Livingston to weigh three land‑use alternatives, housing element updates and fee changes as planning commission meets

The City of Livingston urged residents to review proposed growth alternatives and housing‑element revisions ahead of a Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 7 p.m. the day after the town hall.

Planning staff said the commission will recommend a preferred land‑use alternative to the City Council, presenting three broad choices: hold city limits steady, build out within existing limits, or expand the city’s sphere of influence and annex land. “We have 3 alternatives we're gonna be looking at and these are being presented to the planning commission tomorrow,” Planning Director Miguel Galvez said at the May 12 town hall.

The three alternatives will be used to model future population build‑out, circulation needs and environmental impacts; staff said consultants will then draft the full general plan and an associated capital‑improvement and impact‑fee program that could charge new development for infrastructure costs. “Once we identify a preferred land use alternative…they'll begin to really flesh out the general plan…then we can begin to develop an impact fee that we can assess to new development,” Galvez said.

The housing element is already under state review. Galvez said Rincon Consultants is preparing responses to the state Department of Housing and Community Development’s second round of comments as part of a regional housing element effort covering Merced County cities.

Staff and several public commenters pressed for a balanced approach to growth that protects agricultural resources and encourages commercial and industrial land uses that expand the city’s tax base. City Manager Jose Ramirez and planning staff said they are also considering new optional elements for the general plan (health/wellness goals, fiscal solvency policies and ag‑preservation language) beyond the seven statutorily required elements.

Council members and residents raised the longstanding issue of vacant infill lots in older neighborhoods and asked staff to evaluate incentives and fee reductions to make small‑lot redevelopment financially feasible. “Maybe to make that pencil out, it might need to be a mixed‑use opportunity…Other is to give a special incentive and reduce the cost so that somebody…builds there,” Ramirez said.

Staff noted plan‑review and development fees have not been updated in many years and recommended reviewing those charges to better recoup staff time and to align any new impact fees with the selected build‑out scenario. Galvez said the general plan will establish the nexus required to justify new AB 1600‑style impact fees.

The town hall included updates on specific housing projects already in the pipeline: an 80‑unit apartment project on B Street (developer: Visionary Home Builders) and an 80‑unit Self Help Enterprises development near the Livingston Medical Facility. Galvez said the first project expects completion around March 2026 and that both projects include community centers and on‑site services.

City staff encouraged residents to attend the Planning Commission meeting, review materials posted by the department, and submit questions; the commission’s recommendation will return to council for further deliberation and any final policy or map changes.