Council to refine general plan map after public hearing; staff to pursue hybrid alternative and study water impacts

Livingston — The City Council on Aug. 5 reviewed competing land-use scenarios for the City of Livingston’s 2040 general plan and directed staff to develop a hybrid alternative between an infill-focused option and an expansion option, while also studying water- and agriculture-sustainability impacts before finalizing a preferred map.

Contract planner Miguel Galvez and consultants from Minteer Harnish presented three core alternatives: a baseline (no substantive map changes), an infill/efficiency alternative that prioritized development inside existing limits (including a proposed downtown mixed-use designation), and an expansion alternative that showed substantial new area for urban uses beyond the current sphere of influence. Consultants said the infill alternative would yield moderate population and housing increases, while the expansion alternative would yield the highest housing and job capacity. Michael Gibbons of Minteer Harnish summarized the alternatives and the modeling undertaken to estimate housing and job capacity for each scenario.

Why it matters: The general plan’s land-use map is the foundation for zoning, environmental review (EIR/CEQA), the zoning code and development approvals. The map also sets the scope of the environmental analysis: a larger map (a larger study boundary) allows a single comprehensive EIR to analyze broader consequences, but expansions beyond the current sphere of influence require additional steps — notably a Merced LAFCO approval, a municipal services review and a tax-sharing agreement with Merced County.

Public commenters included farmers, representatives of the Merced County Farm Bureau and residents who urged caution about converting high-quality agricultural land and about groundwater and flood risks. The planning commission had earlier asked staff to analyze 22 parcels requested by property owners for inclusion; staff presented the commission’s preferred alternative at the hearing and explained the administrative steps that would be required should the council want to expand the sphere of influence (tax-sharing agreement, municipal services review and LAFCO approval).

Several technical points were highlighted: the EIR is required for the general plan update and is expected to take about a year once the preferred alternative is selected; consultants said they will draft updated plan elements after the council chooses a preferred map; staff noted that the city must also meet its RHNA housing site obligations (the hearing discussed a roughly 900-unit RHNA figure for the planning period through 2031) and that separate rezones/general-plan amendments may be needed to satisfy that obligation.

After public comment and deliberations, the council moved, seconded and unanimously approved a motion directing staff to work with consultants and stakeholders to create a "hybridized" land-use alternative that draws from alternatives 2 and 3, to assess water sustainability and agricultural impacts for the region, to incorporate the planning staff’s recommendations where feasible, and to return with the refined materials. The council set Oct. 7, 2025, as the date certain to continue the public hearing and receive the revised materials.

Ending: Council members and staff said the delay is intended to provide time for staff and consultants to incorporate stakeholder feedback, undertake measurable water-impact analysis and produce a more polished preferred alternative and environmental scope for the public and LAFCO review.