan Native. Approximately 32 percent of persons identified experiencing homelessness in the region were Hispanic/Latino. Of the homeless residents surveyed in the region, 32 percent identified mental disability as a barrier to housing, 26 percent identified substance use as a barrier to housing, and 10 percent identified as victims of domestic violence.
5.8.3 Displacement
Displacement, as defined by HCD, is used to describe any involuntary household move caused by landlord action or market changes. Shifts in neighborhood composition are often framed and perpetuated by established patterns of racial inequity and segregation. Movement of people, public policies, and investments, such as capital improvements and planned transit stops, and flows of private capital can lead to displacement. Displacement is fueled by a combination of rising housing costs, rising income inequality, stagnant wages, and insufficient market-rate housing production.
25 Stanislaus County. 2022. Point in Time. https://www.stancounty.com/newsfeed/pdf/20220613-resch-pit.pdf Merced County. 2022. Point in Time.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6149207801c5c134f32b280c/t/625605199113fa3f4be48dbe/1649875108255/Merced+County+C oC+2022+Homeless+Count+and+Survey+Report+
San Joaquin County. 2022. Point in Time. http://www.sanjoaquincoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/PIT-Count-Report-2022-FINAL.pdf Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-49
Decades of disinvestment in low-income communities, coupled with investor speculation, can result in a rent gap or a disparity between current rental income of the land and potentially achievable rental income if the property is converted to its most profitable use. These processes can disproportionally impact people of color, as well as lower income households, persons with disabilities, large households, and persons at-risk or experiencing homelessness. 26 One measure of displacement risk is whether a community is deemed “sensitive.” The UDP designates communities as sensitive if the share of very low-income residents is greater than 20 percent and have any of the two following characteristics: the share of renters is above 40 percent, the share of people of color is above 50 percent, the share of very low-income households that are severely rent burdened is above the county median, the percent change in rent is above the county median for rent increases.
The UDP has identified several census tracts in the Northern SJV region that are considered at risk of displacement, including in the cities of Lodi, Stockton, Modesto, Turlock, Atwater, and Merced (Figure 5-23). These census tracts are predominantly Hispanic/Latino (Figure 5-3) with a higher percentage of LMI residents (Figure 5-10
). Stanislaus County is the only county within the region that has census tracts with one- or two-income groups at risk of displacement. This means that within these census tracts there are one- or two-income groups (typically low- or extremely low- income) that have a high or elevated risk of being displaced.
26 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-50
Figure 5-23 Displacement Risk (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-51
5.9 Local Area Knowledge
5.9.1 Historic Patterns of Segregation
Patterns of racial segregation are the byproduct of local and federal policies, private housing discrimination, and community prejudice. To understand present challenges to fair housing, it is necessary to review the history of actions that have led to regional patterns of segregation.
The first inhabitants in the San Joaquin Valley were the Yokut-speaking tribes, composed of approximately 50 groups who spoke various dialects. Mexican ranchers and American settlers gained prominence in the 1800s and raised animals. After the U.S. annexed California in 1848, the federal government sold vast tracts of land to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company as well as large-scale timber, ranching, and farming interests, ignoring and overriding the property rights of Mexican and Indigenous landholders. Many Native American tribes were forced to give up their land and live on reservations.
27 When gold was discovered in 1948, thousands of prospectors came to the San Joaquin Valley and with them, they brought diseases that quickly decimated the Native American population.
28 Chinese and Japanese immigrants, originally brought to California by the Gold Rush and later to work on railroads, began to work as farm laborers throughout the San Joaquin Valley. However, resentment towards Chinese and Japanese immigrants, especially by jobless white residents, led to farms recruiting Black/African Americans from the southern U.S. to replace them as farm laborers.
Many Black/African Americans began by working in the fields and vineyards and eventually transitioned from farm labor to living in the cities and towns. 29 The Central Pacific Railroad was built in Merced County in 1872, connecting the region to northern and southern parts of the state. At the time, Merced County was a primarily agricultural region, particularly for farming wheat and rising cattle. The construction of reservoirs throughout the county accelerated the economic success of the region as major producer of agricultural goods.30 The construction of Highway 99 in the early 20th Century further connected Merced County to other areas of the state. These linkages to the rest of the state brought significant growth to Merced County and cities along the railroad and Highway 99, as they opened opportunities for the transportation of goods and people.
In the 1930s, nearly half a million people migrated to Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley from across the United States during what was known as the “Dust Bowl.” Many of these people moved to California in hopes of working in the agricultural industry, but were forced to take temporary and transient work, leaving them with little choice but to form makeshift camps near roadsides and ditches, without access to housing, clean water, and sanitation. These conditions reinforced existing desires by the white population, generally, for economic and racial segregation, leaving migrant farmworkers without access to medical treatment and education. When World War II created a need for manufacturing labor, many of the white “Dust Bowl” workers relocated to other cities in California, such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, leaving a gap in farm
27 PolicyLink. Facing History, Uprooting Inequality: A Path to Housing Justice in California. https://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/pl_report_calif-housing_101420a.pdf 28 Tule River Indian Tribe of California. 2018. Tule River History. https://tulerivertribe-nsn.gov/history/ 29 Michael Eissinger. 2009. The Transplantation Of African Americans And Cotton Culture To California’s Rural San Joaquin Valley During The Nineteenth And Twentieth Centuries.
https://meissinger.com/uploads/3/4/9/1/34919185/transplantation_of_african_americans_and_cotton_culture_to_californias_rural_san _joaquin_valley.pdf
30 2020. Winton Community Plan Draft EIR. https://www.countyofmerced.com/DocumentCenter/View/26171/44---Cultural-Resources Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-52
labor.31 Japanese, Punjabi, and Filipino people, as well as Black/African Americans from cotton regions, filled the void. Japanese residents, however, were forcibly relocated to internment camps from 1942 to 1946.32
In 1942, the federal government initiated the Bracero program, which enabled growers to replenish their labor supply with workers imported from Mexico. While the Bracero program ended in 1964, growers continue to rely on Mexican nationals to work California’s lucrative “factories in the fields.” Migrants today confront multiple social, environmental, and access issues, including affordable, safe, and sanitary housing.33
Increasingly after the first World War, to circumvent the US Supreme Court ban on outright racial zoning, local governments implemented other forms of exclusionary zoning that avoided direct mention of race but kept low-income people of color out by marshalling land use regulations against them. Through residential zoning that mandates larger parcel sizes for single-family homes, typically unaffordable to people of color, wealthier households established and maintained mostly white neighborhoods throughout California. The federal government subsidized white homeownership and wealth-building and excluded people of color.
34 Throughout the state, but particularly concentrated in inland areas, cities have used their annexation power to reinforce patterns of racial exclusion and segregation. Since the 1960s, as cities expanded and selectively annexed land, some cities deliberately bypassed and grew around communities of color in unincorporated neighborhoods, the very places people of color were relegated to by restrictive covenants. This selective annexation process has left hundreds of disadvantaged unincorporated places, disproportionately of color, without the most basic elements of a healthy, safe community, such as utilities, sanitation, safe drinking water, and other critical community services. Restrictive covenants, exclusion, and racial violence pushed Black/African American and low-income people of color to settle outside of towns. In places throughout the San Joaquin Valley and on the fringes of cities such as Fresno, Bakersfield, Stockton, Tulare, and Modesto, such communities of color were left unincorporated and without access to incorporated areas’ tax revenues or infrastructure.
35 Exclusionary post-war development started moving further from city centers, and within time, these communities often created their own civic and utility districts, which redistributed investment away from cities, in a movement known as “White Flight.” Across the United States, redlined and marginalized communities faced a higher propensity for environmental hazards that affects current populations. Residents of historically redlined neighborhoods located in cities with oil and gas production have disproportionately high exposure to oil and gas wells, compared to higher graded neighborhoods. Exposure disparities have implications for community environmental health, as the presence of active and abandoned (i.e., postproduction) wells have been shown to contribute to ongoing air pollution.
31 Christy Gavin, California State University, Bakersfield. California Odyssey: Dust bowl migration archives. https://www.csub.edu/library/_files/DB_files/OkieHealth.pdf 32 History.com. Japanese Internment. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/japanese-american-relocation 33 Christy Gavin, California State University, Bakersfield. California Odyssey: Dust bowl migration archives. https://www.csub.edu/library/_files/DB_files/OkieHealth.pdf 34 National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and National Historic Landmarks Program, Civil Rights in America: Racial Discrimination in Housing, March 2021.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalhistoriclandmarks/upload/Civil_Rights_Housing_NHL_Theme_Study_revisedfinal.pdf 35 PolicyLink. Facing History, Uprooting Inequality: A Path to Housing Justice in California. https://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/pl_report_calif-housing_101420a.pdf Regional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Analysis
2024-2032 Housing Element 5-53
The agricultural industry continues to play a large role in the economy and development patterns throughout the Northern SJV region. Incorporation and annexation have continued to influence disparity issues in the region, where incorporated municipalities tend to have more control over land use, decision-making, infrastructure budgeting, and the ability to address environmental concerns.
5.10 Subsidized Housing
Subsidized housing consists of affordable rental units that are subsidized by federal and State agencies but are owned by private owners. Subsidies including HUD, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the California Housing Finance Agency, HCD, and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program administered by TCAC. The region has a range of publicly assisted rental housing affordable to lower and moderate-income households. The use of housing choice vouchers is more common in the larger cities within the region, with a higher concentration of households using housing choice vouchers in Merced, Modesto, and Stockton (Figure 5-24).
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
5-54
Figure 5-24 Housing Choice Vouchers (Northern San Joaquin Valley)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Appendix A1
Survey Results Report
Survey Results Report
2024-2032 Housing Element A-1
Community Survey Results
The County conducted a community survey to inform the 6th Cycle Housing Element update. This summary memorandum presents the results and key findings from the survey responses.
Survey Marketing Summary
A variety of outreach efforts were conducted to encourage survey participation. The survey was also made available during various community outreach events. Below are some of the outreach efforts used to bring the survey to the community:
Merced County Multijurisdictional Housing Element Website (https://mercedmjhe.com/) Merced County website (https://www.countyofmerced.com/2374/Planning) Merced County social media accounts including Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram Methodology
The survey questions were developed by the consultant team with input from Merced County Association of Governments and participating jurisdiction staff. The survey was released to the public online on March 27, 2023, and remained open until December 22, 2023. A total of 186 people responded to the survey.
Survey Format
The survey consisted of 16 questions and used different formats for questions: checkbox, ranking, and open-ended questions. The checkbox questions asked respondents to indicate their preference for answer options. The ranking questions asked respondents to rank answer options from most to least important. The survey was made available in both English and Spanish.
Survey Results
The survey was presented in electronic form (online), and it should be noted that responses received may not represent the entire population being queried. Since only a portion of the county population responded, results do not represent the views or preferences of the entire County or jurisdictions within. However, the survey results can provide a general sense of residents’ priorities and visions for the county of the topic areas presented. The survey received 172 responses in English and 14 responses in Spanish. The following provides a summary of survey responses and includes responses submitted in both English and Spanish.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
A-2
Question 1 Do you live, work, own a business or property, or go to school in one of the following jurisdictions? (Check all that apply) Question 1 asked respondents in which jurisdictions they live, work, attend school, or own businesses or property. The results are listed below:
Table 1 Responses to Question 1
JurisdicƟon Count Percent of Total Responses
Atwater 19 10%
Dos Palos 13 7%
GusƟne 3 2%
Livingston 4 2%
Los Banos 12 6%
Merced (city) 135 73%
Merced County 62 33%
Other 5 3%
Based on a total of 186 responses, most survey participants live, work, attend school, or own businesses or property in Merced (73 percent of all participants), followed by unincorporated areas of Merced County (33 percent), with the remaining participants responding that they live, work, attend school, or own businesses or property in other cities throughout Merced County. Custom responses are listed in Table 2 below:
Table 2 Custom responses to Question 1
Winton
Hilmar
Hilmar
Winton
Winton
Question 2 Do you represent a group, organization, or business? For example: community group, business organization, service provider for a special needs population, tenants’ rights group, or housing developer?
Question 2 asked respondents if they represent a local group, organization, or business. The results are listed below:
Table 3 Reponses to Question 2
Response Count Percent
Yes (provide the name of organizaƟon or business) 19 10% No 167 90%
Survey Results Report
2024-2032 Housing Element A-3
Based on a total of 186 responses, most survey participants do not represent a local group, organization, or business (90 percent). Approximately 10 percent of participants do represent a local group, organization, or business. Of the participants who represent a group, organization, or business, most live, work, attend school, or own a business or property in the city of Merced and/or Merced County. Custom responses are listed in Table 3 below:
Table 4 Custom responses to Question 2
City of Merced Public Works
Valley Land Alliance ngo
PGEU (Community Group) / Faith in the Valley
NAACP Merced County
PLTI
Central valley regional center
DNA Downtown Neighborhood AssociaƟon
I am secretary for Winton MAC
Franklin county water district
In Care Home Service
CulƟva La Salud Merced
CulƟva la salud
Grupo comunitario
Valley Onward
PLTI, CulƟva la Salud ,
CulƟva la salud
Consejo de Liderazgo
Coalición laƟna
CulƟva la Salud
Question 3 If you live in the region, which best describes your housing situation?
Question 3 asked respondents to describe the housing situation, including if they own or rent and who they live with. The results are listed below:
Table 5 Results of Question 3
Living SituaƟon Count Percent
Own my house, condominium, apartment, or mobile home 100 54% Rent a house, condominium, apartment, or mobile home 46 25% Live with roommates/family and assist with rent or mortgage payments 19 10% Live with family/friends, do not own or pay rent 13 7%
Live in emergency, transiƟonal, or supporƟve housing 2 1% Other (please specify) 1 1%
Do not live in the region 0 0%
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
A-4
The majority of respondents reported that they own their own house, condominium, apartment, or mobile home (54 percent), followed by those who rent (25 percent). Approximately 10 percent of participants reported they “live with roommates/family and assist with rent or mortgage payments,” seven percent “live with family/friends, do not own or pay rent,” and one percent live in emergency, transitional, or supportive housing. All survey participants live within the region.
Question 4 If you live in the region, what type of housing best describes where you currently live?
Question 4 asked respondents to identify their current housing type. The highest possible score for each item was 100 percent, meaning that every respondent selected that answer, and the lowest possible score was zero percent, meaning that no respondent selected that answer. The results are listed below:
Table 6 Results of Question 4
Housing Type Count Percent
Single-family home 152 82%
Apartment 13 7%
Duplex, triplex, or fourplex 8 4%
Mobile home 6 3%
Condominium 4 2%
Do not currently have a permanent home 1 1%
Accessory dwelling unit (also known as a granny flat) 0 0% Do not live in the region 0 0%
Other (please specify) 0 0%
Most survey participants live in a single-family home (82 percent), followed by an apartment (seven percent), and duplex/triplex/fourplex (four percent). Approximately three percent of participants live in a mobile home, two percent live in a condominium, one percent (one respondent) do not currently have a permanent home, and none of the survey participants live in an ADU.
Question 5 If you live in the region, which of the following choices best describes your housing arrangement?
Question 5 asked respondents to identify their current living arrangement based on who they live with. The highest possible score for each item was 100 percent, meaning that every respondent selected that answer, and the lowest possible score was zero percent, meaning that no respondent selected that answer. The results are listed below:
Table 7 Results of Question 5
Housing Arrangement Count Percent
MulƟple generaƟons living together (adult children, parents, grandparents, etc.) 59 32% Couple living together, no children 43 23%
Couple with children under 18 living at home 41 22%
Living alone 32 17%
Single or couple, living with roommates 22 12%
Survey Results Report
2024-2032 Housing Element A-5
Housing Arrangement Count Percent
Single with children under 18 living at home 18 10%
MulƟple families living together, or family with roommates 3 2% Other (please specify) 1 1%
Do not live in the region 0 0%
Survey participants reported a variety of living arrangements, with almost one third of respondents (32 percent) living in a household consisting of multiple generations, 23 percent consisting of couples living together without children living at home, 22 percent consisting of couples living together with children living at home. Additionally, 17 percent of respondents are living alone, 12 percent are living with roommates, and 10 percent are single parents. Two percent of participants identified their housing arrangement as consisting of multiple families living together or family living together with roommates. One participant reported their housing situation as “Other.” Custom responses are listed in Table 8 below:
Table 8 Custom responses to Question 2
Family living together
$
Question 6 Which of the following aspects are important to you when looking for housing? (Check all that apply)
Question 6 asked respondents choose what aspects are most important when they are looking for housing. Higher scores indicate that more survey participants selected the aspect as important and lower scores indicate that fewer survey participants selected the aspect as important. The resulting scores were the following, listed from highest to lowest:
Table 9 Results of Question 6
Housing Aspect Count Percent
Affordability 145 78%
Quality and size of housing 126 68%
Close to work and/or school 103 55%
Close to shopping and services like groceries and medical faciliƟes 103 55% Close to public transit stop 42 23%
Able to construct or own an accessory dwelling unit (ADU)/granny flat or second unit on property
41 22%
Able to have land to grow crops and/or have a ranch 31 17% Able to house mulƟple generaƟons in one home 29 16%
Americans with DisabiliƟes Act (ADA) accessibility 20 11% Other (please specify) 16 9%
“Affordability” was the most important aspect when looking for new housing according to survey participants, as 78 percent of participants selected this as important. “Quality and size of housing” (68 percent), and “Close to work and/or school” (55 percent) and “Close to shopping and services like groceries and medical facilities” (55 percent) were also selected as important to most survey Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
A-6
participants. “Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility” was selected by the fewest participants as important when looking for new housing (11 percent). In addition, 16 participants included other aspects as important when looking for housing. Many of these participants cited safety and affordability as important aspects for housing. Custom responses are listed in Table 10 below:
Table 10 Custom responses to Question 6
one without cockroach infestaƟon
School district
Safe and secure area
Safe neighborhood
affordable homes to purchase
somwhere that isn't charging the same as a mortgage payment in other states.
Our own backyard. Community Pool. Geƫng CHILDREN OUTSIDE in safe spaces away from technology.
House in a good neighborhood with liƩle to no crime
quality of home, value of home, neighborhood
able to have garage for more than 2 cars
safety, very quiet and peaceful neighborhood, neighbors who keep up their property, no commercial acƟvity, liƩle vehicle traffic
Close to Medical Services
Private yard for pets
Live my life without having to always deal with the rent is too damn high. I don't feels secure. Not enough tenant protecƟons.
Un Lugar sin tanta delincuencia
Question 7 What do you believe is the single largest barrier to affordable desirable housing in the Merced County region?
Question 7 asked respondents to identify the largest barrier to affordable housing in Merced County. The highest possible score was 100 percent, meaning that every respondent selected the barrier as the largest barrier, and the lowest possible score was zero percent, meaning that no respondent selected that service as most needed in the community. The resulting scores were the following, listed from highest to lowest:
Table 11 Results of Question 7
Largest Barrier Count Percent
Cost of quality housing is too high 61 33%
Lack of availability of housing that is rent-restricted (affordable housing) 33 18% Not enough housing 33 18%
Cost of housing is too high in areas with good jobs and services 27 15% Other (please specify) 18 10%
DiscriminaƟon based on race/ethnicity, religion, number of children in household, disability, gender, sexual orientaƟon, or another characterisƟc 8 4%
Survey Results Report
2024-2032 Housing Element A-7
Largest Barrier Count Percent
There is no barrier to affording desirable housing 4 2%
I do not know 2 1%
Survey participants identified “Cost of quality housing is too high” as the largest barrier to affordable desirable housing in Merced County (selected by 33 percent of participants). “Lack of availability of housing that is rent-restricted (affordable housing),” “Not enough housing,” and “Lack of availability of housing that is rent-restricted (affordable housing)” were all selected by 18 percent of participants as the largest barrier to affordable desirable housing in Merced County. Fifteen percent of respondents selected “Cost of housing is too high in areas with good jobs and services.” The least commonly selected barrier to affordable desirable housing in Merced County was “Discrimination based on race/ethnicity, religion, number of children in household, disability, gender, sexual orientation, or another characteristic.” Four participants reported “There is no barrier to affording desirable housing” and two participants selected “I do not know.” Table 12 Custom responses to Question 7
There are numverous reason, we should be able to pick more than one. Lack of availability housing that is not rent restricted, cost of quality housing is too high, not enough housing, to be more specific there is very liƩle apartments, townhouses and/or duplexes in Los Banos. The middle income earners are squeazed out as make too much too qualify for programs and earn too liƩle to save t purchase.
Cost of living inflaƟon by Biden
Cost of quality housing which should be the gold standard for ALL housing. One day wonders are the norm in Merced City. Shameful!
So-called "non-profits" that push their own agenda. Thereby limiƟng good residenƟal AND commercial development projects that will have a posiƟve result in providing more housing and jobs for the region. These groups increase the Ɵme and cost for developers that would otherwise bring posiƟve change to the community.
Lack of skilled/educated populaƟon; lack of jobs paying adequate income The community is not pro-business and keeps focusing on the symptoms of this rather than the problem. More Jobs, More $, Homes become more affordable.
First, we live in a valley, which means we have set boundaries. There simply isnt room. As for the rental situaƟon, that has beeb caused by owners being ruined by the laws and regulaƟons favoring renters to the point that the home is ruined and the owner is stuck. Homeowners cant afford to trust a renter anymore. That is the fault of goverments Available single family housing being converted to airb&b and rent by the room college housing Too many regulaƟons
Low-paying jobs, low wages and low educaƟon levels while an increase in housing prices Investors are pricing out residents, houses should be limited to people who will live in the house not enough jobs that offer a decent income, stagnaƟon of real wages since 1970s thanks to globalizaƟon and corporate greed, rich geƫng richer and pooer geƫng poorer, erosion of the middle class Lack of jobs, beyond service jobs; Lack of housing types 1) PoliciƟans not invesƟng local budget dollars to Affordable Housing. 2) PoliƟcans not supporƟng Inclusionary Zoning. 3) PoliƟcans not forcing developers to build Affordable housing. 4) Money in PoliƟcs. You need money to become a poliƟcian. So most of the Ɵme only rich people can become poliƟcians and they only look out for themselves and other rich people.
Safety. Good safe neighborhoods.
density of housing
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
A-8
To many people
I see affordable housing as an issue in many ciƟes and states.
Question 8 What do you believe are the most urgent housing challenges in the Merced Region? (Choose the three most urgent issues) Question 8 asked respondents to rank seven housing issues in unincorporated Merced County in order from most to least urgent. The highest possible score for an item was 100 percent, meaning that every respondent ranked the issue as the most urgent, and the lowest possible score was zero percent, meaning that no respondents rated the issue as the most urgent. The resulting scores were the following, listed from highest to lowest:
Table 13 Results of Question 8
Housing Challenges Count Percent
Affordability of desired housing 161 87%
Availability of desired housing 129 69%
Homelessness 114 61%
Housing quality 71 38%
Overcrowding (more than one person per bedroom) 27 15%
Fair housing/discriminaƟon 24 13%
Other (please specify) 17 9%
There are no urgent housing issues 7 4%
I do not know 7 4%
Survey participants identified “Affordability of desired housing,” “Availability of desired housing” (87 percent), “Availability of desired housing” (69 percent), and “Homelessness” (61 percent) as the most urgent housing challenges in Merced County. “Overcrowding (more than one person per bedroom)” and “Fair housing/discrimination” were the least commonly selected as urgent housing challenges. Ten percent of respondents selected “Other”, and respondents left a total of 17 individual comments. Multiple participants reported lack of affordable housing, lack of quality jobs, and too many regulations as the most urgent housing challenges. Custom responses are listed below in Table 14:
Table 14 Custom responses to Question 8
Numerous reasons, affordability of desired housing. The middle class working families have no resources to help purchase a home. They either make too much to qualify for help and always make too liƩle to save to even purchase a home.
more housing inventory
build more units rent control
Development regulaƟons. Policies like inclusionary zoning.
ApplicaƟons fees has become a way for Property Managements to make income, majority of the Ɵme applicants are denied housing.
first Ɵme homebuyer programs
Survey Results Report
2024-2032 Housing Element A-9
Homelessness is not a housing issue. Drug & Mental Health issue. Need MORE higher end homes to draw in job creators.
permit costs
Reduce regulaƟon and have right to work to lower housing costs Sanctuary State
factors that lead to homelessness such as loss of income, insufficient income, ridiculously low wages, lack of childcare for working parents especially single mothers, drug addicƟon, lack of mental health care Lack of quality jobs; lack of housing variety
Qualified tenants who can afford to rent without govt assistance PoliƟcians do not care about housing and do not invest in housing and do not pass policies to support building Affordable housing and do not pass rent control. PoliƟcians do not care about housing. They only care about dairy farms, prisons, companies, and rich people.
Housing prices are unreasonable
Safe neighborhoods
affordable housing is a problem in many areas of the country Question 9 What do you believe would be the most beneficial programs to assist residents with housing needs in the Merced County region? (Choose the three most beneficial programs)
Question 9 asked participants which programs would be most beneficial in assisting residents with housing needs in Merced County. The highest possible score for each item was 100 percent, meaning that every respondent selected that answer, and the lowest possible score was zero percent, meaning that no respondent selected that answer. The results are listed below:
Table 15 Results of Question 9
Beneficial Program Count Percent
Rental assistance or housing vouchers 121 65%
Homebuyer loan counseling services 100 54%
Housing assistance for residents with special needs (physical or developmental differences)
80 43%
Home rehabilitaƟon assistance 80 43%
Landlord/tenant mediaƟon services 66 35%
Foreclosure prevenƟon services 46 25%
Other (please specify) 28 15%
Mobile home preservaƟon and assistance 23 12%
I do not know 14 8%
Among the seven programs “Rental assistance or housing vouchers” (selected by 65 percent of respondents) and “Homebuyer loan counseling services” (selected by 54 percent of respondents) were the most commonly selected as the most beneficial programs by survey participants while “Mobile home preservation and assistance” was the least commonly selected as the most beneficial program (selected by 12 percent of respondents). Approximately 15 percent of participants selected Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
A-10
“other” as a beneficial program, citing programs for senior housing, first-time homebuyer assistance, and more affordable housing overall. Custom responses are listed in Table 16 below:
Table 16 Custom responses to Question 9
Programs to help middle income earners to purchase a home.
More housing stock and beƩer jobs, lower Biden inflaƟon.
Build more affordable housing
case management
Senior living. Meadows Senior apartments has a 5 - 7 year wait to even be offered the opportunity of a apartment.
People are skipping the line IF THEY know someone who either works there or has other connecƟons. ConƟnuaƟon of RAMPANT "it's who you know".
Homebuyer GRANT programs that don't vanish overnight; Making property ownership by foreign investors ILLEGAL.
First Ɵme buyer assistance
rent control
Help residents with money to build a dwelling for family members to live in Limit new builds to people who plan on living in new builds, landlords should not be buying new builds Senior housing opƟons. Senior living communiƟes such as apartments or senior living communiƟes w/homes for purchase
More housing built
programs that help with home-buying for first Ɵme buyers Free up business! Scariest words in the English language. "Hi, I'm from the Gov't and I'm here to help." More moderately priced housing such as condos or smaller homes No more programs. Get out of peoples business and the problems will take a natural course toward resoluƟon. Renters need to be held responsible for thei commiƩments
single family homes should be rented or sold to single families not to individuals or groups converƟng single family housing for other purposes
We need landlords to charge way less rent, its extremely unaffordable for all. Property Managements are obstacles to being able to rent a home. Mainly require high credit scores or double deposit and rent up front. Its a ripoff. Then when you want to move out of a housing unit the property management keeps your double deposit you gave them. affordable assistance for middle class and lower middle class energy efficiency more jobs that offer a real living wage; help for homeless people in geƫng and keeping jobs; childcare for working parents especially single mothers; readily available addicƟon recovery programs that are compassionate and effecƟve; coordinated social services for homeless individuals to address their various needs; coordinated assistance for homeless individuals to transiƟon into decent jobs, healthy and drug-free lifestyles, and housing Grants to build ADUs
Inclusionary Zoning - policy where developers have to put 15% of what they build to be Affordable Housing for Low income families and Very-Low Income families.
Rent control and more affordable houses for purchase
Small single family homes built instead of just apartments Financial assistance for LOCAL first Ɵme home buyers
Apoyos para remodelacion
Survey Results Report
2024-2032 Housing Element A-11
Question 10 Using numbers from 1 through 7, with 1 being the most needed and 7 being the least needed, please rank the type of housing that you believe should be developed in the Merced County region:
Question 10 asked respondents to rank seven housing types on a scale of 7 to 1 based on the most to least needed type of housing in Merced County. The highest possible score for an item was 7, meaning that every respondent ranked that housing type as least needed, and the lowest possible score was 1, meaning that every respondent rated the housing type as most needed. The resulting scores were the following, listed from highest to lowest:
Table 17 Results of Question 10
Rank Beneficial Program Score
1 (most needed) Housing with 3 or more bedrooms 3.1
2 Housing with 1-2 bedrooms 3.5
3 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) or addiƟonal housing units on single-family and mulƟfamily properƟes
3.7 4 Efficiency homes such as studio apartments 4.0
5 Emergency, transiƟonal, or permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness
4.3 6 Housing for people with social and/or medical services for special needs (group homes, supporƟve housing)
4.5 7 (least needed) Live/work housing (examples: work loŌs with ground floor retail unit and upper floor living space)
4.9 Survey participants selected “Housing with 3 or more bedrooms,” “Housing with 1-2 bedrooms,” and “Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) or additional housing units on single-family and multifamily properties” as the most needed housing types in Merced County. The least needed housing types according to participants are “Housing for people with social and/or medical services for special needs (group homes, supportive housing)” and “Live/work housing (examples: work lofts with ground floor retail unit and upper floor living space).” Question 11 Using numbers 1 through 6, with 1 being the best and 6 being the worst, please rank the areas where you believe housing should be developed in the Merced County region:
Question 11 asked respondents to rank the areas where housing should be developed in Merced County. The highest possible score for each item was 100 percent, meaning that every respondent selected that answer, and the lowest possible score was zero percent, meaning that no respondent selected that answer. The results are listed below:
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
A-12
Table 18 Results of Question 11
Rank Areas for Housing Development Score
1 (best) Areas near public transit stops, employment, and shopping centers 3.2 2 Downtown or town center locaƟons 3.6
3 Areas with exisƟng 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)
3.7 4 Agricultural land on the edges of the ciƟes 4.0
5 Land that could be converted from an underuƟlized non-housing use (e.g., office/store) to residenƟal or mixed-use (e.g., apartments or condominiums with ground floor stores or restaurants)
4.2 6 (worst) On exisƟng single-family properƟes (accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or granny flats) 4.4 7 Vacant land on the edges of the ciƟes 4.8
Survey participants selected “Areas near public transit stops, employment, and shopping centers” and “Downtown or town center locations” as the best areas for new housing development.
According to participants the worst areas for housing development include “Vacant land on the edges of the cities” and “On existing single-family properties (accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or granny flats).” In addition, participants left 14 custom responses were received which are listed in Table 19 below:
Table 19 Custom responses to Question 11
Areas near schools
away from established neighborhoods
Your survey asks to rank from 1-5 but gives 7 choices. Confusing.
Land from underuƟlized non-housing use ends up with a home next to apartments/condominiums. Granny flats end up being used by people on Megan's list. totally unacceptable.
Stop puƫng SLE homes/low income in the remaining good areas of the city.
Is this quesƟon for market rate housing? or for affordable housing? If this quesƟon is for affordable housing, affordable housing should be built in North Merced. If this is for market rate housing, this should be built in South Merced.
Assuming #1 is on vacant lots within the city, if not, then this idea.
Que construyan estudios,para que las personas puedan pagar más poco dinero y sea más fácil de rentar ,para las familias de bajos ingresos.
Habilitar casas abandonadas o terrenos abandonados
Lugares habitaciones, Ɵpo pies de casa para que a manera de las posibilidades la vayamos ampliando Vender el terreno que nos rentan a las casas móviles
Survey Results Report
2024-2032 Housing Element A-13
Question 12 Are there specific neighborhoods, streets, or areas in your city and/or local community where you would like to see housing developed? (Please specify)
Question 12 asked respondents to identify areas where survey participants would like to see housing developed. The results are listed below:
Table 20 Custom responses to Question 12
Convert properƟes that are not currently being used. There are dwellings downtown that could be converted. near the lake. one thing that would be ideal Would be to have all the Agencies that assist in housing be centrally located by walmart/college area.
There are vacant land located on G Street & Alpine and R Street and 19th, (cross streets could be off a liƩle) where a complex could be developed. Providing future tenants access to public transporaƟon, shopping.
Along highway 33 near Dos Palos. Along Blossom st in Dos Palos across from the mini storage.
Main Street, Merced
all over
Anywhere in Dos Palos. People are constantly looking for somewhere to rent or buy. ExisƟng apartment complexes are very outdated.
South Dos Palos
Around Nero Avenue (Like of Almond St and Blossom Ave) or say Westside of Dos Palos or in between Dos Palos and South Dos Palos. More housing definitely needed in Dos Palos.
Dos Palos ca
Where services are located, shopping, educaƟon, etc.
land by hospital, land by bearcreek and parson
East of Thornton, South of Hwy 140
downtown, rehab older homes, strengthen standards for maintenance Not sure.
The former Castle Air Base would be a great place to build housing with grocery stores and public transportaƟon. away from established neighborhoods
Peach Street, Olive, Robin.
I live in North Merced. I've been to South Merced. There are people who care about their homes. But there are some landlords that should be ashamed of themselves! There are also homeowners that may need help. I used to be involved in homeowner assistance programs through CDBG grants. The program was very successful in Los Banos, and Livingston.
Senior ciƟzens and single parents lives were changed. I know Merced doesn't have to compete for those funds. I would like to see more work done in South Merced.
Any vacant lot.
South Merced
Not in flood plain, in town, not sprawled where you need car for all acƟvity such as Bellevue Ranch and north far from town, not for investors to rent bedrooms as now happening Downtown and all areas close to it. Plus affordable housing or apartments in north merced It would be great for low income residents to get help financially to build accessory dwellings for their relaƟves.
There should me much more dense housing available in the downtown area since it walkable and would boost the local economy. I also think the area surrounding the mall would be a good area to build more dense housing for the same reasons. Finally, I think the area surrounding the new campus parkway leading to UC Merced would be the perfect area to build more mixed use housing and commercial spaces.
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
A-14
Affordable housing and mixed use housing in underdeveloped areas of Merced and Merced County In atwater on the corner next too and behind the CHP office North Merced conƟnues to grow, yet, other parts of Merced (such as East Merced remain undeveloped) Empty lots in the city of merced. a lot og buildings have been removed west 16th
The city should annex pockets of county land that are surrounded by city parcels to make for comprehensive service, landscape, responsibility and service. The city should market themselves to Developers that are known to build mixed developments including mulƟgeneraƟonal units along with couple units. The city should regulate property management much like they do dispensaries to ensure for higher quality, legal tenant/owner treatment. Subleƫng rooms from homes is causing inflated prices as more students with much more disposable income drive rental prices higher and higher and the community pay the price for the more expensive cost of living causing gentrificaƟon Between South and North Dos Palos, there are large stretches of land that feel as though they thin out our community.
Also housing near our schools and closer to the main part of our town. There are lots of abandoned buildings that could house people that have been leŌ to rot.
Planada, north of highway 140
Vacant lots within city jurisdicƟons
No
Ag land on Green Sands, east of Buhach.
Main street Atwater would benefit from mixed use...to liven up downtown Affordable housing
Around the mall, willowbrook neighborhood, South Merced around home Depot.
Everywhere
near the uc or near Mission Blvd.
empty lots and/or abandoned buildings
In the outskirts, encourage nice, $800,000+, gated HOA communiƟes with 1/2 Acre lots to encourage job creators and families to stay and benefit the region.
Livingston next to rancho san miguel.
Childs Ave
North Area Past the Hospital
The empty plot of land on the corner of G Street & Donna Drive. The empty plot of land behind the Urgent Care on Olive Avenue. The empty plot of land on G Street across from the In-Shape shopping center that has the Auto Resources sign on it. The empty plot of land on M Street and Yosemite Avenue that used to be a church before they demolished it. The empty plot of land on Paulson and Yosemite with a Auto Resources sign on it. The empty plot of land behind the surgical center on Yosemite and Parsons. The empty plot of land by the liƩle dog park on Yosemite Avenue.
I would like to see shopping closer to the older part of town. Near the freeway would be the center of such an area. A Winco or Trader Joe would be a great addiƟon the center where Savemart used to be, between 16th and 17th n/a
The downtown area of Merced City needs serious redevelopment and is lacking maintenance. Infrastructure should be redesigned to be more walkable and less car dependent to minimize urban sprawl. Redeveloping areas needs to include rezoning for mulƟ use to create “third places” for people to gather and live in. undeveloped, abandoned property in established neighborhoods Gerrard and Childs area
No. This land is already being developed for single family homes.
I say built on lots that are empty in town that are not being uƟlized. I say many lots empty in the community for years.
Survey Results Report
2024-2032 Housing Element A-15
At the East child Ave between MarƟn Luther King and 99, there is plenty of empty land In areas where there is no interference with agricultural land.
No
In-fill developments on pre-exisƟng lots and/or vacant buildings There should be more mulƟ-family housing opƟons in North Merced City. More affordable, rent controlled units are needed throughout the county.
as close to uc merced as possible
n/a
dre
Dan word Beachwood area
Between 99, 59, and mission avenue
Build east of the expressway
Not really. I'd like to see a lot fewer people overall on this planet, but voluntary populaƟon control doesn't seem to be a high priority for the human species. That aside, developing downtown housing might be desirable to accommodate people who want to forego cars and use mass transit. However, mass transit is abysmal in Merced as in most US communiƟes. Higher-density apartment housing is needed in Merced, especially for UC students and working-class singles and couples. Temporary, affordable, supervised accommodaƟon is needed for homeless people transiƟoning to jobs and more stable lives. Rigorous supervision is essenƟal to keep out drugs and crime that undermine rehab and stable living arrangements. I don't see a good soluƟon to the housing quesƟon, and I am not prepared to have my single-family home neighborhood transformed into a medium- or mixed-density housing neighborhood. These plans always look sexy to developers and poliƟcans, but they don't work. Call me a NIMBY. I don't care. I have rented apartments or homes most of my 60+ years and found the majority of my neighbors to be noisy, rude, and lacking in any respect for the rental property they inhabited. Six years ago, I was finally able to afford a home in a relaƟvely decent neighborhood. I have a severe chronic pain condiƟon, and peace and quiet are essenƟal to my physical health. My husband works from home, and so do many of our neighbors. People who work from home also need peace and quiet.
And all people deserve a decent night's sleep. Unfortunately, renters tend to be noisier than the homeowners who are my neighbors. The one rental home nearby has consistently been inhabited by noisy proles, one group of which had gang connecƟons and were probably operaƟng an unlicensed daycare facility. The ear-spliƫng shrieking of children all day, every day, was ridiculous. Frankly, I don't want the value of my nest egg to decline because of slovenly renters, and I have had my fill of noisy, rude yahoos. The fact that there is such a severe shortage of affordable housing seems to be due to (a) lots more people in California, whose populaƟon is roughly 2.5 Ɵmes what it was the year I was born, (b) unfeƩered real estate speculaƟon and gouging in urban areas like the Bay Area and LA, and (c) stagnaƟon of living wages for all working- and middle-class Americans since the 1970s. Thank you, corporate greed! Perhaps we should take all the tent ciƟes and dump them into the backyards of those who helped create them, namely the ultra-rich, their hangers-on, and their poliƟcal toadies.
Merced Mall
Not certain
Within and surrounding the Downtown Area.
Is this quesƟon for market rate housing? or for affordable housing? If this quesƟon is for affordable housing, affordable housing should be built in North Merced. If this is for market rate housing, this should be built in South Merced.
Current empty lots throughout the city.
more infill near downtown and public transportaƟon and commercial No
south merced
Off of Campus Parkway
South East merced
El redondo, where the big mansions are near the UC, Bellevue Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
A-16
South merced
Yes we do near some areas where people can have Acces to near thw stores or even by the schools Small single family homes with fences in rural areas on the outskirts of the city.
N Hwy 59, Santa Fe , Beachwood area and behind Merced college seem like good areas No
No.
Un used parcels
Castle Air Force Base Maybe some apartments.
More apartments near Merced JC, and put on the base property such as low income apartments.
Beachwood area
More mulƟ unit housing in empty lots near Yosemite and Olive Near grocery stores, parks, schools
Hostetler ranchwood/stonefield has bought up all the lands surrounding los banos. the city is landlock. Get rid of hostetler property and we will have plenty of land to build on.
There are a few vacant lots downtown, within neighborhoods, where maybe a house burned down (not sure) that could be used.
It don’t maƩer where, it just needs to be more affordable and less sƟpulated on approval Filling up vacant lots in the city with mulƟfamily units, either duplexes/triplexes or apartments.
South of Merced
Livingston por winton way
no
En las áreas baldías,pueden construir también apartamentos de una recámara,para las familias pequeñas,para que puedan vivir solos,porque cuando uno vive en casas grandes o apartamentos,se generan muchos problemas con los compañeros de viviendas grandes.
El terreno de la Childs Ave y Canal St
Badger flat, volta pioner, ingomar
Si hay mucha falta de vivienda en todo California
La readly Rd
Sullivan road
Su, en las salidas del pueblo, ambos lados, por la Pacheco Blvd.
Cerca a los centros de servicios
Survey participants expressed overall support for development of affordable housing, multi-family housing, and higher density housing. New housing development is desired in areas near services, grocery stores, parks, shopping, and schools and in downtown areas of cities throughout the region.
Participants support housing development on vacant lots and land with unused or underutilized buildings.
In Atwater, participants suggested areas for housing development on Main Street and on vacant lots throughout the City. In Dos Palos participants recommended housing development throughout the city, including along Nero Avenue and State Route 33. In Livingston, participants recommended housing development in the northwestern parts of the city and near Peach Avenue and Robin Avenue. In Los Banos participants suggested new housing development near Walmart, on vacant lots, and near Hostetler, Stonefield Homes, and Ranchwood Park. In the city of Merced, participants Survey Results Report
2024-2032 Housing Element A-17
suggested housing development throughout northern and southern parts of the city, in downtown, near East Childs Avenue, near Dan Ward Road and Beachwood Drive, near State Route 59, near State Route 99, near Mission Avenue, near the University of California, Merced, and on vacant and underutilized lots. Participants suggested new housing development in Planada, Bear Creek, near Castle Air Force Base, and unincorporated parts of the county near services, near hospitals, and on the outskirts of cities.
Question 12 Which accessory dwelling unit (ADU) assistance services would be beneficial for residents? (Select all that apply)
Question 12 asked respondents to identify beneficial ADU assistance services from a list of six options plus an “Other” option. The highest possible score for each item was 100 percent, meaning that every respondent selected that answer, and the lowest possible score was zero percent, meaning that no respondent selected that answer. The results are listed below:
Table 21 Results of Question 12
ADU Assistance Count Percent
Financial assistance with construcƟon expenses 115 62%
EducaƟonal “How to” webinar series regarding financing, construcƟon, and permiƫng processes
102 55%
Pre-approved floorplans 88 47%
Homeowner one-on-one consultaƟons with an ADU expert 87 47% Advice on what type of ADU would work best for your situaƟon 88 47% EducaƟon on how to become a landlord 58 31%
I do not know 21 11%
Other (please specify) 0 0%
Almost all of the listed ADU assistance services were selected as beneficial by a substantial number of survey participants. The most frequently selected ADU assistance services were “Financial assistance with construction expenses” (selected by 62 percent of respondents) and “Educational “How to” webinar series regarding financing, construction, and permitting processes” (selected by 55 percent of respondents). The least selected ADU assistance service was “Education on how to become a landlord” (selected by 11 percent of respondents).
Question 13 Would you be interested in developing an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on your property?
Question 13 asked survey participants if they would be interested in developing an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on their property. The highest possible score for each item was 100 percent, meaning that every respondent selected that answer, and the lowest possible score was zero percent, meaning that no respondent selected that answer. The results are listed below:
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
A-18
Table 22 Results of Question 13
ADU Assistance Count Percent
Yes, on my exisƟng or future property 66 35%
No 64 34%
Not sure 27 15%
I don’t own or do not plan to own property 28 15%
I already have an ADU on my property 1 1%
Survey participants were split on whether or not they are interested in developing an ADU on their property. Approximately 35 percent of participants are not interested, 34 percent are interested, and 15 percent were not sure. Only one participant already has an ADU.
Question 14 Optional: What is your race/ethnicity:
Question 14 asked respondents to identify their household income level. The results are listed below:
Table 23 Results of Question 13
Race/Ethnicity Count Percent
Hispanic/LaƟno (of any race) 72 39%
Caucasian, not Hispanic/LaƟno 57 31%
Black/African American 15 8%
Other (please specify) 13 7%
Asian American/Pacific Islander 6 3%
NaƟve American/Alaska NaƟve 1 1%
Over one third of survey participants identify as Hispanic/Latino (39 percent) and 31 percent identify as Caucasian, not Hispanic/Latino. In addition, eight percent of participants identify as Black/African American, seven percent identify as other, three percent as Asian American/Pacific Islander, and one percent as Native American/Alaska Native.
Question 15 Let us know if there is anything we missed! What other information or housing-related issues would you like to be considered for the Housing Element? (Please specify)
Question 15 was a call for open-ended answers. A total of 44 custom responses were received, and are listed below in Table 25:
Table 24 Answer for Question 15
Age Count Percent
Under 18 0 0%
18-25 18 10%
26-40 47 25%
41-65 87 47%
66-85 19 10%
Over 85 0 0%
Survey Results Report
2024-2032 Housing Element A-19
Approximately 47 percent of survey participants reported they are between the ages of 41 and 65, and 25 percent are between the ages of 26 and 40. Ten percent of participants reported they are over the age of 65.
Question 15 Optional Open Forum
Question 15 was a call for open-ended answers. A total of 44 custom responses were received, and are listed below in Table 25:
Table 25 Answer for Question 15
We need affordable housing for seniors that don’t qualify for any assistance and for young adults just venturing out No
Energy efficient housing
Need some skills for success graduate from a shared living home with a group of peers who have successfully been taught life skills, homeless people do not budget, buy and prepare meals, clean the bathroom, do laundry, make their bed. You give them a key to a door and are surprised when they tear the place up. If they don't know beƩer what do you expect?
Housing that is near the Atwater Commerce Center as it grows.
We need to hold absentee landlords accountable for their property. No one wants to live in a hovel! ConƟnue housing development construcƟon on past areas that were built or focused on but died. Example ChrisƟan st homes at Dos Palos being built then nothing when growing up. yes this is an unfair survey .all answers lead back to the answers the county wants to hear. not the real answer that I want you to hear or acknowledge
Community centers, for both the unhoused and housed.
3e3
Sounds like you are pushing ADU's. This will create more revenue as more tax dollars. none
I think you need to get the city councilperson and supervisors represenƟng their district to get the lead out and talk to residents for issues on this topic. They don't seem to do much except collect a paycheck.
Like I was menƟoning in the last commento have all the agencies in the area that help with housing in one locaƟon preferably near downtown they seemed to be scaƩered throughout the town and that would include the HSA also.
Build more housing and no housing trusƞund and no limits on the scam of affordable housing. You cannot define what affordable housing is.
quality housing needs to be built. Nice custom/large homes as well as your standard track homes with/without ADU's Have a workable plan for our homeless community that are good ciƟzens.
I have a family member who is uƟlizing subsidized housing in a two bedroom apartment through Behavioral Support Services. More one bedroom subsidized units for folks dealing with mental health issues would be beneficial. People should not have to deal with a housemate when both are dealing from mental health problems. This current set up is NOT supporƟve to either client.
Stop building low income housing in established neighborhoods.
ADU policies and rental assistance are not the answer. Easing development regs and reducing barriers to new development will have the greatest posiƟve impact on housing numbers in our community. rent control, stop the outside investors, educate people to save for emergencies, discourage people from purchasing home without large downpayment, save older structures, encourage mixed use, plan for walking and bike riding off roads, infill, use more round abouts to keep traffice flowing, but slowed down Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
A-20
Please research data on how single family homes are actually occupied. Especially in the newer developments geared to investors...how many of these single family homes are occupied by families vs individual renters sharing a house. Before we focus on building more single family homes, consider how many would be freed up if there were more apartments available. And think of how sustainable it would be if apartments were built near commercial and public transit or paths so people could save money and not own cars they can't afford. Housing should be built closer to commercial services and ameniƟes so we don't need to drive so much.
Stop property management/companies from taking applicaƟons fees as a way to get an income.
I think there should be more of an emphasis on housing as it relates to public transit, walkability, and alternaƟve modes of transportaƟon.
Resources for un- and under-housed
If addiƟonal housing is going to be developed, we need to consider how this will impact schools, traffic in the region, polluƟon, ect. will addiƟonal parks be built?
housing authority needs more workers who can handle cases quicker. especially if their site will not work properly to begin with
Rent control. When will we explore this opƟon?
A big topic for Merced and Atwater but the region as a whole is the presence of inflated rental prices caused by UCM lack of student specific housing opƟons that cater to students, leaving single family home or apartment complexes to lifelong residents. There is no menƟoned of the UCM student overflow into the city or how it inflates prices by landlords seƫng up rental arrangements to sublease individual rooms. This inflates cost of living as long-term residents cannot afford the prices that UCM students can pay for the same house ($300-600 per room) and it decreases the quality of life for the enƟre community.
First-Ɵme homebuyer educaƟon courses.
County tends to give favorable to realtors instead of buyers or renters Need to build more Sr. housing communiƟes where people can gather in a safe place & make friends. We don't have many independent living faciliƟes & the ones we have are not very enƟcing as they are old & don't offer many ammeniƟes.
Yes
Have Child Care Services on site
A lot of properƟes do not have room for ADU due to very small properƟes. If the city only started providing. High density homes I would leave area. Providing homes for homeless would create very bad areas in the city without addressing the reason the person is homeless.
Get government out of our lives
Programs that qualify low-income/restricted income persons (SSI, Unemployment (seasonal jobs), Students) to buy a small 1-2 bedroom homes.
None
New, single-family houses should be limited to natural persons (not companies, LLCs, partnerships) and priority should be given to people who intend to live in the house instead of investors Require address or specific motel informaƟon before providing cash aid. Stop providing Cash aid to the homeless.
Provide one way Ɵcket back to the counƟes that sent them here.
You can't solve the housing problem if people can't afford housing. Merced needs a lot more jobs that offer living wages.
Support for seniors with exisƟng aging residences with contractors, work costs, technical advice to maintain reasonable serviceability of residence.
Diversity in housing choices within walkable neighborhoods. Neighborhood connecƟvity and access to walkable neighborhood ameniƟes (e.g., parks, trails, schools, transit).
Inclusionary Zoning - policy where developers have to put 15% of what they build to be Affordable Housing for Low income families and Very-Low Income families. Rent Control.
Survey Results Report
2024-2032 Housing Element A-21
Great survey
More regard for those who make 50,000-85,000. As we are struggling with inflaƟon and rent prices also For housing Merced needs to open up secƟon 8 again help some family or single parents mom that are single rents are geƫng to high and some the houses are not in good condiƟon and rent is to high I would like to see more available affordable housing in merced.
There needs to be an opƟon for homeless individuals that have addicƟons. Displacing and excluding homeless people doesn’t work and costs extra money
Housing is not affordable for most people anymore. There is a need for incenƟves for local buyers, first Ɵme home buyers, etc. There is also a need for respectable transiƟonal and permanent affordable housing for homeless, but oŌen housing restricƟons are too stringent for those with criminal records, substance use disorders, and/ mental illness.
There’s a need for funding for supporƟve care management services.
A uƟlity like MID that uses solar or wind to help residents with energy costs.
Diversity, Inclusion and Equity!!!
Too many people for the county. They use too much water and energy.
The housing, Homes, Apartments are too expensive for some one making minimum wage. Some apartments are very low quality and residents are not people you would want around. Yet, these apartments are sƟll too expensive for someone on minimum wage.
What about filling the gaps that already exist. I understand that there were over 600 high value assets built. No change in low-income assets. Why?
Elderly Condo community would be nice at affordable prices.
Build affordable housing with the opportunity to rent-to-own.
Viviendas para personas con salario bajo
Dar permiso a las dueñas de casas ,que construyan estudios o apartamentos en sus terrenos graƟs.
Incluir a la gente trabajadora que carece de estatus legal en el pais Capacitacion
En las viviendas arendadas, el mantenimiento necesario y sistemáƟco para vivir en ópƟmas condiciones Casas Mobiles tenemos derecho a comprar el terreno?
Asequibles en el costo.
Question 16 Optional: What is your total annual household income:
Question 16 asked respondents to select their community from a list of 23 unincorporated communities in Merced County, as well as offering an “Other” option. The results are listed below in Table 26:
Table 26 Results for Question 16
Annual Household Income Count Percent
Less than $25,000 30 16%
$25,000 to $49,999 30 16%
$50,000 to $74,999 30 16%
$75,000 to $99,999 16 9%
$100,000+ 46 25%
Decline to state 20 11%
Merced County Association of Governments
Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (2024-2032)
A-22
Survey participants reported a mix of annual household income, ranging from less than $25,000 to more than $100,000. Approximately 25 percent of participants have an annual household income of more than $100,000. In contrast, 16 percent of respondents have an annual household income of less than $25,000.