During the 5th Cycle, the City did not receive any fair housing complaints. The City referred housing assistance questions, such as legal issues, foreclosure concerns, and similar requests to SJFHA, which was contracted to provide housing assistance services.
As discussed in the Outreach section above, the City worked to identify fair housing issues as part of the Housing Element Update process. The City reached out to stakeholders requesting input on housing issues through direct emails and phone calls to the stakeholders and through requesting stakeholders attend a housing workshop to provide information regarding housing needs of their service population or housing needs or constraints their organization is aware of. The stakeholders did not identify any known fair housing issues. The City also conducted a community-wide survey to identify housing issues and priorities, including concerns related to fair housing. While all survey respondents indicated that they had not encountered housing-related discrimination, 23% of respondents indicated they are concerned with their rent increasing to an amount they cannot afford and 23% of respondents indicated they are concerned that if they ask their property manager or landlord to make repairs their rent will increase or they will be evicted. The City is not aware of any fair housing issues concentrated in a specific neighborhood, block group, or census tract.
The City of Manteca complies with fair housing laws and regulations as described in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1: Compliance with Fair Housing Laws
Law Description Compliance
California Fair Employment
and Housing Act (FEHA)
The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) applies
to public and private employers, labor organizations and employment agencies and prohibits discrimination in
housing and employment on the basis of protected
characteristics.
The FEHA prohibits those engaged in the housing
business – landlords, real estate agents, home sellers, builders, mortgage lenders, among others – from
discriminating against tenants or homeowners on the
basis of protected characteristics.
It is also illegal for cities, counties, or other local government agencies to make zoning or land-use
decisions, or have policies, that discriminate against
individuals based on those traits.
The City encourages implementation and
enforcement of the FEHA related to housing
through SJFHA, which provides
comprehensive fair housing services to the
community.
Compliance with employee-related
requirements is achieved through strict
enforcement in hiring practices and regular
training of and by Human Resources staff.
Government Code Section
65008
Covers actions of a city, county, city and county, or
other local government agency, and makes those
actions null and void if the action denies an individual or group of individuals the enjoyment of residence,
landownership, tenancy, or other land use in the state
Compliance is achieved by uniform
application of the City’s codes, regulations,
policies and practices, including
development standards, design guidelines,
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-134
because of membership in a protected class, the
method of financing, and/or the intended occupancy.
For example, a violation under Government Code
section 65008 may occur if a jurisdiction applied more
scrutiny to reviewing and approving an affordable
development as compared to market-rate
developments, or multifamily housing as compared to
single family homes.
application submittal requirements, fees
and approval findings.
Government Code Section
8899.50
Requires all public agencies to administer programs
and activities relating to housing and community
development in a manner to affirmatively further fair
housing and avoid any action that is materially
inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.
Compliance is achieved through
consultations with community stakeholders
and support agencies as part of program
evaluating and funding decisions. The 6th
Cycle Housing Element Housing Plan
describes how each Program addresses fair
housing issues and contributing factors.
Government Code Section
11135 et seq.
Requires full and equal access to all programs and
activities operated, administered, or funded with
financial assistance from the state, regardless of one’s membership or perceived membership in a protected
class.
Compliance is achieved through
promotion/availability of activities and
programs to all persons of all backgrounds
to participate equally in community
programs and activities.
Density Bonus Law (Gov.
Code, § 65915 et seq.)
Density bonus law is intended to support the
construction of affordable housing by offering
developers the ability to construct additional housing
units above an agency’s otherwise applicable density
range, in exchange for offering to build or donate land for affordable or senior units. Density Bonus Law also
provides for incentives intended to help make the
development of affordable and senior housing
economically feasible.
Compliance is achieved by administration
of Manteca Municipal Code Chapter 17.72,
Density Bonuses and Other Incentives,
which provides for compliance with
Government Code Section 65915 et seq
and will be updated by Housing Plan
Program 14.
Housing Accountability Act
(Gov. Code, § 65589.5.)
Provides that a local agency shall not disapprove a
housing development project, for very low, low-, or
moderate income households, or an emergency shelter,
or condition approval in a manner that renders the
housing development project infeasible for
development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate
income households, or an emergency shelter, including
through the use of design review standards, unless it
makes certain written findings, based upon a
preponderance of the evidence in the record.
Compliance is achieved through the
development review process consistent
with the Housing Accountability Act.
Additionally, the City is in the process of
preparing objective development standards
to facilitate an objective and equitable
review of applicable projects.
No-Net-Loss Law (Gov. Code,
§ 65863)
Ensures development opportunities remain available
throughout the planning period to accommodate a
jurisdiction’s regional housing need assessment
(RHNA) allocation, especially for lower- and moderateincome households.
The City’s draft Housing Element identifies
a surplus of sites with a capacity to
accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation.
The City has also identified additional sites
for accommodating any shortfall that may
occur with respect to anticipated
development density capacity, that may be
added to the site list if necessary.
Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov.
Code, § 65913.1)
Provides that, in exercising its authority to zone for land uses and in revising its housing element, a city, county, or city and county shall designate and zone sufficient
vacant land for residential use with appropriate
standards, in relation to zoning for nonresidential use, and in relation to growth projections of the general plan Compliance is achieved through adoption
of the City’s comprehensive General Plan
(2023) and the implementation of Housing
Element Housing Plan programs which
commit the City to maintaining adequate
sites identified to accommodate the City’s
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-135
to meet housing needs for all income categories as
identified in the housing element of the general plan.
RHNA at densities and intensities
consistent with those specified by site in
Chapter 4 and Appendix A.
Excessive Subdivision
Standards (Gov. Code, §
65913.2.)
Provides that, in exercising its authority to regulate
subdivisions a city, county, or city and county shall:
(a) Refrain from imposing criteria for design, as defined in Section 66418, or improvements, as defined in
Section 66419, for the purpose of rendering infeasible
the development of housing for any and all economic
segments of the community. However, nothing in this
section shall be construed to enlarge or diminish the
authority of a city, county, or city and county under other provisions of law to permit a developer to construct
such housing.
(b) Consider the effect of ordinances adopted and
actions taken by it with respect to the housing needs of the region in which the local jurisdiction is situated. (c) Refrain from imposing standards and criteria for
public improvements including, but not limited to,
streets, sewers, fire stations, schools, or parks, which exceed the standards and criteria being applied by the
city, county, or city and county at that time to its publicly financed improvements located in similarly zoned
districts within that city, county, or city and county.
Compliance is achieved through the
implementation of a fair and equitable
development review process which is
administrated consistent with the Excessive
Subdivision Standards Act.
Limits on Growth Controls
(Gov. Code, § 65302.8.)
Provides that, if a county or city, including a charter city, adopts or amends a mandatory general plan element
which operates to limit the number of housing units
which may be constructed on an annual basis, such
adoption or amendment shall contain findings which
justify reducing the housing opportunities of the region.
The findings shall include all of the following:
(a) A description of the city’s or county’s appropriate share of the regional need for housing.
(b) A description of the specific housing programs and
activities being undertaken by the local jurisdiction to fulfill the requirements of subdivision (c) of Section
65302.
(c) A description of how the public health, safety, and welfare would be promoted by such adoption or
amendment.
(d) The fiscal and environmental resources available to the local jurisdiction
The City’s draft Housing Element and the
elements in the City’s adopted General Plan
do not include any provisions which further
limits (relative to the current Housing
Element and prior General Plan) the
development of housing, except such
provisions as may be required by state or
federal laws.
Housing Element Law (Gov.
Code, § 65583, esp. subds.
(c)(5), (c)(10).)
Section 65583 stipulates that the housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals,
policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement,
and development of housing. The housing element shall
identify adequate sites for housing, including rental
housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and
emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision
for the existing and projected needs of all economic
segments of the community.
Compliance is achieved through
preparation and adoption of a Housing
Element found to be in substantial
compliance with State Housing Element law
by the California Department of Housing
and Community Development.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-136
Subdivision (c)(5) provides that, in order to make
adequate provision for the housing needs of all
economic segments of the community, the program
shall promote and affirmatively further fair housing
opportunities and promote housing throughout the
community or communities for all persons regardless
of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing
with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section
65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law.
Finding
The City has the capacity to provide education, outreach, and enforcement of fair housing laws through its CDBG funds, which fund its agreement with a fair housing service provider (currently SJFHA). City staff is available to refer inquiries to SJFHA.
However, the number of complaints received by CCRD, despite lack of complaints to the City, indicates that the community needs to be better informed and educated regarding local available resources to assist residents with understanding their rights and providing assistance fair housing complaints. It is particularly noted that there were complaints were dismissed because the office was unable to locate the complainant. Programs 16 and 23 in the Housing Plan identify community education and outreach efforts to assist Manteca residents with understanding their fair housing rights and being aware of local resources available for assistance and Program 16 provides for annual coordination with SJFHA to ensure outreach, education, and enforcement activities include specific events and outreach targeted toward the Manteca community and for SJFHA to provide an annual report to the City identifying the nature of fair housing inquiries, the outcome of inquiries, and location of inquiries by address or block group.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Block Group 1
Block
Group 2
Block
Group 1
Block Group 3
Block Group 1
Block
Group 2
Block Group 4
Block Group 5
Block Group 1
Block
Group 2
Block Group 1
Block Group 2
Block
Group 3
Block Group 2
Block Group 2
Block Group 1
Block Group 1
Block
Group 3
Block Group 1
Block
Group 4
Block
Group 2
Block
Group 2
Block Group 1
Block Group 1
Block Group 2 Block Group 1
Block
Group 3
Block Group 3
Block
Group 2
Block
Group 3
Block
Group 1
Block Group 2
Block Group 2
Block Group 1
Block
Group 2
Block
Group 1 Block Group 1
Block Group 2
Block
Group 3
Block Group 2
Block Group 1
120
120
99 99
99 205
5 5
5 5
50.03 52.02
51.08 51.09
51.13 51.14
51.23 51.25
51.26 50.04
49.02 51.22
38.03 39
51.06 51.19
51.24 51.29
51.10 51.27
51.30 51.31
51.32 51.33
51.34 55.01
51.35 Legend
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
City of Manteca
Census Tract Boundary
Census Block Groups within the City
of Manteca
Sources: Marin GeoHub;U.S. Census Bureau. Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 5: CENSUS TRACT AND BLOCK GROUP BOUNDARIES
±
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Lathrop
Escalon
Ripon Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Manteca
108
242
12 160
26 84
4 92 132
165
4 780
24 120
124 99
99 99
220
185
12 219
33 238
49 104
88 113
84 205
580 580
5 5
5 80
880
680
680
680 101
Lathrop
Ripon
Manteca
120
99 5
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "NeighborhoodSegregation_Tract_2019."; California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 6: HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS AND LIHTC-ASSISTED HOUSING 0 21
Miles
0 1½
±
Miles
LEGEND
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
Public Housing Buildings
LIHTC Projects
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-139
ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL DATA AND LOCAL
KNOWLEDGE
This section presents an overview of available federal, state, and local data to analyze fair housing issues in Manteca. These data sources are supplemented with local knowledge of existing conditions in the community to present a more realistic picture of fair housing concerns in Manteca and a more informed perspective from which to base goals, policies, and programs to affirmatively further fair housing.
Local Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors
Local knowledge of housing issues was developed through input from City residents and stakeholders through the community outreach process (see issues discussed above), as well as local and regional sources of information that highlight housing needs of Manteca, San Joaquin County, and the San Joaquin Valley. As part of the preparation of this section, the City requested input from the City department heads, including Development Services, Public Works, Engineering, and Economic Development, and community service providers and stakeholders to help identify factors that have contributed to fair housing conditions in the City and City staff and the consultant team reviewed documentation addressing the City’s investments in the community.
Local History and Growth
Manteca is a city in the central portion of the San Joaquin Valley. The region was first inhabited by Yokuts.[6] Manteca was formally established in 1861 by Joshua Cowell. Cowell claimed around 1,000 acres and built houses on what is now the corner of Main and Yosemite. In 1873, the Central Pacific Railroad laid track directly through the area.[7] In 1918, Manteca was incorporated as a city, and Joshua Cowell became its first mayor.
Manteca itself is a relatively young town, first settled by a few pioneer farmers in the heart of one of the greatest agricultural areas in the world. A combination of good soil, excellent climate, and clean water supported Manteca and the San Joaquin Valley as a significant farming center. Local businesses reflected the agricultural orientation of the area. The Manteca Canning Company opened 1914, operating almost continuously until closing in 1964. Spreckles Sugar Company was constructed in 1916. The Kraft Company opened a plant in 1935 which operated until 1957. Other manufacturing and non-manufacturing companies in the area included Sharpe Army Depot, Libbey Owens Ford, Simplot, Olin Industries, and Delicato Family Wines.
Located at the crossroads of Highway 99, Highway 120, and several railroad lines, with Highway 5 accessible just a few miles to the west, Manteca provides excellent access to the Bay Area and destinations throughout the State. Multiple rail lines historically ran through Manteca and continue to provide transit (Altamont Commuter Express (ACE)) and freight (Union Pacific Railroad) service. As recently as the 1970s, Manteca was a small city with much of the local economy based on the agricultural uses in the region. The continuing rise in Bay Area housing prices over the past several decades has resulted in residential growth in relatively affordable areas of the Central Valley most proximate to the Bay Area, including Manteca, Lathrop, and Tracy. Since the construction of the 120 bypass portion of State Route 120, Manteca has become a popular choice for these commuters. The 1990s saw an increase in Manteca's population and the construction of its third high school (Sierra High School), joining Manteca High School and East Union High School. This shift, initially fueled by Manteca’s affordable housing prices, has resulted in significant residential growth in the City accompanied by an increase in local jobs, businesses, transit, and services as Manteca has grown as an economic hub to meet the needs of its residents.
Zoning and Land Use
Manteca has generally grown in a compact pattern around the historic center of the city at the crossroads of Yosemite Avenue and Main Street. Residential neighborhoods have developed within boundaries established by the major streets spaced one mile apart. The City’s neighborhoods are typically not more than one mile in any dimension, providing a reasonable walking distance from any part of the neighborhood to schools, parks, and commercial centers.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-140
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 singlefamily homes, typically unaffordable to people of color, wealthier households established and maintained mostly white neighborhoods in various areas throughout California. Throughout the state, but particularly concentrated in inland areas, cities have used their annexation power to reinforce patterns of racial exclusion and segregation. This has not been the case in Manteca.
Manteca has grown and developed around several transportation corridors. Highway 99, which runs north-south and extends from Southern California to Washington, connects Manteca to Stockton, Sacramento, and beyond to the north and to Modesto, Merced, Fresno, and beyond to the south. Highway 120 runs east-west through the City and is the primary route to the Bay Area, a significant job center in the state. There are two Union Pacific Railroad two lines in the City, with the Union Pacific Fresno Subdivision line running diagonally through the City from the southeast to the northwest and the Union Pacific Oakland Subdivision line located along the City’s western border.
The City’s development patterns have been guided by its General Plan. Manteca’s General Plan land use designations and development patterns have accommodated a range of housing types, with lands identified for low, medium, and high density residential uses. In the 1960s and 1970s, development extended from the City Center to the north and east along the Union Pacific Railroad line and extended to the north and west to the Highway 99 corridor. Development resulted in primarily residential uses occurring along the Union Pacific line to the northwest, with single family subdivisions and apartments located adjacent the Union Pacific line. To the south, the Spreckels Park industrial complex was built.
In the 1980s, development began to extend to the east of Highway 99 and to Highway 120 to the south, with several residential developments located just south of Highway 99, the Spreckels Industrial Park located northwest of the interchange of Highways 99 and 120. Development south of Highway 120 continued to increase in the 1990s and into the 21st century, providing a mixture of single family, multifamily, and commercial uses. The last several decades have seen continued growth to the east to the Lathrop, and a variety of residential, recreation, and industrial uses occurring along the City’s western border. The region’s strong history of agricultural uses means that newly developing areas are frequently former agricultural uses that are developed with residential, commercial, and other urban uses.
While the City’s development patterns have resulted in residential development adjacent transportation corridors, industrial areas, and agricultural uses, exposing the nearby residents to environmental effects including noise and air pollutant emissions, the City has not concentrated lower income or special needs housing in these areas, nor has there been significant race/ethnicity, income, age (seniors), persons with a disability, or other particular household/population characteristics concentrated in these areas. Neighborhoods located north of Lathrop Avenue, along Airport Way between Lathrop and Louise Avenues, south of Yosemite Avenue west of Union Road, south of Moffatt Boulevard west of Main Street, east of Highway 99, and south of Highway 120 are generally exposed to higher levels of environmental hazards. Recently developed former agricultural areas, such as south of Highway 120, north of Lathrop Road, east of Highway 99/north of E. Louise Ave, and south of Highway 120 are exposed to higher levels of agricultural-related environmental concerns, such as high levels of pesticides and airborne particulate matter. Neighborhoods along Highway 99, Highway 120, and near railroad lines along the City’s western border are exposed to higher levels of noise and vehicle-related pollutant emissions, such as particulate matter, including diesel particulate matter and fine particulate matter. Neighborhoods in the vicinity of Spreckels Park, such as the area west of S. Main Street and south of Moffatt Boulevard are exposed to a variety of emissions associated with the operation of industrial uses in the Spreckels Park (industrial park) and pollutant emissions and noise related to the truck traffic associated with this industrial area. Neighborhoods along Airport Way, including near the industrial area north of Lathrop Road, are exposed to higher levels of noise and emissions, including diesel particulate matter, associated with the Centre Pointe Industrial Area and truck traffic along Airport Way accessing this area. Areas affected by these environmental conditions include a broad cross-section of population and household types and do not have a strong correspondence to specific population characteristics, such as race/ethnicity, age (seniors), disability, familial status, or income.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-141
The City has many areas zoned for single family housing and has been proud of its growth as a multicultural community, providing opportunities for home ownership for people regardless of race. For many years, single family home prices in Manteca and the Central Valley were obtainable to moderate income households, creating ownership opportunities for households that were unable to afford home prices in the Bay Area. These affordable home prices also extended to more modest rental rates, resulting in an influx of households into Manteca and the region and increasing the diversity of the community.
Over the past several decades, housing prices have risen significantly in Manteca, as well as throughout the State. These rising prices have made homeownership less attainable for many working families of moderate incomes and have resulted in concentrations of higher incomes in single family areas and newly developing areas with single family and multifamily housing.
However, developing areas in the City, including annexed areas and residential development south of SR 120, reflect a diversity of races and have provided opportunities for a variety of housing types, with multifamily and mixed use opportunities provided in the vicinity of new single family areas, with higher density uses focused along major roads and in proximity to existing and planned services, including transit.
Development along these regional travel corridors has continued to support high-quality access to regional jobs, with the centrally-located Manteca Transit Center, which is served by bus routes throughout the City and region, providing access to a variety of transit options and with interchanges constructed or improved along Highway 120 and Highway 99 to support the City’s growth. The City’s transit system provides equitable access to neighborhoods, with Manteca Transit routes located primarily along major arterial and collector roads. The two areas with less access to the system’s fixed routes are the Del Webb and Union Ranch communities located west of Highway 99 and north of Lathrop Road and the Shadowbrook community located east of Highway 99 and north of Louise Avenue. These neighborhoods are senior communities and, as seniors, residents are eligible for Manteca Transit’s dial-a-ride, which provides service from one’s home to a destination in the City limits and to the Lathrop/Manteca ACE station, for individuals with a disability, seniors, and Medicare participants. In addition, Paratransit provides origin to destination service for persons with a disability. As further discussed under the Disparities in Access to Opportunities section below, it does not appear that there are any populations, such as concentrations of seniors, persons with a disability, single female-headed households, or lower income households that have inequitable access to transit.
While Manteca’s neighborhoods generally have similar characteristics in terms of the condition of the homes and infrastructure, there are several areas that have homes in poorer condition than is typical in other neighborhoods and several areas with incomplete infrastructure, particularly sidewalks and locally-accessible bike routes, and less access to amenities.
Areas with concentrations of homes in poorer condition are generally located along Yosemite Avenue from Union Road to Cottage Avenue and generally bounded by Center Street/E. North Streets to the north and Marion/Edythe/Martha Street to the southwest of Main Street, the railroad tracks east of Main Street, and some homes located in the area along Airport Way and Fishback Road between Wawona Street and Yosemite Avenue. These areas in need of investment do not correspond to concentrations of any particular populations, including racial/ethnic groups, seniors, persons with a disability, single femaleheaded households, or lower income households.
Manteca has endeavored to provide schools, parks, recreation, and community amenities and infrastructure, such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, that are accessible to all residential neighborhoods and ensures that new parks are planned alongside new residential subdivisions and developments. The Existing Conditions Report prepared for the 2043 General Plan addressed proximity to parks for Manteca’s neighborhoods. All Manteca’s neighborhoods are within ½-mile, or walking distance, of a park and the majority of Manteca’s neighborhoods are within ¼-mile of a park. Neighborhoods that are more than ¼-mile, but within ½-mile of a park are primarily located in three areas: 1) a predominantly single-family area with some halfplexes and small-scale multifamily developments interspersed that is generally south of E. Louise Avenue and east of Main Street, generally north of Sutter Street, and along Golden Gate Drive to the east, 2) a predominantly single-family area with occasional small-scale multifamily developments that is generally east of N. Sheridan Ave and south of E. Sutter Street, generally bounded EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-142
by Pine Street to the south and Highway 99 to the east, and 3) an area with mobile home parks, single-family development, and multifamily development located between Highway 99 and the eastern City limits, south of Nehemiah Drive, along E.
Yosemite Ave/Highway 120, including residential development of E. Yosemite Ave. Areas with less convenient access to parks correspond with some of the City’s concentrations of lower income households, particularly those in the southeast portion of the City west of Highway 99 and those in the eastern/central portion of the City located east of Main Street (block groups by median income are shown on Figure 16).
With specific exceptions related to pedestrian and bicycle improvements, development in the City is generally served by adequate infrastructure. However, rural residential areas developed prior to annexation located along Airport Way and Fishback Road in the area generally south of the Manteca Golf Course and north of Wawona Street lack complete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. While the majority of Manteca’s neighborhoods have pedestrian facilities, there are several areas where there are no sidewalks and multi-purpose paths. These areas include 1) the single-family neighborhood, generally comprised of larger homes on large lots located north of Crom Street and bounded by Greenview Place to the east, Titleist Way to the north, and Foxfire Drive to the east, 2) several mobilehome parks located to the east of Highway 99, both north and south of E. Yosemite Ave/Highway 120, and 3) rural residential development located along Airport Way in the area generally south of the Manteca Golf Course and north of Wawona Street. Bicycle facilities are generally located on Manteca’s primary roads; areas with limited bicycle access include the: 1) area east of Highway 99 south of Yosemite Avenue, 2) most of the residential neighborhoods located south of Highway 120 and to the north and south of Woodward Avenue, and 3) rural residential areas developed prior to annexation located along Airport Way and Fishback Road in the area generally south of the Manteca Golf Course and north of Wawona Street. These areas with incomplete pedestrian and bicycle facilities do not correspond strongly with concentrations of particular populations, such as racial/ethnic groups, seniors, persons with a disability, and single female-headed households, but do correspond with a concentration of lower income households, particularly those in the southeast portion of the City west of Highway 99.
As shown on Figure 7, the City’s recent 2040 General Plan included Goal LU-9 and a robust set of new policies and programs to address environmental justice issues and to reduce exposure of disadvantaged and sensitive populations to noise, pollutants, and other adverse effects associated with industrial uses, agricultural uses, primary travel corridors, and other intensive uses, and established measures to increase equitable access to education, recreation, healthy foods, community services, and other amenities. As described above, there are multiple neighborhoods in the City affected by housing conditions, environmental concerns, lack of infrastructure, and reduced access to community amenities. The Disparities in Access to Opportunities discussion addresses how areas are affected by environmental concerns, access to educational opportunities, access to transportation opportunities, and access to economic opportunities coincide with various fair housing factors, including race/ethnicity, age, disability, familial status, and income, as well as whether neighborhoods described above coincide with these fair housing factors.
With the City’s recent General Plan update, adopted in 2024, the City has endeavored to continue to promote a range of housing types, densities, and affordability levels throughout the community. The 2040 General Plan provides for higher density housing (apartments, condominiums, and townhomes) and mixed uses throughout the community to support a variety of housing types in all areas, but also ensures that multiple nodes of higher density and mixed use housing are located in areas with access to major roads, services, transit, schools, and shopping in order to promote walkable alternatives to passenger vehicle trips, decreasing overall vehicle miles travelled and associated air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions and noise, and improving transportation, education, and environmental conditions, such as those described above for particular neighborhoods and areas.
Infrastructure Investments
In 1993, the City developed the Public Facilities Implementation Plan (PFIP) as the implementing program for specific public infrastructure policies identified in the City’s General Plan. Originally adopted in 1993, the purpose of the PFIP is to ensure that certain public infrastructure needed for growth – namely water, wastewater, storm drainage, and transportation facilities – were adequate as the City grew and developed in accordance with its General Plan. The PFIP was intended to ensure that EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-143
infrastructure was constructed in a timely manner and financed in a way that equitably divided financial responsibility in proportion to the demands placed on the new facilities. The PFIP was originally developed as a reimbursement model program that utilized developers’ resources to fund and construct improvements. Developers were reimbursed either in fee credits or with funds as they were accumulated from the imposed fees. This method was successful in some aspects, but often required that developers fund substantial improvements with limited assurance of timely repayment. This situation ultimately presented significant barriers to growth. In 2013, the City re-envisioned its infrastructure financing model and updated the PFIP in a manner to reduce barriers to development. The 2013 PFIP uses a development impact fee model wherein the City assumes some responsibility for funding and constructing most major facilities, while developers pay their proportionate share to reimburse the City for the cost to finance and construct the infrastructure. By reducing the financial and time burden placed on a developer to finance and construct infrastructure necessary to serve buildout conditions under the General Plan, this change reduces the cost and time to develop projects and supports the development of all housing types, including single family, multifamily, and special needs housing. (City of Manteca 2013 Public Facilities Implementation Plan Update, 2013) Areas in need of infrastructure improvements, including pedestrian and bicycle amenities and infrastructure investment, are described above under Zoning and Land Use.
Education and Safe Routes to Schools
Manteca’s neighborhoods generally have similar access to educational opportunities, with the Manteca Unified School District annually reviews its school boundaries and revises its school boundaries annually to address anticipated population changes.
Manteca Unified School District provides busing for students in kindergarten through eight grade that are more than 1.25 miles from the school and high school students that are more than 2.5 miles from the school. This approach encourages nearby students to walk or bike to school. Manteca has worked with the San Joaquin Council of Governments and Manteca Unified School District to identify Safe Routes to Schools, a bicycle and pedestrian network intended to increase safety for students when commuting (walking, bicycling, or driving). Safe Routes to Schools traffic improvements include: (i) high visibility crosswalks; (ii) adding or replacing curb ramps at certain intersections; (iii) replacing existing crosswalks with high visibility crosswalks; (iv) replacing missing segments of sidewalks; (v) adding sidewalks on certain streets in Manteca; and (vi) adding traffic warning and regulatory signage. This program promotes safe access for all students, encouraging active transportation modes and public safety. Improvements programmed for Manteca from 2017-2021 include adding bike lanes along Main Street and Yosemite Avenue, which are two of the City’s key travel corridors serving the Downtown and many of the City’s older neighborhoods, which include a mixture of single family, multifamily, and mobile homes, as well as more recent developments along the City’s edges. These neighborhoods are the same as those that lack complete pedestrian and bicycle facilities discussed in the previous section and are also discussed in the Disparities in Access to Opportunities, Educational Opportunities discussion below.
Summary
As described above, the local knowledge of land use, development, transportation, recreation, education, and infrastructure patterns indicates that there are several concentrations of areas with higher needs and gaps in these types of resources.
Generally, these concentrations of higher needs and resource gaps do not correspond to patterns of concentration by race/ethnicity, age (seniors), disability, or familial status, but do show a pattern of limited resources and amenities in the area of the City located east of Highway 99 to the north and south of Yosemite Avenue. This area would benefit from place-based investments, particularly investment to improve access to community amenities, including parks, pedestrian facilities, and bicycle facilities, and environmental conditions.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-144
Figure 7: 2040 General Plan – Environmental Justice Approach EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-145
Funding for Lower/Moderate Income Housing and Revitalization Dissolved by the California Legislature in 2012, the City’s Redevelopment Agency supported the provision of affordable housing, including in the City’s redevelopment area as well as in neighborhoods throughout the City. Manteca’s Redevelopment Agency had an exemplary track record for successful projects. During its existence, the Agency built a reputation for developing high quality projects, supporting the business community, and meeting the needs of the residents, who together make Manteca a better city to live, work and play. Redevelopment Agency efforts included projects in the areas of Public Infrastructure, Revitalization, Economic Development, Affordable Housing, and Neighborhood Preservation.
The Statewide dissolution of redevelopment agencies ended this significant source of funding for affordable housing, economic development, and revitalization, leaving CDBG and HOME funds as the primary source of funding for housing and services to support the lower income population. The CDBG and HOME programs are formula grant programs which provide modest annual funding to Manteca. The CDBG and HOME programs do not provide nearly enough funding to support affordable housing development at a pace to meet the RHNA.
While the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee administers the highly competitive LIHTC program, this program does not distribute funding in a manner that assists Manteca, and many other local jurisdictions, with meeting their RHNA. Funding is highly competitive and a large portion of funds is directed geographically or at special programs without ensuring funds are distributed to assist jurisdictions in meeting the State-mandated allocation of housing needs through the RHNA process. In 2023, of the new construction geographic apportionments, 9% of funds was directed to the Northern Region, including Butte, El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Solano, Sutter, Yuba, and Yolo Counties., and only 2 projects were assisted in the entire Central Valley Region (Kern, Tulare, Kings, Fresno, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin Counties) not including the rural set-aside. At this rate, over the entire 8-year RHNA period, only 16 projects will be assisted for the jurisdictions in the 8-county Central Valley Region that do not qualify as rural.
While the loss of redevelopment and limited availability of the most significant State-administered affordable housing funding source (LIHTC) has resulted in less affordable housing development, the City has encouraged a variety of housing types through continuing to designate areas for medium and high density development and mixed uses, resulting in a mixture of single family and multifamily housing types developed over the past several decades. However, the housing market is largely influenced by demand and developers have constructed primarily single family housing.
Community and Stakeholder Input
As discussed in the Outreach section above, the City worked to identify fair housing issues as part of the Housing Element Update process. The City reached out to stakeholders requesting input on housing issues through direct emails and phone calls to the stakeholders and through requesting stakeholders attend a housing workshop to provide information regarding housing needs of their service population or housing needs or constraints their organization is aware of. The stakeholders did not identify any known fair housing issues. The City also conducted a community-wide survey to identify housing issues and priorities, including concerns related to fair housing. While all survey respondents indicated that they had not encountered housing-related discrimination, 23% of respondents indicated they are concerned with their rent increasing to an amount they cannot afford and 23% of respondents indicated they are concerned that if they ask their property manager or landlord to make repairs their rent will increase or they will be evicted. The City is not aware of any fair housing issues concentrated in a specific neighborhood, block group, or census tract.
Analysis of Impediments
The purpose of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) includes analysis of public and private policies, practices, and procedures that influence housing choice within San Joaquin County to fulfill its HUD requirement and remove barriers to fair housing choice for all residents within the service area covered by the AI, including the City of Manteca. Below are some key findings related to Manteca from the 2020 AI. The findings from the 2020 AI are also reflected in the discussion of individual topics below.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-146
• The 2020 AI identifies that affordable housing projects not operated by HACSJ account for 1,234 units in the Urban County, and the majority of these are in Manteca and Tracy; • According to the 2020 AI, the central areas of Manteca have notable concentrations of minority residents. The Pacific Islander community is notably concentrated in and around Manteca, and the American Indian population is mainly in the areas to the south of Manteca;
• Block Groups where more than 50 percent of households are Low and Moderate Income are most highly concentrated in parts of central Manteca;
• In Tracy and Manteca, there were 45 homeless individuals in emergency shelters and 16 in transitional housing.
Among these sheltered homeless individuals, 38 people, or 62.3 percent, were children and either White or multiracial. • Manteca had lower than average percentages of units in sound condition and higher than average percentages of units in need of major repair.
Housing Report for San Joaquin Valley
Below are some key findings related to San Joaquin County from the Housing Report, and these findings are also reflected in the discussion of individual topics below.
• San Joaquin County has the highest median household income at $64,432; however, that is still only 86 percent of the statewide median;
• San Joaquin County having the highest cost of living at $50,797; • A tenth of San Joaquin County workers commute over 90 minutes; • San Joaquin County has the highest median home value in the region ($522,211), which is still only about 72.8 percent of the statewide median; and
• San Joaquin County had the greatest recent increase in home values, rising nearly $150,000 since January 2020.
Racially Restrictive Covenants
Restrictive covenants were used to stabilize the property values of white families and caused segregation of neighborhoods.
Beginning in 1934, the Federal Housing Authority recommended the inclusion of restrictive covenants in the deeds of homes it insured. Racially restrictive covenants made it illegal for African Americans, as well as other people of color, to purchase, lease rent, or use homes (unless as a servant).
In a landmark 1948 ruling, the Supreme Court deemed all racially restrictive covenants unenforceable. While Titles VIII and IX of the 1968 Civil Rights Act, also known as the Fair Housing Act, prohibited discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing in housing-related transactions based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, and familial status, many restrictive covenants continue to remain in property deeds throughout San Joaquin County.
In 1980, Article 2 Housing Discrimination was added to the State Government Code, which included Section 12956.2 that allows a person who holds or is acquiring an ownership interest of record in property that the person believes is the subject of an unlawfully restrictive covenant in violation of subdivision (l) of Section 12955 may record a document titled Restrictive Covenant Modification (RCM).
In 2021, Assembly Bill 1466 made changes to the RCM processes and added Government Code Section 12956.3, which imposes a state-mandated local program and opens the ability to all, including the County Clerk Recorder, to submit a RCM document for recording and redact the illegal restrictive language. As part of the new processes, the Office of the RecorderCounty Clerk of San Joaquin County helps people whose property's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) contain racially or otherwise unlawfully restrictive covenants prepare and record a Restrictive Covenant Modification. San Joaquin County has developed the RCM to identify and address unlawfully restrictive covenant language pursuant to GC Section 12956.3(b)(1). The RCM addresses the following:
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-147
• Identify unlawfully restrictive covenants
• Redact unlawfully restrictive covenants
• Track identified illegal restrictive covenants
• Establish a timeline to identify, track, and redact unlawfully restrictive covenants • Make index of recorded RCM documents available to the public • Maintain original non-redacted recording
• Provide status reports to the County Recorders Association of California Redlining
Separate from racially restrictive covenants, the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) mapped regions and “redlined” areas, depicting “best” areas in green, “still desirable” in blue, “definitely declining” in yellow, and “hazardous” in red. This practice was known as “redlining”. Across the United States, redlined and marginalized communities faced a higher propensity for environmental hazards. For example, 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. Known HOLC mapping for San Joaquin County includes mapping of the Stockton area, which shows diverse grades from “best” to “hazardous”. The City is not aware of any HOLC maps for Manteca or surrounding area.
Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin (HACSJ)
The City of Manteca works cooperatively with the Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin (HACSJ), which administers the Housing Choice Voucher Program. The program assists very low income, elderly, and disabled households by paying the difference between 30% of an eligible household's income and the actual cost of renting a unit. Figure 6 shows housing choice vouchers and LIHTC-assisted housing by census tract. As shown in Figure 6, there are no public housing buildings but three LIHTC-assisted housing in census tracts located in Manteca. The closest public housing is located in Stockton and Tracy.
Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
To inform priorities, policies, and actions, Manteca has included an analysis of integration and segregation, including patterns and trends, related to people with protected characteristics. Segregation generally means a condition in which there is 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 when compared to a broader geographic area. Conversely, integration refers to 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 when compared to a broader geographic area. The following analysis will analyze levels of segregation and integration for race and ethnicity, persons with disabilities, familial status, age, and income to identify the groups in Manteca that experience the highest levels of segregation.
Regional Patterns
In San Joaquin County, the region, and the cities of Stockton, Lathrop, Tracy, Ripon and Escalon, segregation is primarily an inter-jurisdictional rather than an intra-jurisdictional phenomenon (that is, it is more apparent when comparing various jurisdictions rather than within the jurisdictions), noting that:
• There are notable clusters of Block Groups located along State Highways 4 and 28 where more than 70 percent of the population is Hispanic or Latino. There are also similar concentrations of Hispanic and Latino residents in French Camp and in the unincorporated area to the west of Lodi. • Relatively high levels of segregation for Hispanic and Latino residents compared to other minority groups, and an isolation score that is comparable to Non-Hispanic White residents. The areas with concentrations of minority residents also correspond somewhat with concentrations of lower-income households, although there are not racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty;
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-148
Diversity
Tracking the diversity of cities and counties throughout California is crucial to understanding the shifting demographics of race and ethnicity in California and the United States. As shown in Figure 8, most areas of the City contain a mix of race/ethnicities.
Census tracts 51.08, 51.09, 51.10, 51.13, 51.24, 51.25, 51.26, 51.32, 51.33, and 51.35 (located in the eastern and northern portion of the City) contain a mix of White and Latinx residents. The remaining census tracts contain a mix of three races/ethnicities. No census tracts contain a concentration of non-White residents.
Esri’s Diversity Index captures the racial and ethnic diversity of a geographic area in a single number, from 0 to 100. Scores less than 40 represent lower diversity in the jurisdiction while scores of greater than 85 represent higher diversity. Additionally, scores between 40-55 represent low diversity, 55-70 represent moderate diversity, and 70-85 represent high diversity.
As shown in Figure 9, there generally appears to be moderate to higher diversity index scores throughout the City of Manteca (compared to its neighbors), with the highest diversity index score (40-55) located at the central and southern portions of the City, including the census block group 2 of the census tract 51.23, the census block groups. From 2010 to 2018, there has been a slight increase to the diversity index in the City, as illustrated in Figure 10. As shown in Figures 8 and 9, communities in San Joaquin County with 3-group, 4-group, and diverse neighborhood concentrations and higher diversity scores are somewhat more likely to occur in the more developed portions of the County than they are in the less developed portions of the County.
Table 5-2 shows the demographic trends over time for the City and San Joaquin County. As shown, Manteca is a more diverse community than the County as a whole, with non-Hispanic Whites comprising 15.6% of Manteca residents in 2020. The County has been majority non-White since at least 2010. However, Manteca has become increasingly diverse in the last 20 years.
Since 2000, the percentage of Hispanic residents has increased in the City from 32.2% to 42.3% at an increase rate of 10.1% compared to the County which has increased from 17.7% to 27.0% at a slightly slower rate of 9.3%. The percentage of Asian residents has similarly increased in the City from 12.4% to 19.3% at an increase rate of 6.9% compared to the County which has increased from 10.8% to 18.4% at an increase rate of 7.6%. The percentage of population that are White residents has decreased in the City from 31.2% to 15.6% at an decrease rate of 15.6% compared to the County which has decreased from
57.9% to 39.1% at an decrease rate of 18.8%. In comparison to the County, there has been little change in the population of other racial and ethnic groups in the City from 2000 to current population.
Table 5-2: Demographic Trends
Racial/Ethnic 2000 2010 2020
Manteca
White 31.2% 20.0% 15.6%
Black or African American 18.4% 17.0% 16.3%
American Indian and Alaska Native 0.4% 0.3% 0.3%
Asian 12.4% 15.3% 19.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.8% 1.0% 1.1% Some other race 0.3% 0.3% 0.7%
Two or more races 4.3% 3.7% 4.6%
Hispanic or Latino 32.2% 42.4% 42.3%
San Joaquin County
White 57.9% 47.8% 39.1%
Black or African American 9.2% 8.8% 8.4%
American Indian and Alaska Native 0.4% 0.2% 0.2%
Asian 10.8% 14.6% 18.4%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-149
Table 5-2: Demographic Trends
Racial/Ethnic 2000 2010 2020
Some other race 0.3% 0.2% 0.7%
Two or more races 3.4% 3.5% 5.7%
Hispanic or Latino 17.7% 24.4% 27.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census, 2000, 2010, 2020.
The City’s areas exhibiting higher diversity generally correspond with high and highest resource areas (Figure 20) and the moderate to higher levels of median household income. However, areas of the City with less diversity - predominantly Latinx/White population - do correspond to several of the lower median household income areas (Figure 16) and low resource opportunity areas (Figure 20), as discussed in association with these topics below.
Mapped Patterns of Integration and Segregation
Patterns of integration and segregation are also considered for people with disabilities, familial status, and income groups.
Relying primarily on data available from the US Census, it is possible to map and consider existing patterns which may indicate historical influences and future trends by census tract and census block groups.
Population with a Disability
As shown in Figure 11, the central portion of the City has a higher percentage of persons with a disability. This corresponds to the higher-density housing areas in the City with greater access to transit, major activity centers, and public facilities.
Persons with disabilities often rely on public transit to visit doctors, go shopping, or attend activities at community facilities.
More geographically isolated areas or areas with steep topography, like the City’s eastern and southern neighborhoods may be less suitable for persons with disabilities who may have impaired mobility and difficulty accessing goods and services. As discussed in the Needs Assessment section of the Housing Element Background Report, approximately 10.9% of Manteca’s population in 2020 had at least one disability. For persons ages 0 to 64, the most common disabilities are Ambulatory Difficulty (25.8%) and Cognitive Difficulty (22.9%). For the population of ages 65 and over, the most common disabilities are Ambulatory Difficulty (33.7%) and Independent Living Difficulty (18.7%).
The census tracts in the City exhibit similar concentrations of persons with disabilities compared to neighboring jurisdictions, as shown in Figure 11. One census tract, 51.32, in the City has a rate of disability that is between 20 - 30% and two census tracts, 51.14 and 51.19 have a rate of disability less than 10%. Other census tracts within the City have a rate of disability between 10 – 20%. Other San Joaquin County jurisdictions have similar proportion of population with disabilities indicating that the City of Manteca does not have a disproportionate concentration of persons with disabilities nor a smaller percentage of persons with disabilities (compared to the region) that might indicate barriers to this population.
Based on this analysis, the City finds that there are no significant patterns of segregation impacting persons with disabilities living in Manteca, given that the concentration of residents with disabilities has no significant correlation with the degree of diversity or income throughout the City. Nonetheless, the higher concentration of persons with disabilities in census tract
51.32 can be correlated with the community’s older resident profile and also corresponds to a low median income area (Figure 16) and low access to opportunities (Figure 20).
Percent of Population 18 Years and Over in Households Living with Spouse Figure 12 identifies the percent of population over the age of 18 years and over in households living with spouse in Manteca.
As shown in Figure 12, all census tracts in Manteca have 40 to 60% of their population over the age of 18 years and over in households living with spouse, except census tract 51.09 located in central-eastern portion of Manteca which has 20% - 40% of its population over the age of 18 years and over in households living with spouse. In Manteca, a higher percentage of adult households living alone occurs in and around the Downtown area, corresponding to more dense residential development patterns and fewer rooms per unit. Countywide, the areas with higher concentrations of population over the age of 18 years EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-150
and over in households living with spouse are located in less densely developed areas of the County, as illustrated in Figure
12. Dense communities have a lower percentage of population over the age of 18 years and over in households living with spouse. Based on this analysis, it appears that there are no significant patterns of segregation, including patterns based on income levels or access to resources, impacting population over the age of 18 years and over in households living with spouse in Manteca. Other cities in San Joaquin County have different percentages of population over the age of 18 years and over in households living with spouse. Tracy, Lathrop, Ripon, and Escalon have majority of their census tracts that have 40% - 60% of their population over the age of 18 years and over in households living with spouse. Stockton and Lodi have more census tracts that have 20% - 40% or less than 20% of their population over the age of 18 years and over in households living with spouse.
Based on this analysis, the City finds that there are no significant patterns of segregation impacting children in married households in Manteca, given that the concentration of married households has no correlation with the degree of diversity throughout the City.
Percent of Children in Married Households
As shown in Figure 13, the percentage of children in married couple households varies across different census tracts in Manteca. Citywide, the areas with higher concentrations of children in married couple households are located in the northern portion of the City. Census tracts 51.32 and 51.26 have 40-60% of their children in married households. Census tracts 51.22 and 50.04 that have over 80% of its children in married households. Other census tracts within the City have 60% - 80% of their children in married households. It is noted that some census tracts with higher percentages of children in married households extends out into areas of the unincorporated County.
Based on this analysis, the County finds that there are no significant patterns of segregation impacting children in married households in San Joaquin County, given that the concentration of married households has no correlation with the degree of diversity throughout the County a. Countywide, the areas with higher percentage of children in married couple households are located in less densely developed areas of the County, as illustrated in Figure 12. Dense communities have a lower percentage of children in married couple households and this pattern is consistent throughout San Joaquin County. Census tracts within other cities and communities in San Joaquin County have similar percentage of children in married couple households as census tracts in Manteca, with Stockton has slightly more census tracts that have 20 -40% of children in married couple households. Census tracts with lower percentages of married households with children in Manteca do not have a significant correlation to areas with lower median household incomes (Figure 16) and lower access to opportunities (Figure 20).
Female-headed Households
Manteca is also home to a number of female-headed households located throughout the community, with census tracts 51.33,
51.25, and 51.26 exhibiting higher proportions than the rest of the City (20-40% vs. <20%). These areas correspond to higher density areas with more multifamily housing options. Compared with other cities within the County, such as Stockton, Lodi, Tracy, and Escalon, Manteca has less census tracts with higher percentage of female-headed households, as shown in Figure
14. Based on this analysis, the County finds that there are no significant patterns of segregation impacting female-headed households, given that the concentration of married households has no correlation with the degree of diversity throughout the County. Countywide, the areas with higher percentage of female-headed households are located in more densely developed areas of the County, as illustrated in Figure 14. Dense communities have a higher percentage of children in married couple households and this pattern is consistent throughout San Joaquin County. Census tracts with higher percentages of female headed households in Manteca do not have a significant correlation to areas with lower median household incomes (Figure 16) and lower access to opportunities (Figure 20).
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-151
Persons 65 Years of Age or Older
The City’s older residents, persons 65 years of age or older, are dispersed throughout the community, as shown in Figure 15.
The highest concentrations of senior residents are located in the north portion of the City, with census tract 51.35 has 25 - 30% of its population over the age of 65 years. In contrast, census tracts 51.08, 51.22, and 51.14 have less than 10% of its population over the age of 65 years. As members of the community age-in-place (remain in their residence as they get older), it is possible that some areas of the City will continue to see higher proportions of their neighborhood occupied by senior residents. Safe and convenient access to goods and services is especially important for seniors, who may have mobility limitations or minimum household income. Areas with higher rates of seniors do not correlate to patterns based on income levels (Figure 16) or access to resources (Figure 20).
Based on this analysis, the City finds that there are no significant patterns of segregation impacting senior residents, given that the concentration of senior residents has no correlation with the degree of diversity throughout the City. Compared with some other cities and communities in San Joaquin County, such as Tracy and Escalon, Manteca is the home of a higher percentage of senior residents. However, compared with cities in the northern portion of the County, such as Stockton and Lodi, Manteca has less proportion of its population as senior residents.
Median Household Income
Figure 16 identifies the 2019 median household income for Manteca. Patterns of moderately segregated economic wealth, as indicated by median household income, do exist in Manteca, as illustrated on Figure 16. In general, areas with lower median household incomes are located in the denser central and eastern portions of the City (within and near the Downtown area, which contain a higher proportion of multifamily units), and areas with higher median household incomes are located in the more suburban and rural portions of the City. Based on this analysis, the City finds that there are no significant patterns of segregation impacting low income residents, given that the concentration of median household income has no correlation with the degree of diversity throughout the City. Compared with other cities in San Joaquin County, such as Tracy, Lathrop, and Escalon, Manteca has similar median household income. However, Stockton and Lodi have relatively lower median household income. As shown in Figure 16, communities in San Joaquin County with lower median incomes are somewhat more likely to be located in the more racially and ethnically diverse portion of the County. However, the more diverse areas of Manteca correspond generally with higher income levels. Areas with lower median household incomes do correspond with some of the low resource areas shown on Figure 20, but also are located in areas designated moderate and high resource. However, none of the lower median household income areas in Manteca correspond with the highest resource areas (Figure 20) As described throughout this Housing Element, the City is committed to supporting the development of housing affordable to lower income households in locations throughout Manteca and has identified sites for future growth and development which are designed to promote a more balanced and integrated pattern of household incomes.
Findings
The City has considered trends and patterns related to integration and segregation based on racial and ethnic factors, disability, family status, seniors, and median household income. As previously discussed, the City’s racial/ethnic composition is predominantly comprised of Hispanic or Latino persons and the City does not contain significant patterns of racial/ethnic segregation. Manteca is a more diverse community than the County as a whole, which may indicate that non-White individuals are less likely to face disproportionate barriers to residing in the City. Manteca is likely to continue to become more racially and ethnically diverse over time, based on demographic trends, and must continue to make diligent efforts to integrate neighborhoods in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. Comparing Figure 9 (Diversity Index) to Figure 16 (Median Household Income), some areas with the highest diversity index categories (particularly the Downton) correlate with areas that have low median household incomes. However, this pattern is not consistent. In general, areas of the City with higher density, more affordable multifamily housing choices, and older housing stock, including the Downtown area and central neighborhoods, at least partially overlap with other populations that may have disproportionate housing needs, such as persons with disabilities, low-income seniors, households with familial status, and households with lower median incomes. Conversely, the rest portions of the City with newer suburban development and rural development patterns are generally less diverse. The City’s Housing Plan contains a number of policies and programs to ensure that existing residents’ housing needs are met and EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-152
encourage new residents to move to the City. Many of these programs are aimed at increasing housing supply and affordability, encouraging integration with diverse and affordable options such as ADUs throughout the City, rehabilitating housing, and providing fair housing education and other services.
As part of the City’s regular participation in the County AI, the City will continue to consider these patterns to determine any changes from current conditions.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Lathrop
Escalon
Ripon Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Manteca
108
242
12 160
26 84
4 92 132
165
4 4
780
24 120
124 99
99 99
220
185
12 219
33 238
49 104
88 113
84 26
205
580 580
5 5
5 80
880
680
680
680 101
Lathrop
Ripon
Manteca
120
99 5
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "NeighborhoodSegregation_Tract_2019." Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 8. NEIGHBORHOOD CONCENTRATIONS BY CENSUS TRACT
0 21 ±
Miles
0 1½
Miles
LEGEND
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
Neighborhood Concentration
Asian-Black
Asian-Latinx
Asian-White
Mostly Asian
Black-Latinx
Black-White
Mostly Black
Latinx-White
Mostly Latinx
Other-White
Mostly White
Mostly Other
3 Group Mixed
4 Group Mixed
Diverse
Unpopulated Tract
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Lathrop
Escalon
Ripon Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Manteca
108
242
12 160
26 84
4 132 92
165
4 780
24 120
124 99
99 99
220
185
12 219
33 238
49 104
88 113
84 205
580 580
5 5
5 80
880
680
680
680 101
Lathrop
Ripon
Manteca
120
99 5
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "RaceDemographics_BlockGrp_2018." Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 9: DIVERSITY INDEX BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP 2018
0 21
Miles
0 1½
±
Miles
LEGEND
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
Diversity Index (2018)
Higher Diversity
70-85
55-70
40-55
Lower Diversity
No Data
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Lathrop
Escalon
Ripon Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Manteca
108
242
12 160
26 84
4 92 132
165
4 780
24 120
124 99
99 99
220
185
12 219
33 238
49 104
88 113
84 205
580 580
5 5
5 80
880
680
680
680 101
Lathrop
Ripon
Manteca
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "RaceDemographics_BlockGrp_2010." Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 10: DIVERSITY INDEX BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP 2010
0 21
Miles
0 1½
±
Miles
LEGEND
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
Diversity Index (2010)
Higher Diversity
70-85
55-70
40-55
Lower Diversity
No Data
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Lathrop
Escalon
Ripon Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Manteca
108
242
12 160
26 84
4 92 132
165
4 780
24 120
124 99
99 99
220
185
12 219
33 238
49 104
88 113
84 205
580 580
5 5
5 80
880
680
680
680 101
Lathrop
Ripon
Manteca
120
99 5
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "DisabilityPopulation_Tract_2015_19." Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 11: PROPORTION OF POPULATION WITH DISABILITIES BY CENSUS TRACT 0 21
Miles
0 1½
±
Miles
LEGEND
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
Percent of Population with a
Disability
< 10%
10 - 20%
20 - 30%
30 - 40%
> 40%
No Data
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Lathrop
Escalon
Ripon Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Manteca
108
242
12 160
26 84
4 92 132
165
4 780
24 120
124 99
99 99
220
185
12 219
33 238
49 104
88 113
84 205
580 580
5 5
5 80
880
680
680
680 101
Lathrop
Ripon
Manteca
120
99 5
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "FamilyStatus_Tract_2015_19." Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 12: PERCENT OF POPULATION 18 YEARS AND OVER IN HOUSEHOLDS LIVING WITH SPOUSE 0 21
Miles
0 1½
±
Miles
LEGEND
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
Percent of Population 18
Years and Over in
Households Living with
Spouse
> 80%
60% - 80%
40% - 60%
20% - 40%
< 20%
No Data
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Lathrop
Escalon
Ripon Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Manteca
108
242
12 160
26 84
4 92 132
165
4 780
24 120
124 99
99 99
220
185
12 219
33 238
49 104
88 113
84 205
580 580
5 5
5 80
880
680
680
680 101
Lathrop
Ripon
Manteca
120
99 5
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "FamilyStatus_Tract_2015_19." Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 13: PERCENT OF CHILDREN IN MARRIED COUPLE HOUSEHOLDS 0 21
Miles
0 1½
±
Miles
LEGEND
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
Percent of Children in
Married-Couple Households
> 80%
60% - 80%
40% - 60%
20% - 40%
< 20%
No Data
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Lathrop
Escalon
Ripon Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Manteca
108
242
12 160
26 84
4 92 132
165
4 780
24 120
124 99
99 99
220
185
12 219
33 238
49 104
88 113
84 205
580 580
5 5
5 80
880
680
680
680 101
Lathrop
Ripon
Manteca
120
99 5
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "FamilyStatus_Tract_2015_19." Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 14: FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS BY PROPORTION OF CHILDREN PRESENT BY CENSUS TRACT 0 21
Miles
0 1½
±
Miles
LEGEND
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
Percent of Children in
Female-Headed Household
in which No Spouse or
Partner Present is Present
< 20%
20 - 40%
40 - 60%
60 - 80%
> 80%
No Data
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Lathrop
Escalon
Ripon Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Manteca
108
242
12 160
26 84
4 92 132
165
4 780
24 120
124 99
99 99
220
185
12 219
33 238
49 104
88 113
84 205
580 580
5 5
5 80
880
680
680
680 101
Lathrop
Ripon
Manteca
120
99 5
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "FamilyStatus_Tract_2015_19." Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 15: PROPORTION OF SENIOR RESIDENTS BY CENSUS TRACT 0 21
Miles
0 1½
±
Miles
LEGEND
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
Percent of Population At or
Over Age 65
< 10%
10 - 15%
15 - 20%
20 - 25%
25 - 30%
>30%
No Data
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Lathrop
Escalon
Ripon Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Manteca
108
242
12 160
26 84
4 92 132
165
4 780
24 120
124 99
99 99
220
185
12 219
33 238
49 104
88 113
84 205
580 580
5 5
5 80
880
680
680
680 101
Lathrop
Ripon
Manteca
120
99 5
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "MedianIncome_BlockGrp_2015_19." Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 16: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY BLOCK GROUP
0 21
Miles
0 1½
±
Miles
LEGEND
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
Median Income by Block Group
< $30,000
$30,000 - $55,000
$55,000 - $87,100*
$87,100 - $125,000
> $125,000
No Data
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-162
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) To assist communities in identifying racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has developed a census tract-based definition of R/ECAPs. The definition involves a racial/ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The racial/ethnic concentration threshold is straightforward: R/ECAPs must have a non-white population of 50 percent or more.
Regarding the poverty threshold, Wilson (1980) defines neighborhoods of extreme poverty as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line. Because overall poverty levels are substantially lower in many parts of the country, HUD supplements this with an alternate criterion. Thus, a neighborhood can be a R/ECAPs if it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower. As shown in Figure 26, R/ECAPs found in San Joaquin County are located in Stockton and Lodi and their surrounding areas. No R/ECAPs were identified in the City of Manteca.
Comparing Figure 9 (Diversity Index) to Figure 16 (Median Household Income), it appears that there are no significant patterns impacting census tracts with high diversity index and low median household incomes in the City, similar to cities in the region such as Tracy, Lathrop, and Ripon. However, the City recognizes that at a regional level, it appears that some areas ranking in the highest diversity index categories appear to have the lowest median household incomes in the County. However, this pattern is not consistent. Other census tracts with the highest or higher diversity scores have relatively average-to-high median household incomes. As discussed in the Findings section, the Housing Plan includes programs to encourage increased diversity and housing opportunities throughout the City. Additionally, the Sites Inventory distributes new housing identified for all income categories, not just lower-income categories, throughout the City, including in the Downtown area near goods, services, jobs, and transit, thereby promoting further integration and providing new housing choices in an area of improving opportunity.
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs)
According to the Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Guidance Memo, “segregation is a continuum, with polarity between race, poverty, and affluence, which can be a direct product of the same policies and practices.” Therefore, both sides of the continuum must be examined. While HCD does not have a formal definition for RCAAs, looking at the percentage of the White population and median household income can provide a good indicator for areas of affluence.
In addition to RECAPs utilized by HUD, HCD has refined a Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) metric assists in more fully telling the story of segregation and income in California. RCAAs are defined as census tracts where 1) 125 percent or more of the population is White compared to the Council of Governments (COG) region, and 2) the median household income is 1.5 times higher than the COG median. HCD’s mapped RCAAs focus on areas with a predominantly White population and above average incomes and do not address areas of affluence with predominantly non-White populations.
While there are no RCAAs in the City, there are RCAAs located throughout the region as shown in Figure 27. A RCAA borders Manteca to the southeast, encompassing a portion of Ripon, there are RCAAs in the vicinity of Stockton and Lodi, a significantly sized RCAA extends from south and west of the Tracy area and throughout much of the eastern, southern, and central portion of the Bay Area, and a large RCAA borders San Joaquin County at the Stanislaus County border.
Disparities in Access to Opportunities
The Department of Housing and Community Development together with the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) established the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD). The Task Force developed the 2022 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps to understand how public and private resources are spatially distributed. The Task Force defines opportunities as pathways to better lives, including health, education, and employment. Overall, opportunity maps are intended to display which areas, according to research, offer low income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-163
The opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains made up of a set of indicators. Based on these domain scores, census tracts are categorized as Highest Resource, High Resource, Moderate Resource, Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing), Low Resource, or areas of High Segregation and Poverty. Table 5-3 shows the full list of indicators.
Table 5-3: Domains and List of Indicators by Factors
Domain Indicator
Economic • Poverty
• Adult education
• Employment
• Job proximity
• Median home value
Education • Math proficiency
• Reading proficiency
• High school graduation rates
• Student poverty rates
Environmental • CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020.
TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps
The Department of Housing and Community Development together with the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) established the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD). The Task force developed the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps to understand how public and private resources are spatially distributed. The Task force defines opportunities as pathways to better lives, including health, education, and employment. Overall, opportunity maps are intended to display which areas, according to research, offer low income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health.
According to the Task Force’s methodology, the tool allocates the 20% of the tracts in each region with the highest relative index scores to the “Highest Resource” designation and the next 20% to the “High Resource” designation. Each region then ends up with 40% of its total tracts as “Highest” or “High” resource. These 2 categories are intended to help State decisionmakers identify tracts within each region that the research suggests low income families are most likely to thrive, and where they typically do not have the option to live—but might, if given the choice. The remaining tracts are then evenly divided into “Low Resources” and “Moderate Resource”.
The Task Force analyzed three domains (Economic, Environmental, Education) to establish the resource category for each block group. The Economic Domain (Figure ) analyzes poverty, level of adult education, employment rates, job proximity, and median home value in each block group, while the Education Domain (Figure 18) analyzes math/reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate. The Environmental Domain (Figure 19) looks at the CalEnviroScreen
3.0 Pollution indicators (Exposures and Environmental Effect indicators) and processed values. Each Figure includes the locations of proposed sites to accommodate the 6th Cycle RHNA.
Figure 20 identifies the final resource categories of each census tract, as identified on the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map, as well as the locations of the proposed sites to accommodate the 6th Cycle RHNA. Countywide, there are varying levels of opportunity with highest and high areas located predominantly in Tracy, Lathrop, Ripon, and the major portion of Manteca. as shown in Figure 20. Low resource areas are generally located in the central portion of the County, including, portions of Stockton, Lodi, and their surrounding areas. Within the County, areas designated as high segregation and poverty are located EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-164
in Stockton and Lodi areas. As the Housing Report for the San Joaquin Valley 2022 identified, low resource areas tend to be predominantly Hispanic/Latino concentrations within the region. In contrast, there is a notable high resource trend for communities with predominantly White populations in the San Joaquin Valley, which illustrates the mapping correlation to Census Data racial/ethnic make-up. These resource patterns indicate that there may be significant racial disparities in accessing opportunity within the region.
All tracts of the City have low levels of opportunity (see Figure 20) and the proposed sites to accommodate the 6th Cycle RHNA are located throughout the City in the same level of opportunity to the extent feasible, given the City’s existing built-out development pattern. Table identifies the resources levels by census tract and the corresponding scores for economic, educational and environmental indicators.
Table 5-4: Opportunity Resource Levels by Census Tract
Census Tract Resource Level Economic Score Education Score Environmental Score
51.35 Highest Resource 0.86 0.94 0.35
51.34 High Resource 0.41 0.94 0.71
51.33 Moderate Resource 0.28 0.81 0.12
51.32 Low Resource 0.02 0.81 0.39
51.25 High Resource 0.42 0.78 0.73
50.04 High Resource 0.85 0.71 0.05
51.09 Low Resource 0.14 0.31 0.28
51.08 Low Resource 0.29 0.26 0.47
51.19 Moderate Resource 0.72 0.66 0.01
51.26 Moderate Resource 0.26 0.78 0.41
51.22 Highest Resource 0.77 0.96 0.16
51.14 High Resource 0.74 0.81 0.09
51.13 Moderate Resource 0.64 0.33 0.20
51.10 Low Resource 0.20 0.31 0.14
51.06 Highest Resource 0.70 0.98 0.17
51.23 Highest Resource 0.73 0.94 0.48
51.24 Moderate Resource 0.44 0.56 0.57
Source: California Department of Housing and Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, accessed November 15, 2022.
The City of Manteca has four census tracts designated as Highest Resource areas on the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map. Census tracts that are designated as Low Resource areas, including census tracts 51.08, 51.09, 51.10, 51.32, are located in the central portion of the City. There are no census tracts that are designated as High Segregation & Poverty areas within the City.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Lathrop
Escalon
Ripon Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Manteca
108
242
12 160
26 84
4 92 132
165
4 780
24 120
124 99
99 99
220
185
12 219
33 238
49 104
88 113
84 205
580 580
5 5
5 80
880
680
680
680 101
Lathrop
Ripon
Manteca
120
99 5
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "TCAC_OpportunityAreas_Tract_2021." Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 17: TCAC ECONOMIC SCORE BY CENSUS TRACT
0 21
Miles
0 1½
±
Miles
LEGEND
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
TCAC Economic Score
> 0.75 (More Positive
Economic Outcome)
0.50 - 0.75
0.25 - 0.50
< 0.25 (Less Positive
Economic Outcome)
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Lathrop
Escalon
Ripon Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Manteca
108
242
12 160
26 84
4 92 132
165
4 780
24 120
124 99
99 99
220
185
12 219
33 238
49 104
88 113
84 205
580 580
5 5
5 80
880
680
680
680 101
Lathrop
Ripon
Manteca
120
99 5
Sources:AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "TCAC_OpportunityAreas_Tract_2021." Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 18: TCAC EDUCATIONAL SCORE BY CENSUS TRACT
0 21
Miles
0 1½
±
Miles
LEGEND
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
TCAC Economic Score
< 0.25 (Less Positive
Economic Outcome)
0.25 - 0.50
0.50 - 0.75
> 0.75 (More Positive
Economic Outcome)
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Lathrop
Escalon
Ripon Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Manteca
108
242
12 160
26 84
4 92 132
165
4 780
24 120
124 99
99 99
220
185
12 219
33 238
49 104
88 113
84 205
580 580
5 5
5 80
880
680
680
680 101
Lathrop
Ripon
Manteca
120
99 5
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "TCAC_OpportunityAreas_Tract_2021." Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 19: TCAC ENVIRONMENTAL SCORE BY CENSUS TRACT
0 21
Miles
0 1½
±
Miles
LEGEND
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
TCAC Environmental Score
< 0.75 (More Positive
Environmental
Outcomes)
0.50 - 0.75
0.25 - 0.50
<0.25 (Less Positive
Environmental
Outcomes)
No Data
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Lathrop
Escalon
Ripon Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Manteca
108
242
12 160
26 84
4 92 132
165
4 780
24 120
124 99
99 99
220
185
12 219
33 238
49 104
88 113
84 205
580 580
5 5
5 80
880
680
680
680 101
Lathrop
Ripon
Manteca
120
99 5
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "TCAC_OpportunityAreas_Tract_2021." Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 20: TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS BY CENSUS TRACT
0 21
Miles
0 1½
±
Miles
LEGEND
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
Opportunity Areas
Highest Resource
High Resource
Moderate Resource
High Segregation & Poverty
Low Resource
Missing or Insufficient Data
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Lathrop
Escalon
Ripon Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Manteca
108
242
12 160
26 84
4 92 132
165
4 780
24 120
124 99
99 99
220
185
12 219
33 238
49 104
88 113
84 205
580 580
5 5
5 80
880
680
680
680 101
Lathrop
Ripon
Manteca
120
99 5
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "JobsProximityIndex_BlockGrp_2014_17." Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 21: JOB PROXIMITY INDEX BY BLOCK GROUP
0 21
Miles
0 1½
±
Miles
LEGEND
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
Index Score
> 80 (Closest Proximity)
61 - 80
41 - 60
20 - 40
< 20 (Furthest Proximity)
No Data
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-170
Economic Opportunity
As described above, the Fair Housing Task Force calculates economic scores based on poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. As shown in Table 5-4 above, the overall economic scores in Manteca range from
0.02 to 0.86. The economic scores are inconsistent and vary across the City, similar to many other San Joaquin County jurisdictions.. Census tracts that have a less positive economic score (less than 0.25), including census tracts 51.09, 51.10, and 51.32, are located in the central and eastern portions of the City. Census tracts that have a lower economic score (0.25 -
0.5), including census tracts 51.33, 51.08, 51.24, 51.25, 51.26, 51.34, are located in the central and northern portion of the City. Other census tracts have an economic score that is higher than 0.5. Based on this analysis, the City finds that the concentration of low economic scores has no correlation with the degree of diversity throughout the City. As shown in Figure 23 and Figure 24, both renters and owners in census tracts with lower economic scores tend to have higher cost burden. The concentration of low economic opportunity census tracts correlates with the census tracts with the highest proportions of:
persons with a disability, lower median incomes, and areas that are Latinx-White. The TCAC economic scores do not show strong correlations with other protected and sensitive classes. These patterns are similar throughout the north San Joaquin County. Compared with other surrounding jurisdictions, Manteca has similar percentage of census tracts with higher economic scores.
Table 5-5. Employment by Characteristics and Regional (City/County) Comparison Characteristic
Manteca San Joaquin County Difference in
Employment
/ Population
Ratio
Difference
in
Unemploy
-ment
Rate
Total
Employment/
Population
Ratio
Unemployment rate Total
Employment/
Population
Ratio
Unemploy
-ment rate
Population 16 years and over 62,145 56.4% 6.7% 47,390 69.4% 6.0% -13.0% 0.7% AGE
60 to 64 years 4,437 53.0% 3.8% 40,445 51.4% 5.7% 1.6% -1.9% 65 to 74 years 6,447 17.1% 8.3% 56,655 20.3% 5.5% -3.2% 2.8% 75 years and over 4,490 3.1% 0.0% 39,294 4.5% 1.7% -1.4% -1.7%
RACE AND HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN
White alone 39,878 54.8% 6.8% 305,138 54.8% 6.7% 0.0% 0.1% Black or African American alone 2,619 59.9% 6.7% 41,369 49.6% 10.9% 10.3% -4.2% American Indian and Alaska Native
alone 503 51.5% 10.1% 3,660 54.9% 9.4% -3.4% 0.7%
Asian alone 6,689 58.2% 5.6% 92,493 57.9% 6.1% 0.3% -0.5% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander alone 808 38.9% 31.6% 3,255 48.3% 9.6% -9.4% 22.0% Some other race alone 5,315 63.2% 4.1% 55,798 60.0% 7.0% 3.2% -2.9% Two or more races 6,333 60.1% 6.2% 69,285 60.1% 9.1% 0.0% -2.9% Hispanic or Latino origin (of any
race) 22,436 57.1% 7.7% 217,614 59.4% 7.9% -2.3% -0.2%
White alone, not Hispanic or
Latino 27,425 54.3% 5.9% 196,047 52.7% 6.3% 1.6% -0.4%
Population 20 to 64 years 47,390 69.4% 6.0% 430,999 68.8% 6.8% 0.6% -0.8% SEX
Male 24,117 76.6% 5.2% 216,859 75.6% 6.4% 1.0% -1.2%
Female 23,273 61.9% 7.0% 214,140 61.9% 7.2% 0.0% -0.2%
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-171
With own children under 18 years 8,541 62.2% 9.8% 84,943 61.6% 8.2% 0.6% 1.6% POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS
Below poverty level 4,496 30.5% 20.9% 50,697 33.0% 24.6% -2.5% -3.7% At or above the poverty level 42,858 73.5% 5.2% 372,735 75.0% 5.4% -1.5% -0.2%
DISABILITY STATUS
With any disability 5,284 36.3% 13.1% 47,244 34.9% 12.4% 1.4% 0.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20(5-year estimates), Table S2301.
As shown in Table 5-5 above, the City’s older population (60+) has a higher rate of employment per total population than the Countywide cohort and experiences slightly lower unemployment rates (unemployed persons as total of the workforce) as the Countywide, except persons aged between 65 and 74 years. The only race in the City that experience significantly lower employment to population ratios than the Countywide average is Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone. All other races experience employment rates that are similar or higher than the County averages. All race/ethnicities except Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone have a similar or lower unemployment rate than the Countywide average. The Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone population in Manteca experiences 22 percent higher unemployment than the Countywide average. Females in Manteca, including females with their own children under 18 years of age, experience slightly higher employment than the Countywide average. However, females with their own children under 18 years of age experience slightly higher unemployment rate than the County average. Regarding income levels, the City’s percentage of its total working age population that is below the poverty level is lower than the Countywide average. The City’s population that is below the poverty level experiences 2.5 percent lower rate of employment per total population and 3.7 percent higher unemployment rate than the Countywide cohort. Persons with a disability in the City have a 1.4 percent higher rate of employment to total working age population than Countywide. Overall, persons aged between 65 and 74 years, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone population, and population that is below the poverty level are the only population group that experiences a significant higher rate of unemployment than the Countywide average. It is noted that while the difference in employment to population ratio is assumed to result from less access for the purpose of the above discussion, there is also the potential in this category for persons who choose to not be in the labor force. This is different from the unemployment rate which measures persons that are in the labor force but are not employed.
As shown in Figure 21, the job proximity index varies in Manteca. The northern portion of the City, including census tracts
51.23, 51.24, 51.08, 51.34, 51.26, 51.25, has lower job proximity index scores than southern Manteca. On a scale from zero to 100 where 100 is the closest proximity to jobs, only portions of census tracts 51.35, 51.10, and 51.09 have job proximity scores that are above 40, which is similar or lower than scores in some other San Joaquin County jurisdictions, including Tracy, Ripon, Escalon, and the norther areas in Stockton. Census tracts in Lodi and the southern areas of Stockton have relatively higher job proximity scores than census tracts in Manteca. While the concentration of lower job proximity score census tracts does not show clear pattern with any protected and sensitive classes (see Figures 8 through 16 for concentrations of protected classes by area) and does not appear to have a meaningful effect on the ability of protected groups to obtain a job, there are unemployment trends among protected classes as discussed above.
According to the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) jurisdiction fact sheets of Manteca, between 2015 and 2020, the number of jobs in Manteca increased from 16,231 to 17,592, at a rate of 8.4%. According to the projection, employment in Manteca will slowly increase to 20,968 in 2035. The City’s General Plan Update identifies sites to provide a range of jobs, with the intent of increasing local employment and economic opportunities for City residents.
Educational Opportunity
Countywide, there are varying levels of educational scores. The highest scoring areas are located in the central and southwestern portions of the County, with low scores located in areas of the north portion of the County, including Manteca and adjacent areas, as well as Richmond, San Pablo, and portions of Antioch, and a pocket in the southeast County. In Manteca, the educational opportunity scores are generally low across census tracts. As shown in Table 5-4 above, the overall EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-172
education opportunity scores in Manteca range from 0.26 to 0.96. Generally, census tracts that have a moderate education score (0.25-0.5), including census tracts 51.08, 51.09, 51.10, and 51.13, are located in the eastern portion of the City. Other census tracts within the City have more positive education outcomes (more than 0.75).
Education scores distribute unevenly in San Joaquin County with Tracy, Lathrop, Ripon, Escalon, and Lodi have most of their census block groups with moderate to high education scores. In contrast, Stockton and surrounding areas tend to have more census block groups with less positive economic scores. Compared with other jurisdictions in San Joaquin County, Manteca tends to have moderate education scores. A review of the predominant racial and ethnic group concentration in San Joaquin Based on this analysis, the concentration of low economic opportunity census tracts does not show strong correlations with protected and sensitive classes.
While educational opportunity scores are relatively even across the City and the adjacent unincorporated area, there is varied opportunity based on the schools of the MUSD. According to the California Department of Education’s California School Dashboard, in 2022 MUSD had an enrollment of 24,154 students. The ethnic/racial make-up was: 5.5 percent African American, 0.4% American Indian, 10.2 percent Asian, 5.4 percent Filipino, 57.1 percent Hispanic, 3.9 percent Two or More Races, 1 percent Pacific Islander, and 16.3% White. A total of 55.6 percent of the District’s students come from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, 22.1 percent are English learners and 12.6 percent are students with disabilities. MUSD has 29 schools, 17 of which are located in the City limits, as shown below in Table 5-6.
Table 5-6: MUSD Schools Performance
School Names English Language Arts Mathematics
Brock Elliott Elementary (1110 Stonum Lane) 26.7 points below standard 73.9 points below standard Calla High (130 South Austin Road) 63.7 points below standard 149.8 points below standard East Union High (1700 North Union Road) 10.2 points below standard 110.6 points below standard George McParland Elementary (1601 Northgate Drive) 9.8 points below standard 35.7 points below standard Golden West Elementary (1031 North Main Street) 51.2 points below standard 99 points below standard Joshua Cowell Elementary (740 Pestana Avenue) 35.1 points below standard 77.2 points below standard Lincoln Elementary (750 East Yosemite Avenue) 72 points below standard 111.8 points below standard Manteca High (450 East Yosemite Avenue) 54.7 points below standard 111 points below standard Neil Hafley Elementary (849 Northgate Avenue) 67.8 points below standard 105.6 points below standard New Haven Elementary (14600 South Austin Road) 36.6 points below standard 59.9 points below standard Nile Garden Elementary (5700 East Nile Road) 8.3 points above standard 25.9 points below standard Sequoia Elementary (710 Martha Street) 50.6 points below standard 94.6 points below standard Shasta Elementary (751 East Edison Street) 38 points below standard 72.9 points below standard Sierra High (1700 Thomas Street) 30.9 points above standard 86 points below standard Stella Brockman Elementary (763 Silverado Drive) 27.4 points below standard 70.2 points below standard Veritas Elementary (1600 Pagola Street) 0.7 points above standard 25.5 points below standard Walter Woodward Elementary (575 Tannehill Drive) 17.4 points below standard 46.9 points below standard MUSD 31.6 points below standard 79 points below standard Note: Scores below the MUSD average scores are in italics.
As shown above, district-wide, MUSD has low English language arts scores (31.6 points below standard) and low mathematics scores (79 points below standard). The schools that have English Language Arts or Mathematics scores that lower than the district average, including Calla High School, East Union High School, Joshua Cowell Elementary School, Manteca High School, Neil Hafley Elementary School, New Haven Elementary School, Sequoia Elementary School, Shasta Elementary School, EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-173
and Sierra High School, do not have enrollment boundaries that correspond to high concentrations of protected or sensitive classes and, similarly, access to higher-performing schools does not correspond to concentrations of particular race, income, disability, age, or familial characteristics.
Environmental Opportunity
Environmental health scores are determined by the Fair Housing Task Force based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these scores to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. As shown in Table 5-4 above, the overall environmental scores in Manteca range from 0.01 to 0.73. Environmental scores distributed unevenly within the City. As indicated by the Figure 19, census tracts 51.22, 51.14, 51.33, 51.10, and 51.13 have relatively low environmental opportunity scores. A review of predominant racial populations, neighborhood diversity, household types, median income, persons with a disability, and seniors does not indicate that these areas correspond with any concentration of these protected classes in areas with lower scores versus higher scores. As shown in Figure 19, environmental scores distributed unevenly throughout the County, generally with lower environmental scores in southwestern areas and higher environmental scores in mountainous northeastern portions of the County.
A disadvantaged community or environmental justice community (EJ Community) is identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (“CalEPA”) as “areas that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation,” and may or may not have a concentration of lowincome households, high unemployment rates, low homeownership rates, overpayment for housing, or other indicators of disproportionate housing need. In February 2021, the California Office for Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (COEHHA) released the fourth version of CalEnviroScreen, a tool that uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic indicators to map and compare community’s environmental scores. In the CalEnviroScreen tool, communities that have a cumulative score in the 75th percentile or above (25 percent highest score census tracts) are those that have been designated disadvantaged communities under SB 535. Communities that are identified as an EJ Community based on their cumulative pollution exposure score are targeted for investment through the State cap-and-trade program. However, the condition of these communities poses fair housing concerns due to disproportionate exposure to unhealthy living conditions. As shown in CalEPA’s Disadvantaged Communities Map, there are 12 EJ Communities located in Manteca. The only census tracts that are not designated as EJ Communities area census tracts, 51.34, 51.24, 51.08, 51.25, and 50.04. A review of predominant racial populations, neighborhood diversity, household types, median income, persons with a disability, and seniors does not indicate that these areas correspond with any concentration of these protected classes. Based on this analysis, there are no discernible patterns of concentration of protected classes in the City’s areas with the less positive environmental outcomes.
Transportation
Availability of efficient, affordable transportation can be used to measure fair housing and access to opportunities. Manteca Transit operates fixed route and Dial-a-Ride bus service throughout Manteca with stops at key locations throughout the City.
Manteca Transit operates four fixed routes within the Manteca city limits. Service is provided from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday and closed on Sunday. Manteca Transit Dial-a-Ride service is a curb-to-curb transportation service for individuals with a certified disability, seniors age 62 and older, and Medicare participants.
The City is served four Manteca Transit bus routes, including routes 1, 2, 3, and 4. Generally, the whole Manteca is well served by Manteca Transit routes. Comparing the City’s transportation accessibility to the distribution of protected classes, the City finds that the access to transit has no correspondence with the concentration with protected classes. There is no discernible connection between access to transit and location of areas with any predominant population by race or ethnicity or with concentrations of seniors.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-174
Findings
Overall, it appears that residents of Manteca have varied levels of access to opportunities, ranging from low resource to highest resource. As shown in Table 5-4, the educational, economic, and environmental opportunity scores also vary across census tracts in the City. New employment-generating areas designated by the General Plan Update are envisioned to provide new employment opportunities, including skilled and high-quality jobs, to improve economic outcomes for City and regional residents. New mixed-use development in the City is envisioned to provide new safe residential housing units, new employment opportunities, and new space for the development of commercial projects offering a variety of goods and services.
Moreover, by bringing residential units and jobs closer together, the City strives to reduce vehicle miles traveled, reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, and improve air quality, thereby working to improve access to higher levels of environmental health.
C. DISCUSSION OF DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
The analysis of disproportionate housing needs within Manteca evaluated existing housing need, need of the future housing population, and units within the community at-risk of converting to market-rate.
FUTURE GROWTH NEEDS
The City’s future growth need is based on the RHNA, which allocates production of 2,246 very-low and 1,409 low income, 1,381 moderate, and 3,270 above moderate units to the City for the 2023-2031 planning period. Figure 5 shows that proposed affordable units are dispersed throughout the community, to the extent feasible based on the City’s largely built-out land uses in its core area, and do not present a geographic barrier to obtaining affordable housing. In addition, the City actively promotes the opportunity for residents to develop, and development projects to include, ADUs, JADUs, and SB 9 units as a way to accommodate additional development at all income levels throughout the community. Appendix A of this Housing Element shows the City’s ability to meet its 2023-2031 RHNA need at all income levels. This demonstrates the City’s ability to accommodate the anticipated future affordable housing needs of the community.
EXISTING NEEDS
The San Joaquin County AI indicates that a significant percentage of residents throughout San Joaquin County experience housing needs, defined by HUD as cost burden, severe cost burden, overcrowding, and incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities, with the rate of these needs varying by group and location. Significant contributing factors to disproportionate housing needs in San Joaquin County are identified in the Housing Report of San Joaquin Valley as:
• Available, affordable units in a range of sizes
• Resident displacement due to economic pressures
• Few private investments in specific neighborhoods
• Few public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities • Few renter protections
• Few protections for mobile home park residents
• Land use and zoning laws
• Lending discrimination
• Few rental relief programs for people at risk of homelessness As described in Chapter 6 of this Background Report, the City works with affordable housing developers to help facilitate the development of housing for lower income households. Manteca has 434 rent-restricted units, representing approximately 2% of the City’s housing stock. The City actively works with affordable housing developers to identify and evaluate potential sites and to expand opportunities for lower income households throughout the City.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-175
Cost Burden
A household is considered cost burdened if the household pays more than 30% of its total gross income for housing costs.
For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities. For homeowners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities.
Figures 23 and 24 indicate renter households and owner households demonstrate similar patterns of overpayment. For renter households, census tracts 51.32, 51.24, 51.10.01, and 50.04 have a percentage of the population overpaying in the 60 - 80% range, and other census tracts within the City have a percentage of the population overpaying in the 40 - 60% range. For owner households, census tracts 51.32, 51.24, 51.25, 51.09, 51.10, and 51.26 a percentage of the population overpaying in the 40 - 60% range, and other census tracts within the City have a percentage of the population overpaying in the 20 - 40% range. Overpayment increases the risk of displacing residents who are no longer able to afford their housing costs. To address displacement risks due to overpayment, the City will facilitate the development of quality, affordable housing in the community through provision of regulatory incentives and financial assistance or partnerships with developers (Program 1), will provide affordable housing financial assistance (Program 2), will preserve existing affordable housing (Program 7), and will continue to provide and seek additional Housing Choice Vouchers and other forms of direct assistance (Program 6).
As discussed previously in the Background Report, 20.0% of renters in Manteca overpay for housing. The majority of renters that overpay are in the lower income groups, with 74.1% in the extremely low income group severely overpaying for housing (over 50% of their monthly income). As shown in Figure 23, these renters are concentrated in the census tracts located in central and eastern Manteca. As shown in Table 2-10 of the Housing Needs Assessment section of the Housing Element,
16.7% of homeowners overpay for housing with 63.0% in the extremely low income group severely overpaying for housing (over 50% of their monthly income). Figure 24 shows the concentrations of cost burden on homeowners in the City of Manteca.
There is a concentration of homeowners who overpay located in the census tracts in central and eastern Manteca as well.
According to data reported in the 2020 AI, the most common problems in San Joaquin County are Severe Housing Cost Burden and Housing Cost Burden, representing 30.8 percent and 24.6 percent of all problems, respectively. As the 2020 AI identified, 8.6 percent of Small-Related and 3.5 percent of Large-Related households earning up to 80 percent AMI in the Urban County are cost burdened or severely cost burdened. This trails the prevalence of such cost burdened households statewide. However, elderly households with incomes up to 80 percent AMI in the Urban County are cost burdened at a higher rate than in California as a whole. In California, 8.4 percent of elderly households were cost burdened, compared to 9.8 percent in the Urban County. From 2010 to 2020, the median home value of Manteca increased 25.5% from $324,900 in 2010 to $407,600 in 2020. The median sales price for a single-family home in Manteca in 2022 was $642,000. Figures 23 and 24 show the concentrations of cost burden by renter and homeowners Countywide. As seen in the figures, there are concentrations of cost burdened renters and homeowners Countywide.
Overcrowding
Typically, a housing unit is considered overcrowded if there is more than one person per room and severely overcrowded if there are more than 1.5 persons per room. According to data reported in the San Joaquin County AI, after cost burdens, the most common problem is overcrowding, which accounts for 7.5 percent of all reported housing problems.
As shown in Table 2-8 in the Housing Needs Assessment, the average household size in Manteca was 3.13 persons in 2019.
As described in Table 2-34 in the Housing Needs Assessment section of the Housing Element, 4.1% of owner-occupied homes and 6.4% of renter-occupied homes are overcrowded, and a total of 5.0% of all households in Manteca are overcrowded. The average household size was lower for renters (2.96 persons); owner households had an average size of
3.23 persons. As Figure 25 indicates, census tracts with higher percentages of overcrowded households are located in the central portions of Manteca. Compared with other jurisdictions within the County, such as Stockton, Tracy, and Lodi, Manteca has less percentage of households that are overcrowded. In contrast, Ripon and Escalon have less parentage of overcrowded households than Manteca.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-176
Sensitive Communities
The Urban Displacement Project (UDP) developed methodology for identifying “sensitive communities” where residents may be particularly vulnerable to displacement. The UDP methodology focuses on two key components: 1) neighborhoods with a high proportion of residents vulnerable to displacement in the case of rising housing costs, and 2) market-based displacement pressures present in and/or near the community. Communities were designated sensitive if they currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability includes metrics for the percentage of very low-income residents, renters, people of color, and very low-income households that are severely rent burdened (spending 50 percent of income on rent). Market-based displacement pressures include percent change in rent between 2012-2017 above county median rent increases, and/or a rent gap (meaning rent is substantially lower than rent in surrounding areas). Through this approach, the UDP identified 27 percent of census tracts in California as sensitive.
As shown in the Figure 22, sensitive communities are located in the central portion of Manteca, including census tracts 51.25,
51.24, 51.32, and 51.09. It is notable that this area of sensitive communities corresponds to the City’s highest percentage of cost-burdened owner households.
Substandard Housing
While the San Joaquin County AI identified that housing needs throughout San Joaquin County include incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities, it did not address substandard housing. However, residents of aging housing or housing built without a permit can be expected to experience more housing quality issues than residents of newer housing and housing built to code.
As discussed in Chapter 2, the 2016-2020 ACS data indicates that 17.7% of the housing in Manteca is greater than 50 years old (i.e., built before 1970). Typically, housing over 30 years of age is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include plumbing, roof repairs, electrical repairs, foundation rehabilitation, or other significant improvements. While it is likely that some homeowners have conducted ongoing maintenance to maintain the value of their homes, it is likely that many of these homes need some degree of repairs. In some cases, the cost of repairs can be prohibitive, resulting in the owner or renter living in substandard housing conditions or being displaced if the house is designated as uninhabitable or during rehabilitation.
According to Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately
39.9% of Manteca households have at least one housing problem, which may include overcrowding, lack of a complete kitchen, lack of complete plumbing, or cost burden. Households earning less than 30 percent AMI make up a very small share (9.7%) of households in Manteca but 79.3% of them experience at least one of the four housing problems.
Households earning 30 to 50 percent AMI are the most likely to experience at least one of the four housing problems (80.5%). About 66.1% of households earning 50 to 80 percent AMI and about 49.2% of households earning 80 to 100 percent AMI experience at least one of the four housing problems. Households earning more than 100 percent AMI make up 52.4% of households in Manteca and are least likely (14.0%) to experience a housing problem. Additionally, about
54.7% of renter households are likely to experience at least one housing problem while about 30.8% renter households are likely to experience at least one housing problem. As identified above, many homeowners and renters in Manteca are cost burdened, and may represent a large portion of the 39.9% of households with a housing problem identified in the CHAS.
The City’s older neighborhoods have a higher incidence of repair needs due to the age of the housing stock. In general, much of the housing located around the Downtown and the City’s historical core area was built prior to 1960. Based on input from City staff and a review of City neighborhoods by the consultant team, this area is generally located along Yosemite Avenue from Union Road to Cottage Avenue and generally bounded by Center Street/E. North Streets to the north and Marion/Edythe/Martha Street to the south west of Main Street and the railroad tracks east of Main Street. In addition., areas developed prior to annexation into the City are lacking in some types of infrastructure (curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc) and tend to have higher incidences of older homes with deferred maintenance. Airport Way and Fishback Road (between Wawona and Yosemite) are the two areas within City limits that fit this description.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-177
While substandard housing conditions can occur in both owner-occupied housing and renter-occupied housing, in general, renters are more vulnerable than homeowners because they are more likely to have lower incomes and have less control over repairs to their residence. Over one-third (34.8%) of housing units in Manteca are renter-occupied, a large proportion of residents may be disproportionately affected by substandard housing conditions. Other vulnerable populations include homeowners who are seniors or residents with disabilities, who may be on fixed incomes and/or not able to perform repairs themselves, and low-income homeowners. Neglected rental properties, illegal conditions, and other substandard housing conditions can result in disproportionate safety or health hazards. The City’s participation in the Urban County CDBG/HOME Consortium includes housing rehabilitation assistance, with households facing an emergency receiving priority assistance.
Homeless
As discussed in Chapter 2, there are approximately unsheltered 129 homeless residents in Manteca, which is approximately 5.6 percent of the regional unsheltered population. The City has seen a decline in its homeless population, as discussed in Chapter 2.
The City’s efforts to assist this population include a police officer that works with outreach groups and contracting with Inner City Action to link homeless persons and households to services, housing, and other assistance. Due to their unhoused condition, the homeless population is experiencing displacement.
As discussed in Chapter 2, there are approximately unsheltered 129 homeless residents in Manteca, which is approximately 5.6 percent of the regional unsheltered population. The Downtown provides access to goods and services, including supportive services and transportation, that are essential to unhoused persons. Civic and governmental facilities within Manteca are predominantly located within the central portion of the Downtown. Access to resources including computers and free wi-fi is provided by the Manteca Public Library, located downtown. The Manteca Transit Center, located along Moffat Boulevard, provides regional transportation access and connects to bus routes that provide local access, such as to the California Urgent Care Center Manteca located along Yosemite Avenue. Mental health and other healthcare services are available at this location. In addition to these services,
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, as well as the development of affordable rental and ownership projects, addresses homelessness through the provision of long-term affordable housing and in some cases linkages to on-going supportive services. Fair housing education is a supplemental resource that is provided to educate renters about their rights and responsibilities. The City’s Housing Plan supports programs designed to increase affordable housing opportunities and assist lower-income and unhoused individuals.
The City opened a homeless outreach and emergency shelter site at 555 Industrial Drive in 2021 and is in the process of developing a comprehensive Navigation Center. The opening of the homeless outreach and emergency shelter site provided a shift from homeless persons living in encampments under freeway overpasses, parks, parking lots, and various locations throughout the City.
While single encampments can still be found intermittently in various parks and out-of-the-way areas, the only consistent concentration of homeless persons is located in the vicinity of its emergency shelter, which is due to the supportive services and shelter available. The City works to connect homeless persons with services through its homeless outreach and emergency shelter program. The site is located approximately ¼-mile from services and transit available in the vicinity of the Industrial Park Drive/S.
Main Street intersection area, including a stop for Manteca Transit Route 2. The homeless outreach and emergency shelter site is approximately ¾-mile from the Manteca Transit Center (which can be accessed via Transit Route 2, bicycle, or walking), which includes service by multiple regional transit providers, and provides connectivity to Stockton, the Bay Area, and other areas in the region and state.
Displacement Risk
As previously discussed, there are no deed-restricted affordable units currently at-risk of converting to market-rate within the next 30 years. The City also has a number of units which are affordable to lower income families but are not deed-restricted.
As described earlier in this Background Report, the City plans to accommodate the vast majority of its 2023-2031 RHNA allocation on parcels designated for high density residential development and mixed-use development, with a focus on new development along the City’s major transportation corridors, near activity centers, which have good access to transportation EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-178
facilities, amenities, and infrastructure. Moreover, given that the new residential development will happen primarily in undeveloped areas and in areas envisioned to support mixed-use development, it is expected that residential uses will be developed alongside complementary commercial and civic uses, which will help facilitate bringing jobs and housing closer together. As shown in Figure 22, Census Tracts 51.09 51.24, 51.25, and 51.32 in the City, located in the Downtown, are considered sensitive communities where residents may be particularly vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and shifts in housing costs. These areas have higher proportions of renter populations, lower median incomes, and higher proportion of persons with a disability. Underdeveloped residential sites outside of these areas (i.e., within the City’s more suburban-type development areas) are also identified as helping to meet a portion of the City’s moderate- and above-moderate income units; based on the net addition of units at these locations (which currently generally provide units affordable to moderate- and above-moderate income households), there is not a significant displacement risk associated with the City’s current affordable housing stock due to new development.
The City recognizes that even though it has identified sufficient land to accommodate its RHNA allocation at all income levels, there is still the potential for economic displacement because of new development and investment. This “knock-on” effect can occur at any time, and it can be challenging for the City to predict market changes and development patterns which have the potential to impact rental rates and sales prices for housing available in the marketplace. To date, the City has no evidence that new development (affordable or market-rate) has resulted in economic displacement. However, the City recognizes that economic displacement might occur in the future.
As shown in Figure 22, the central areas of the City, are considered “Sensitive Communities” where residents may be particularly vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and shifts in housing costs. Communities were designated sensitive if they currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as share of very low income residents is above 20% in 2017 and the tract meets one other criterion related to renters, diversity, and housing burden. There are potential underutilized housing sites located in census tracts designated “Sensitive Communities” that would potentially displace existing residents due to redevelopment.
The City has also considered the risk of displacement specifically for protected classes, including persons with disabilities, female-headed households, seniors, and nonwhite residents (as discussed previously throughout this Background Report).
Some future housing sites are located in areas with high levels of female-headed households, senior residents, and lower income households, and these groups appear to be more vulnerable to potential future displacement. However, these sites continue to represent the most appropriate locations to accommodate future development given their proximity to transit corridors, underdeveloped property conditions, blighted conditions, and opportunity to develop mixed-use projects.
As discussed above, the City remains committed to maintaining its existing affordable housing stock, which includes affordable units throughout the City, including in census tracts with high levels of vulnerabilities to displacement (census tracts 51.24,
51.25, 51.32, 51.33, and 51.09). To the extent that future development occurs in areas where there is existing housing, all housing must be replaced according to SB 330's replacement housing provisions (Government Code Section 66300). SB 330 also provides relocation payments to existing low income tenants. The State has also adopted “just cause” eviction provisions and statewide rent control to protect tenants from displacement.
Research has shown that low income renter populations are disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards and that housing tenure is a telling determinant of social vulnerability to disasters. Renters bear the brunt of the existing affordable housing shortage, and their adaptive capacity to cope and recover from the impacts of environmental hazards may be reduced due to systemic inequities and limited resources. As discussed in the Constraints section under Environmental Constraints, environmental hazards affecting residential development in the City include geologic and seismic hazards, flooding and inundation hazards, and hazardous materials release. The Municipal Code and State law address flood control and geologic and seismic hazards to protect new development and ensure that new development does not adversely affect existing EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-179
development. Liquefaction and other seismic-related issues are addressed by the California Building Code (CBC). Various State and federal regulations control the use, storage and transportation of hazardous materials.
Disaster-Driven Displacement
As identified in HCD’s AFFH Guidance (April 2021), research has shown that low-income renter populations are disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards and that housing tenure is a telling determinant of social vulnerability to disasters. Renters bear the brunt of the existing affordable housing shortage, and their adaptive capacity to cope and recover from the impacts of environmental hazards may be reduced due to systemic inequities and limited resources. Furthermore, renters also face the added physical challenges because they do not control the housing units they live in, and are more likely to be displaced post-disaster because of the following forces:
• Lack of control of when or if their housing unit will be rebuilt, • Lack of control of the maintenance or possible addition of resilience investments to the property, • Fewer financial resources to rebuild rental housing than for homeowners, • Rental price increases as rental housing supply decreases, • Evictions, and
• More likely to live in housing typologies such as apartments or duplexes, which can take longer to rebuild postdisaster.
Figure 4 identifies environmental hazards in the Manteca area.
Findings
“Disproportionate housing needs” generally 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 when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area.
To prevent residents occupying or being displaced from substandard housing, the City will connect areas in need of housing rehabilitation, neighborhood improvements, and abatement of unsafe conditions with rehabilitation and repair resources, as described by Programs 8. The City will seek to involve the community in housing-related decisions and will promote the availability of local (City and County-administered), regional, State, and Federal programs for housing construction, homebuyer assistance, rental assistance, and housing rehabilitation, as described in Program 17. To ensure that housing opportunities are accessible to the City’s existing residents that may be at risk of displacement, to increase access to resources, and to affirmatively further fair housing access and opportunities, the City will develop a program that connects targeted very lowand low-income residents and employees with access to new housing opportunities (Program 20). The City is also committed to fair housing services and tenants’ rights outreach and education (e.g., Programs 16 and 23) to provide affected renters with the resources necessary to remedy substandard housing conditions.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Lathrop
Escalon
Ripon Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Manteca
108
242
12 160
26 84
4 92 132
165
4 780
24 120
124 99
99 99
220
185
12 219
33 238
49 104
88 113
84 205
580 580
5 5
5 80
880
680
680
680 101
Lathrop
Ripon
Manteca
120
99 5
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "SensitiveCommunities_UrbanDisplacementProject_Tract". Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 22: SENSITIVE COMMUNITIES
0 21
Miles
0 1½
±
Miles
LEGEND
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
Sensitive Communities
Vulnerable
Other
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Lathrop
Escalon
Ripon Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Manteca
108
242
12 160
26 84
4 92 132
165
4 780
24 120
124 99
99 99
220
185
12 219
33 238
49 104
88 113
84 205
580 580
5 5
5 80
880
680
680
680 101
Lathrop
Ripon
Manteca
120
99 5
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "Overpayment_Tract_2015-19." Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 23: COST-BURDENED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS BY CENSUS TRACT 0 21
Miles
0 1½
±
Miles
LEGEND
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
Percent of Renter
Households for whom
Gross Rent (Contract Rent
Plus Tenant-Paid Utilities) is
30% or More of Household
Income
< 20%
20 - 40%
40 - 60%
60 - 80%
> 80%
No Data
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Lathrop
Escalon
Ripon Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Manteca
108
242
12 160
26 84
4 92 132
165
4 780
24 120
124 99
99 99
220
185
12 219
33 238
49 104
88 113
84 205
580 580
5 5
5 80
880
680
680
680 101
Lathrop
Ripon
Manteca
120
99 5
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "Overpayment_Tract_2015-19." Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 24: COST-BURDENED OWNER HOUSEHOLDS BY CENSUS TRACT 0 21
Miles
0 1½
±
Miles
LEGEND
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
Percent of Owner
Households with Mortgages
whose Monthly Owner
Costs are 30% or More of
Household Income
< 20%
20 - 40%
40 - 60%
60 - 80%
> 80%
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Lathrop
Escalon
Ripon Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Manteca
108
242
12 160
26 84
4 92 132
165
4 780
24 120
124 99
99 99
220
185
12 219
33 238
49 104
88 113
84 205
580 580
5 5
5 80
880
680
680
680 101
Lathrop
Ripon
Manteca
120
99 5
Sources: AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, California Department of Housing and Community Development, "OvercrowdedHouseholds_Tract," and "OvercrowdedHouseholds_Severe_Tract." Map date: August 15, 2024.
FIGURE 25: OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS
0 21
Miles
0 1½
±
Miles
LEGEND
Vacant
VL/L
M
AM
Underutilized
VL/L
M
AM
Project
VL
VL/L
VL/M
M/AM
AM
Percentage of Households
that are Overcrowded
< 8.2% (Statewide
Average)
9% - 12%
12% - 15%
15% - 20%
< 20%
Severely Overcrowded
Households by Census
Tract
< 5%
5% - 20%
20% - 35%
35% - 65%
65% - 100%
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
6th Cycle Housing Element Background Report
HBR-184
D. SITES INVENTORY
AB 686 (approved in 2018) requires that jurisdictions identify sites throughout the community in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The site identification includes not only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA (provided in this section), but also considers whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity. This section analyzes the role of all sites, regardless of income level, in assisting to affirmatively further fair housing. However, special attention is paid to those sites identified to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower income RHNA to ensure that the City is thinking carefully about how the development of new affordable housing options can promote patterns of equality and inclusiveness.
Table 5-7 presents the geographic distribution of RHNA sites by income category and socio-economic characteristics to relate the selected sites to indicators of fair housing issues. It should be noted that Table 5-7 only shows sites identified in the Sites Inventory to accommodate the RHNA, and does not take into account ADUs, which are permitted throughout the City and would not have a concentrated impact on any one census tract.
As shown in Table 5-7, sites at all income levels, including the lower income RHNA sites, are distributed across the City, increasing the potential for mixed income communities and a variety of housing types to meet Manteca’s housing needs. The Downtown Core and immediately adjacent areas contain the greatest number of total sites when looked at as a percentage of RHNA income category. The Downtown area is one of the most in-demand locations for new multifamily development in the City, and the high densities allow for the greatest number of realistically developable multifamily units at all income levels.
Further, the Downtown area provides opportunities for new housing for all income categories, not just lower-income categories, in an area near goods, services, jobs, and transit, thereby providing new housing choices in an area of improving opportunity. Other areas identified to accommodate a relatively high number of sites include neighborhoods along Airport Way and Woodward Avenue.
The City plans to focus on new development and redevelopment along the City’s major transportation corridors and near activity centers, which have good access to transportation facilities, amenities, and infrastructure. Since Manteca is nearly built-out, a large proportion of sites identified to accommodate the RHNA consist of underutilized (nonvacant) sites. The sites inventory works in tandem with programs in the Housing Plan to expand housing choice and access to opportunity by providing for a variety of housing types throughout Manteca, improving access to opportunity, and promoting agency and equity for those with disproportionate housing needs.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-185
Table 5-7: Distribution of RHNA Capacity by Census Tract/Block Group Census Tract Census Block Group RHNA Capacity AFFH Indicators Segregation & Integration Access to Opportunity Displacement Risk Very Low Low Mod- erate Above Mod. Median Household Income Neighborhood Segregation Typologies Diversity Index 2018 Disability Rate Resource Designation Economic Score Environmental Score Educational Score Overcrowding Rate Renter Overpayment Rate Homeowner Overpayment Rate Census Tract 50.04 Block Group 1 83 56 0 0 $ 85,000 Latinx-White 61.3 9.5% High Resource 0.85 0.05 0.71 2.9% 6.3% 28.4%Census Tract 51.06 Block Group 1 173 116 0 2,424 $102,500 Asian-Latinx-White 71.9 10.4% Highest Resource 0.70 0.17 0.98 3.9% 10.6% 37.5% Block Group 2 106 71 0 45 $ 102,159 84.1 Census Tract 51.08 Block Group 1 0 0 0 3 $ 63,523
Latinx-White
82.6 Block Group 2 54 9 47 1 $ 38,387 87.4 10.9% Low Resource 0.29 0.47 0.26 9.2% 13.2% 36.8%Block Group 3 0 0 7 3 $ 54,318 87.7 Census Tract 51.09
Block Group 1 0 0 8 24 $ 49,145
Latinx-White
82 Block Group 2 0 0 90 15 $ 44,007 83.9 17.0% Low Resource 0.14 0.28 0.31 8.8% 22.2% 55.9% Block Group 3 11 8 25 0 $ 41,385 79.4 Census Tract 51.10
Block Group 1 170 113 0 26 $ 102,917
Latinx-White
76.3 16.1% Low Resource 0.20 0.14 0.31 5.7% 18.1% 41.3% Block Group 2 14 10 6 3 $ 73,673 74 Block Group 3 21 14 0 1 $ 55,664 83.9 Block Group 4 0 0 0 52 $ 72,788 80.7 Block Group 5 0 0 13 314 $ 49,083 76.2 Census Tract 51.13 Block Group 1 324 217 6 823 $ 127,841 Latinx-White 81.2 16.8% Moderate Resource 0.62 0.00 0.33 2.0% 15.7% 26.9% Block Group 2 0 0 0 19 $ 32,183 82.7
Census Tract 51.14 Block Group 1 661 304 334 836 $ 105,787 Asian-Latinx-White 82.1 7.8% High Resource 0.74 0.09 0.81 2.6% 7.0% 27.7% Block Group 2 84 56 623 749 $ 93,882 85.9 Census Tract 51.19 Block Group 2 407 271 117 681 $ 62,963 Asian-Latinx-White 84.4 9.0 % Moderate Resource 0.72 0.01 0.66 13.4% 9.4% 34.8% Census Tract 51.22 Block Group 1 33 21 0 0 $ 89,344 Asian-Latinx-White 83.4 11.1 % Highest Resource 0.77 0.16 0.96 0.3% 16.3% 30.5% Census Tract 51.23 Block Group 1 89 59 62 599 $ 102,128 Asian-Latinx-White 80.4 11.0% Highest Resource 0.73 0.48 0.94 4.4% 19.2% 26.8% Block Group 2 18 12 30 23 $ 55,500 85.2 Census Tract 51.24 Block Group 1 0 0 39 22 $ 75,398 Latinx-White 81.2 17.7% Moderate Resource 0.44 0.57 0.56 0.6% 6.7% 43.4% Block Group 2 60 40 0 0 $ 40,946 84.1
Census Tract 51.25 Block Group 1 0 0 4 0 $ 60,714 Latinx-White 75.6 17.9% High Resource 0.42 0.73 0.78 1.5% 29.9% 40.3% Block Group 2 0 0 1 1 $ 47,260 81.8 Census Tract 51.26 Block Group 1 0 0 0 2 $ 59,450 Latinx-White 83.2 16.0% Moderate Resource 0.26 0.41 0.78 6.0% 5.3% 45.6% Block Group 2 17 12 0 0 $ 48,239 83.3
Census Tract 51.32
Block Group 1 0 0 13 3 $ 50,313
Latinx-White
79.5 Block Group 2 0 0 6 0 $ 46,458 82.1 20.3% Low Resource 0.02 0.39 0.81 9.3% 3.9% 41.9% Block Group 3 213 141 14 122 $ 34,143 85.2 Census Tract 51.33
Block Group 1 32 21 45 8 $ 105,865
Latinx-White
80.3 13.7% Moderate Resource 0.28 0.12 0.81 3.7% 21.8% 24.0% Block Group 2 83 56 0 0 $ 92,159 76.3 Block Group 3 173 116 0 2,424 $ 43,714 85.5 Block Group 4 106 71 0 45 $ 62,813 82.1 Census Tract 51.34
Block Group 1 0 0 0 3 $ 77,112
Black-Latinx-White
81.7 Block Group 2 54 9 47 1 $ 63,201 74.9 15.0% High Resource 0.41 0.71 0.94 8.9% 11.7% 34.0% Block Group 3 0 0 7 3 $ 82,583 73.8 Census Tract 51.35 Block Group 1 0 0 8 24 $ 85,081 Latinx-White 64 11.1% Highest Resource 0.86 0.35 0.94 2.3% 14.0% 37.3% Block Group 2 0 0 90 15 $ 90,339 79.4 EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-186
SEGREGATION/INTEGRATION
The City finds that for certain protected characteristics, there are patterns of moderate segregation in Manteca that must be recognized and considered. With regards to race/ethnicity, areas in the central part of the City have some of the highest diversity index scores, which tend to correlate with areas that have lower median household incomes. However, this pattern is not consistent. In general, areas of the City with higher density, more affordable multifamily housing choices, and older housing stock, including the Downtown area and central neighborhoods, appear to be moderately correlated with populations that may have disproportionate housing needs, such as persons with disabilities, low-income seniors, households with familial status, and households with lower median incomes. Conversely, the rest portions of the City with newer suburban development and rural development patterns are generally less diverse, have higher median incomes, and have a higher proportion of seniors. As described throughout this Housing Element, the City is committed to supporting the development of housing to promote a balanced and integrated community.
Figure 8 shows that Latinx-White racial/ethnic concentrations in Manteca are generally located in the northern and eastern portions of the City and 3 Group Mixed racial/ethnic concentrations in Manteca are located in the southern and western portions of the City. Figure 9 shows the sites identified to meet Manteca’s RHNA allocation in relation to racial/ethnic diversity (2018) and shows that there are areas with more, and less, diversity throughout the City. As shown, proposed sites, including those very low and low-income RHNA sites (i.e. sites allowing for densities of at least 20 du/ac), are located throughout the community and are not concentrated in areas of 3 Group Mixed racial/ethnic or of higher diversity. Compared with census tracts with lower diversity scores, a higher share of very low and low-income RHNA sites are located in census tracts with higher diversity scores. Similarly, a higher share of very low and low-income RHNA sites are located in areas with a diverse population, 3 Group Mixed racial/ethnic.
These areas also include moderate and above moderate RHNA sites. The locations of sites designated to meet the City’s RHNA allocation are not expected to contribute to patterns of isolation or segregation for racial or ethnic groups.
Figure 11 shows the sites designated to meet Manteca’s RHNA allocation in relation to the concentration of persons with disabilities. As shown, proposed sites, including those very low and low-income sites (sites allowing for densities of at least 20 du/ac), are located throughout the community and are not concentrated in areas with high proportions of persons with disabilities.
Sites are divided between census tracts with 10% or less of the population indicating a disability, sites in areas with 10-20% of residents indicating a disability, and sites in areas with 20-30% of residents indicating a disability. The census tract with the highest rate of persons with a disability has a mix of moderate and above moderate RHNA sites. As noted earlier, Manteca has similar level of concentrations of persons with disabilities compared with other cities and communities in southern San Joaquin County. Although the locations of sites designated to meet the City’s RHNA allocation are not expected to contribute to patterns of isolation or segregation for persons with disabilities, the City should still target its AFFH actions to alleviate the concentration of persons with disabilities found in the census tracts with moderate levels of persons with disabilities (20-30%) and to increase access for persons with a disability to areas with low percentages of persons with a disability.
Figure 14 shows the sites designated to meet Manteca’s RHNA allocation in relation to female-headed households. As shown, proposed sites, including very low and low-income sites (sites allowing for densities of at least 20 du/ac), are located throughout the community and are not concentrated in areas with high levels of female-headed households. Areas with high levels of femaleheaded households include lower, moderate, and above moderate income RHNA sites. The locations of sites designated to meet the City’s RHNA allocation are not expected to contribute to patterns of isolation or segregation for female-headed households.
Figure 15 shows the sites designated to meet Manteca’s RHNA allocation in relation to concentration of senior residents. As shown, proposed sites, including very low and low-income sites (sites allowing for densities of at least 20 du/ac), are distributed throughout the community. Compared with census tracts with a lower percentage of senior residents, a higher share of very low and low-income sites are located in census tracts with a higher percentage of senior residents. However, the majority of these sites are located adjacent to a market-rate senior community in an area with moderate incomes and highest resources. The locations of sites designated to meet the City’s RHNA allocation are not expected to contribute to patterns of isolation or segregation for senior residents.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-187
Figure 16 shows the sites designated to meet Manteca’s RHNA allocation in relation to median household income. As shown, proposed sites, including very low and low-income RHNA sites (sites allowing for densities of 30 du/ac), are distributed throughout the community with a higher share of above moderate income sites located in areas with high and highest median household incomes. Although a number of lower income sites are in block groups with moderate and low median household incomes, these are also sites that will realistically develop/redevelop over the planning period and which could be transformative projects that assist in improving opportunities and median incomes within these census block groups. It is recognized that the central areas of the city have the lowest income rankings and also have primarily moderate income sites as well as some above moderate income sites. The distribution of sites will increase very low and low income housing opportunities outside of the lower median income areas in the City while the moderate and above moderate income sites in these areas will assist in increasing diversity and income levels in these areas.
R/ECAPS AND RCAAS
There are no racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) in Manteca nor are there any racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs). In fact, in Manteca it appears that areas of high diversity do not generally correlate with lower incomes and that areas of low diversity reflect a wide range of income levels. The distribution of RHNA sites throughout the City will therefore not exacerbate racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty on one side of the spectrum nor racially concentrated areas of affluence on the other side.
ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
Manteca has four census tracts designated as TCAC “highest” resource areas: census tract 51.06, 51.22, 51.23, and 51.35, located at the western portion of Manteca. As shown in Table 5-7 and reflected in Figure 20, census tracts in the City exhibit a wide variety of opportunity resource levels, with high/highest resource areas generally corresponding to suburban development patterns in the western and southern portion of the City, and low resource or high segregation and poverty areas located in the central and eastern portion of the City. Candidate sites to accommodate the City’s very low- and low-income RHNA are distributed throughout the City, with sites identified to accommodate all income levels spread equally across all levels of opportunity to the extent feasible, including High Resource, Moderate Resource, and Low Resource areas.
Areas of Highest Resource (Census Tracts 51.06, 51.22, 51.23, and 51.35) are proposed to accommodate 827 1,053 very low income units (31.541% of very low income RHNA sites), 552 700 low income units (34.345% of low income RHNA sites), 321 238 moderate income units (19.116% of moderate income RHNA sites), and 6,0553,879 above moderate income units (60.457% of above moderate income RHNA sites); areas of High Resource (Census Tracts 50.04, 51.14, 51.25, and 51.34) are proposed to accommodate 1,033744 very low income units (39.329% of very low income RHNA sites), 551 360 low income units (34.223% of low income RHNA sites), 476 334 moderate income units (28.222% of moderate income RHNA sites), and 1,358857 above moderate income units (13.513% of above moderate income RHNA sites); areas of Moderate Resource (Census Tracts 51.13,
51.19, 51.24, and 51.26) are proposed to accommodate 486 503 very low income units (18.520% of very low income RHNA sites), 322 337 low income units (20.022% of low income RHNA sites), 701 734 moderate income units (11.149% very low income RHNA sites), and 2,4491,934 above moderate income units (284.4% above moderate RHNA sites); and areas of Low Resource (Census Tracts 51.08, 51.09, 51.10, and 51.32) are proposed to accommodate 2780 very low income units (110.7% of very low income RHNA units), 15485 low income units (101.5% of low income RHNA sites), 1847 moderate income units (121.1% of moderate income RHNA sites), and 129164 above moderate income units (21.6% of above moderate income RHNA sites). As shown in Table 5-7 and reflected in Figure 17, Manteca’s census tracts range from less positive (<0.25) to moderately positive (0.5 to 0.75 score) economic outcomes. The RHNA sites include a full range of income levels distributed throughout all economic score ranges represented in Manteca, with the highest number of sites at all income levels occurring in Highest Resource areas.
There is no concentration of very low- and low-income sites in the less positive economic outcome census tracts and the highest economic outcome tracts in the City have a range of very low-, low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income sites. As shown in Table 5-7 and reflected in Figure 18, Manteca’s census tracts range from less positive (<0.25) to moderately positive (0.5 to 0.75 score) educational outcomes. There is no concentration of very low- and low-income sites in the less positive educational outcome census tracts and the highest educational outcome tracts in the City have a range of very low-, low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income sites. Manteca’s census tracts reflect the full range of environmental scores (0.01 to 0.73), from less positive to EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-188
more positive environmental outcomes. Proposed RHNA sites, including very low- and low-income sites, are distributed throughout the City, with the majority of sites at all income levels proposed in tracts with higher (more positive) environmental scores. While there are very low- and low-income sites in census tracts with less positive outcomes, these areas also a high proportion of moderate and above moderate-income sites; There is no concentration of very low- and low-income sites in the lower environmental scoring areas.
New residential and mixed-use development in the identified areas will help to create more housing affordable to households at all income levels, introduce new residents to the areas which can contribute to greater neighborhood stability, and expand opportunities for people to both live and work in Manteca. Taken together, new residential and mixed-use development as envisioned by the sites inventory will help to continue to diversify the City’s land use pattern and improve the conditions of these census tracts by providing greater housing choice and a broader range of goods and services, bringing new residential development closer to transit and jobs, and otherwise supporting community revitalization.
DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS AND DISPLACEMENT RISK
Figures 23 and 24 show the sites designated to meet the RHNA allocation in relation to percent of renter and owner households burdened by housing costs, by census tract. The RHNA sites are split between sites located in census tracts with moderate and high levels of cost-burdened renter households. Likewise, sites are split between census tracts with low and moderate levels of cost-burdened homeowner households. Areas identified as vulnerable to displacement risk on Figure 22 will see a range of income levels, with the inventory and opportunity sites accommodating very low and low, moderate, and above moderate income households. The intent of introducing new residential development in these areas is to add new housing to desirable areas and provide a range of housing choices at different prices to current and future residents. With a broader range of housing options, housing will become more affordable across the community, which should lessen the housing cost burden, particularly for renters.
5. SITE ANALYSIS FINDINGS
The existing conditions in Manteca across all fair housing factors are generally mixed, with more positive outcomes for some factors and less positive outcomes for others. Nonetheless, the distribution of RHNA sites across the community without concentration in any particular census tract or block group will help to improve the opportunities and outcomes throughout the City. Furthermore, the RHNA sites will allow for development at densities needed to encourage affordable housing development.
The sites identified to meet the City’s RHNA at all income levels are generally accommodated throughout Manteca and are not concentrated in areas with high racial or ethnic populations, persons with disabilities, female-headed households, senior households, or LMI households. Lower income-RHNA sites are not concentrated in areas of the City that would be associated with significantly worse socio-economic outcomes, based on indicators of fair housing issues such as census tracts with the highest poverty rates, highest rates of renter-occupied housing, or highest rates of overcrowding. Sites identified as suitable for lower-income households generally also identify a significant portion of moderate- and/or above-moderate income sites, providing an opportunity to facilitate mixed-income neighborhoods and integration in these areas. Identified RHNA sites are well-distributed throughout the community in areas that are appropriate for housing (i.e., not constrained), and provide realistic opportunities for development at all income levels. The sites inventory works in tandem with programs in the Housing Plan to expand housing choice and access to opportunity by providing for a variety of housing types throughout Manteca, improving access to opportunity, and promoting agency and equity for those with disproportionate housing needs; for instance the City has included Program 5 in the Housing Plan to encourage additional development of very low, low, and moderate income units throughout the community, including areas with primarily single-family housing, through promoting ADUs, JADUs, and SB 9 units.
For these reasons, the City finds that the sites proposed to accommodate its RHNA allocation do not unduly burden existing areas of concentrated racial or ethnic homogeneity, poverty, or other characteristics. Moreover, the sites affirmatively further fair housing by helping to stimulate investment in areas where additional opportunities are desired, and where new residential and/or mixeduse development can help to improve some of the opportunity level characteristics discussed earlier in this chapter.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-189
E. ANALYSIS OF CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND FAIR HOUSING
PRIORITIES AND GOALS
The December 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule Guidebook published by HUD identifies examples of contributing factors by each fair housing issue area: outreach, fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, disparities in access to opportunities for persons with disabilities, disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risks, and sites inventory. Based on the analysis included in this Background Report and the County AI, the City has identified in Table 5-7 potential contributing factors to fair housing issues in Manteca and outlines the meaningful actions to be taken. The meaningful actions listed in Table 5-7 relate to the actions identified in the Housing Plan.
Table 5-7: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Meaningful Action Fair Housing Resources, including
Enforcement and Outreach, and
Reported Levels of Discrimination
• Lack of understanding of fair housing
rights, including access to readily
available information regarding fair
housing resources and assistance to
persons in filing a complaint
• Lack of education of public and
housing providers regarding rights
and responsibilities under the AFH
and FEHA
High • Program 16
• Program 23
Lack of Access to Opportunity. • Highway 99/central UPRR area (Figure 20) - low overall TCAC and economic
opportunity scores (overall, economic
• Central/central-eastern census tracts -
Low educational opportunity scores
• Southern and eastern areas – Low
environmental opportunity scores
along Highways 99, 120, and along
railroad corridor on City’s western
border associated with exposing
developing areas to air pollutant
emissions, pesticides, and drinking
water pollutants
• Improve access transit opportunities,
including Manteca Transit Center and
ACE 4
High • Program 1
• Program 2
• Program 5
• Program 6
• Program 12
• Program 14
• Program 17
• Program 23
Disproportionate Housing Needs,
including Overpayment and
Substandard Housing
• On-going need for affordable housing
options
• Need for assistance with monthly
housing costs
• Access to local information regarding
available housing rehabilitation,
emergency repair, and weatherization
programs
• Need for targeted housing
revitalization strategies
Medium • Program 1
• Program 2
• Program 3
• Program 5
• Program 6
• Program 7
• Program 8
• Program 11
• Program 12
• Program 14
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-190
• Program 16
• Program 17
• Program 18
• Program 19
• Program 20
• Program 22
• Program 23
Displacement Risk • Portion of community is a sensitive community identified as vulnerable to
displacement
• Displacement of residents due to
economic pressures
Medium/Low • Program 1
• Program 2
• Program 6
• Program 7
• Program 12
• Program 16
• Program 19
• Program 20
• Program 21
• Program 22
• Program 23
Based on the issues identified in this Background Report, the following are the top three issues to be addressed through the programs in the Housing Plan:
1. Improving access to fair housing information, including education and enforcement assistance for residents and persons interested in renting or purchasing housing in Manteca and education for property owners, managers, and other housing providers regarding fair housing laws and their responsibilities to ensure fair access to housing opportunities (High Priority)
2. Place-based investments to improve opportunities, including access to place-based opportunities, including economic, educational, environmental, and transportation (High Priority)
3. Housing mobility enhancement to increase access to opportunities and improve access to affordable housing throughout the community (High Priority)
Moving forward, the City remains committed to providing a diversity of housing options for all income levels, encouraging development throughout the community to avoid patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. The vast majority of the City’s Housing Programs designed to address fair housing will be implemented on an ongoing basis, with annual progress reports and programs evaluations to ensure they are achieving the City’s objectives. The following list summarizes those programs identified in this Housing Element which affirmatively further fair housing and implement the County AI’s recommendations:
• Programs 1 and 2 to facilitate affordable housing and special needs housing construction • Program 3 to ensure adequate sites are available to accommodate the RHNA • Program 5 to encourage production of ADUs, JADUs, and SB 9 units, increasing access to opportunities and a greater variety of housing types and costs throughout the City
• Program 6 to promote access to housing in all areas of the City • Program 7 to preserve existing affordable housing and reduce displacement due to conversion of affordable housing to market rate
• Program 8 to ensure housing is maintained in a safe and decent manner that reduces displacement due to substandard EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-191
housing
• Programs 11 and 17 to increase access to housing for persons with a disability • Program 12 to encourage and facilitate a variety of housing types, including housing for special needs populations • Program 14 to promote affordable housing opportunities through density bonuses and incentives • Program 16 to ensure fair housing outreach, education, and enforcement services are available to residents, property owners, and property managers
• Programs 17 and 19 to improve access to information regarding housing programs, including increasing access to homeownership opportunities
• Program 20 to increase access to housing for special needs households • Program 22 to ensure emergency shelter and housing options are targeted to the homeless population • Program 23 to affirmatively further fair housing through promoting fair housing outreach and enforcement, housing mobility enhancement and increased access to high opportunity areas, increasing integration and diversity, promoting place-based strategies to improve opportunity scores and promote community revitalization, and protecting residents from displacement. To the extent that these programs represent ongoing work efforts, these programs are evaluated for effectiveness in Chapter 6 of this Background Report. The City will continue to partner with local and regional stakeholders to affirmatively further fair housing, provide services to the lower income and special needs groups, and address homelessness.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-192
6. EVALUATION OF THE 2015–2023 HOUSING ELEMENT
A. INTRODUCTION
California Government Code 65588(a) requires each jurisdiction to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing Housing Element, the appropriateness of the goals, objectives, and policies, and the progress in implementing the programs over the planning period of the Housing Element. This chapter contains a review of the programs of the previous Housing Element and evaluates the degree to which these programs have been implemented during the previous planning period. This section also includes a detailed review of the City’s progress toward facilitating the production of its share of the regional housing need. The findings from this evaluation have been instrumental in determining the 2023 – 2031 Housing Plan.
B. APPROPRIATENESS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 2015-2023
HOUSING ELEMENT
The 2015 – 2023 Housing Element program strategy focused on achieving an adequate supply of safe, decent housing for all residents of Manteca through the following goals, policies, and programs:
Goal 1 To promote the development of affordable housing in the city of Manteca.
Goal 2 To promote mixed-use, infill, and downtown development in the city of Manteca.
Goal 3 To provide a range of housing types, densities, and designs, and meet existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community.
Goal 4 To encourage the maintenance and continued improvement of the existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods.
Goal 5 To provide adequate housing opportunities for persons with special needs, including seniors, persons with disabilities, single parents, large families, persons lacking permanent shelter, and residents with extremely low incomes.
Goal 6 To promote equal opportunity to secure safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for everyone in the community regardless of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or disability.
Goal 7 To encourage energy efficient residential and neighborhood designs that reduce total housing costs by lowering ongoing operation and maintenance costs.
Goal 8 To ensure that Housing Element programs are implemented on a timely basis and the progress of each program is monitored and evaluated annually.
Since the adoption of the last Housing Element update, the City has implemented a number of actions to plan for, accommodate, and facilitate the construction and rehabilitation of housing, including affordable housing and housing for populations with special needs. This section reviews the effectiveness of the 5th Cycle Housing Element.
Table 6-1 identifies the City’s 2015-2023 RHNA, all residential units that were constructed or permitted during this period, and the remaining RHNA that was not permitted during the 5th Cycle.
As shown in Table 6-1, 6,156 housing units were permitted during the planning period. Of these 6,156 units, 5,799 were affordable to above moderate income, 319 units were affordable to moderate income, 32 were affordable to low income; 10 were affordable to very low income, and 5 were affordable to extremely low income households.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-193
Table 6-1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 2015-2023 - Citywide Allocation Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate TOTAL
Manteca 2015-2023 RHNA 463 462 693 825 1,958 4,401
Total Permitted 2015 0 0 0 0 494 494
Total Permitted 2016 0 0 0 0 593 593
Total Permitted 2017 5 6 24 125 660 820
Total Permitted 2018 0 4 8 10 476 489
Total Permitted 2019 0 0 0 182 514 696
Total Permitted 2020 0 0 0 2 871 873
Total Permitted 2021 0 0 0 0 724 724
Total Permitted 2022 0 0 0 0 1,467 1,467
Total Permitted 2015-2021 5 10 32 319 5,799 6,156
Remaining Need 458 452 661 506 0 (3,841
surplus)
2,077
Source: City of Manteca, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 Annual Element Progress Reports Overall, the City’s housing programs have been moderately effective in removing potential constraints to affordable housing, ensuring coordination between City and County departments, agencies, and providers to plan for affordable housing, including providing financial assistance, and to address programs and services necessary to meet the housing needs of the City’s residents, property owners, and other affected parties. Since the adoption of the last Housing Element update, City of Manteca effectively implemented many of its Housing Element programs, with one affordable deed-restricted senior/disabled apartment project permitted, one affordable deed-restricted multifamily project in process, and 11 residential care homes licensed (2 care homes constructed during the 6th Cycle). The City is implementing measures to promote accessory dwelling units and support the production and rehabilitation of housing and an increase in the variety of housing types in the City. The City’s implementation of its housing programs that have helped to achieve the goals and objectives of the 2015 – 2023 Housing Element is described in detail in Table 6-2. Table 6-2 also describes programs that will be modified, consolidated into new programs, or omitted because they were implemented or redundant to other programs, as part of the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
During the 5th Cycle, the City actively promoted affordable housing, including assistance through the City’s HOME and CDBG funds accessed through participation in the San Joaquin Urban County and HOME Consortium. These efforts resulted in 47 deedrestricted units during the 5th Cycle, as well as pending projects with an additional 100 very low and low income deed-restricted units that are anticipated to be constructed during the 6th Cycle.
During the 5th Cycle, the City worked to further housing opportunities and implement the Housing Element. The City’s housing related accomplishments included:
• A comprehensive update to the General Plan, a multi-year effort that culminated with adoption in July 2023. The General Plan Update reflects substantial input from the community and provides a framework for growth and development, including increased residential densities, including higher densities to accommodate multifamily housing, and additional sites for multifamily and mixed use development. The General Plan Update also includes a policy for prioritizing the revitalization of underutilized sites and deteriorated areas through development incentives, public/private partnerships, and public investments.
• Assistance to the Cottage Avenue Senior Apartments project (47 extremely low, very low, and low income units) through help with NEPA documentation, providing information in support of funding applications, and commitment of local funds, including multifamily housing revenue bonds and HOME funds. • Municipal Code Updates, including:
o Adoption of current California Building Standards Code (2022), including the current State mandated CalGreen requirements.
o Revision to the Community Growth Management Program to exempt any residential unit or project that meets the affordable housing criteria from the growth cap. The Program also exempts infill developments and modifies EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-194
the point rating system to allow incentives to developers to include affordable housing in their development proposals.
o Amendment of required parking spaces by number of bedrooms. • Public information availability, including:
o Geographic Information System (GIS) web page that contains up-to-date property information. o Housing inventory, including finished, entitled, and pending lots/units with project names, status, key dates and number of lots.
• An update to the City’s Planning fee schedule
• Allocation of CDBG funding for:
o Hope Ministries in 2020 in the amount of $150,000 to assist with the purchase of sites where existing shelters are located in order to preserve those housing facilities for the homeless population. • Coordination with the San Joaquin County CDBG Urban County/San Joaquin County Successor Agency (Urban County) in 2020 to identify an industrial building at 555 Industrial Park Drive to be rehabilitated to serve as a one-stop homeless shelter with a capacity for 218 persons. The Urban County, which includes the City of Manteca as a participating agency, committed $500,000 for the rehabilitation of the facility. The City also committed $160,000 of its 2020 CDBG funding to continue to support HOPE Family Shelter operations and purchase of property where shelters are currently located to ensure continued provision of shelter and housing assistance services for homeless and at-risk households. • Providing assistance to lower income homeowners through the Housing Rehabilitation program, which prioritizes addressing health and safety hazards and provides funding for a broad range of improvements, including property maintenance, functional obsolescence, energy efficiency, and removal of architectural barriers for the disabled.
Table 6-2 addresses progress towards meeting special housing needs. Cumulatively, the 2015-2023 Housing Element resulted in assistance to special needs households, including:
Seniors: Affordable and market-rate housing, including 48 low and very low income multifamily rental units (Cottage Avenue Senior Apartments) and market-rate single family for sale homes (Shadowbrook/The Collective and continued development in Del Webb Woodbridge), licensing of 59 beds in existing units to provide residential care for the elderly, and 2 single family homes constructed during the 6th Cycle were licensed as residential care homes for the elderly to provide 12 beds (Beatitudes Care Home – 1639 United, 6 beds, Fruitful Humble Abode – 1849 Coit St, 6 beds).
Large Families: Development during the 5th Cycle included a variety of units suitable for large families. Market rate single family for-sale homes included 3- and 4-bedroom units located in various developments throughout the City and market-rate multifamily projects, including The Element and Paseo Villas, included 3-bedroom units.
Persons with a Disability: The Cottage Avenue Senior Apartments (47 very low and low income units) is also available to persons with a disability. The residential care homes that were constructed (12 beds) and those that were licensed during the planning period (59 beds) serve elderly people, particularly those with a disability or limitation that requires assistance with daily living activities. A small family home serving children with special needs (2452 Donatello St, 2 beds) is also pending licensing during the 6th Cycle.
Farmworkers: No new housing or assistance was provided specific to farmworker households.
Female Heads of Household with Children Present: While housing was constructed in proximity to services, including day care, schools, and employment opportunities that may benefit female heads of household with children, the City did not track units that specifically address this population.
Homeless: During the 5th Cycle, the City implemented multiple strategies to assist its unhoused population. Through providing additional shelter beds and staff to connect homeless persons with housing and resources, these efforts resulted in a reduction in unsheltered persons in Manteca as discussed in Chapter 2 of the Background Report. The City has continued to support H.O.P.E. Incorporated, which operates the Raymus Housing Emergency Shelter and expanded its operations to provide the HOPE Family Shelter focusing on servicing families and assisting households in meeting residential and occupational goals. The City also provided funds to H.O.P.E. Incorporated for the purchase of its emergency shelter site to ensure long-term availability of EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-195
emergency shelter beds. The City also has provided a warming/cooling center and shelter during periods of inclement weather to assist the unhoused population. During the 6th Cycle, the City began efforts to develop a navigational mixed use project that will provide shelter beds, transitional and supportive housing, and services. The City has identified a site for the center and is proceeding with plans to develop and operate the site.
While the majority of goals, policies, and programs included in the 2015-2023 Housing Element continue to be appropriate to address the City’s housing needs, the Housing Plan will be updated to provide clearer guidance and timelines, to remove redundancies as many programs are repetitive, to provide more specific direction to encourage affordable and special needs housing, and to address new requirements of State law. The intent of these programs will be kept in the Housing Plan, with revisions to address identified specific housing needs, constraints, or other concerns identified as part of this update. The 6th Cycle Housing Element Housing Plan includes the complete set of the new and/or revised programs to address the City’s housing needs for the 2023 – 2031 period.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-196
Table 6-2. Achievements and Implementation of 2015-2023 Housing Element Action Accomplishments/Status
GOAL 1: To promote the development of affordable housing in the City of Manteca.
Program H-I-1: Fee Waivers for Affordable Housing
In special circumstances the City may waive certain City fees or provide other incentives for housing projects affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income
households. Where the City provides a funding program,
waives fees, or provides other financial incentives, the City and developer shall enter into a development agreement
defining the incentive and the obligation of the developer to provide housing affordable to low-, very low-, or extremely low-income households. The agreement shall provide for
maintaining the affordability of the benefiting dwellings over time.
The criteria for granting a fee waiver shall include, but is not limited to, availability of other funding contributions from charitable or non-profit organizations, the household size, special needs considerations (e.g., large households, elderly persons with disabilities), and the level of income for the prospective tenants or owners of the unit. Priority will be given to housing development that is co-sponsored with, or otherwise receives matching funding from another agency (State or Federal) or non-profit organization. The decision to waive or modify fees will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Quantified Objective: 50 moderate-, 50 low-, 50 very low-, and 25 extremely low-income units
Accomplishments: Implemented and ongoing. The City has provided assistance to the Cottage Avenue Senior Apartments project through help with NEPA documentation, providing information in support of funding applications, and commitment of local funds, including multifamily housing revenue bonds and HOME funds in 2019 to offset development costs.
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program has been implemented. While the City did not provide fee waivers, the City did provide financial assistance to the one affordable project (47 very low and low income units) that requested assistance. The City is also working with another developer proposing 100 lower income units. This program did not reach the full quantified objective, but has been successful in supporting affordable housing. The program will be modified and combined with similar programs that assist builders with the development of affordable housing, and include specific actions and a timetable for implementation.
Program H-I-2: Growth Management Ordinance and Point
Rating System
The City shall modify the sewer allocation system (i.e., Growth Management Program) to clarify that all affordable units are exempt, not just affordable units in developments that include 75 percent of the units as affordable. The City shall also expand the definition of infill developments to exempt infill projects up to the maximum density allowed by zoning. Additionally, the City shall modify the point rating system to award points for affordable rental projects not only for very low-income households, but also low- and extremely low-income
households.
Quantified Objective: 50 moderate-, 50 low-, 50 very low-, and 25 extremely low-income units
Accomplishments: Implemented. Title 18 of the Manteca Municipal Code, the Community Growth Management Program, has been revised to exempt any residential unit or project that meets the affordable housing criteria from the growth cap. The Program also exempts infill developments and modifies the point rating system to allow incentives to developers to include affordable housing in their development proposals.
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program has been implemented and will be removed. The 47 affordable units developed during the 5th Cycle were exempt from the Growth Management Program.
Program H-I-3: Pursue State and Federal Funding
The City shall pursue appropriate State and Federal funding sources to support the efforts of non-profit and for-profit developers to meet new construction and rehabilitation needs of lower- and moderate-income households. The City shall also specifically target funding to address the needs of extremely low-income households. The City shall periodically update and Accomplishments: Partially implemented and ongoing. The City pursues State and Federal funding sources annually. City funds were committed in 2018 to assist Cottage Avenue Senior Apartments in completing NEPA environmental documentation to receive Federal HOME, CDBG, and Project-Based Housing Choice Vouchers funding assistance. In 2020, the City worked to commit Federal and State funds to assist with emergency shelter housing (Programs H-I-12 and H-I-15).
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-197
review available housing programs to identify appropriate funding sources to meet Manteca’s housing needs.
Quantified Objective: 50 moderate-, 50 low-, 50 very low-, and 25 extremely low-income units
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program has been effective and will be modified and combined with similar programs that continue to identify appropriate funding sources and work with interested developers to match available funding to housing development and rehabilitation. The updated program will include specific actions and a timetable for implementation.
Program H-I-4: Land Assembly
The City shall continue to use its powers to assemble land that can be used as an incentive to facilitate development of lower-income housing projects at reduced costs. When
assembling land, the City shall give preference to sites located close to amenities such as transit, schools, parks, grocery stores, and other services.
Quantified Objective: None
Accomplishments: Implemented and ongoing. The City maintains an inventory of sites and has made the information available to the development community upon request. Additionally, the City’s General Plan was adopted in July 2023, and includes a policy for prioritizing the revitalization of underutilized sites and deteriorated areas through development incentives, public/private partnerships, and public investments. The City assisted with the Cottage Avenue Senior Apartments, which included assemblage of four parcels (208-220-08, 208-220-25, 208- 220-32, and 208-230-01) located approximately ¼-mile from Doctors Hospital and ½-mile from restaurants, shopping, and services located in the vicinity of the East Yosemite Avenue and Cottage Avenue intersection. The City did not receive other requests for assistance with assembling sites for lower income housing.
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program has been effective. This program will be modified and combined with other programs that facilitate partnerships with developers and more actively promote development of high density and mixed use sites with affordable housing.
Program H-I-5: Priority Sewer and Water for Affordable
Housing
The Growth Management Ordinance already provides an
exemption for sewer allocations for affordable housing; however, the City shall adopt policies and procedures to provide priority water service for developments that include lower income housing units, consistent with State law
(Government Code Section 65589.7).
Quantified Objective: None
Accomplishments: Implemented. Title 18 of the Manteca Municipal Code, the Community Growth Management Program, has been revised to exempt any residential unit or project that meets the affordable housing criteria from the City’s 3.9 percent growth cap. However, the City has not specifically adopted policies prioritizing water and wastewater service for lower income housing developments.
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program will be revised to identify specific requirements for the adoption of policies and procedures to prioritize water and sewer service for projects that provide lower income housing.
GOAL 2: To promote mixed-use, infill, and downtown development in the City of Manteca.
Program H-I-6: Second Units
The City shall promote the development of second unit
dwellings by posting information on the City’s website
regarding permitting requirements, changes in State law, prototype plan sets, internet resources, how-to manuals, and/or benefits of second unit dwellings to property owners and the community. The City shall review its development impact fee structure to assess whether fees for second units are appropriate and not a hindrance to the development of second units.
Quantified Objective: 75 second units (moderate-income) Accomplishments: Partially implemented and ongoing. New ADU laws went into effect on January 1, 2020 that define the maximum standards and establish limitations on fees that can be applied to ADUs and Junior ADUs.
The City is utilizing State law for processing ADUs and JADUs and is using a portion of its SB 2 funds to develop materials and resources to assist property owners with ADU and JADU development. This program has been effective and is in the process of being implemented. The City had approximately 51 ADUs permitted during the 5th Cycle, with a significant increase in ADUs in 2022 based on allowing ADUs and JADUs as required by State law.
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program will be modified to complete implementation of the resources to encourage ADUs/JADUs and to include new actions to encourage SB 9 units to have a streamlined approach to increasing alternatives to traditional EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-198
single family detached units, and include specific actions and a timetable for implementation.
GOAL 3: To provide a range of housing types, densities, and designs, and meet existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community.
Program H-I-7: Vacant and Underutilized Residential Parcel Inventory
The City shall continue to maintain and make available to the public an inventory of vacant and underutilized residentiallyzoned parcels. The City shall make the system user-friendly and aim to update the list on a monthly basis. The system shall be used to facilitate the assembly of infill parcels.
Quantified Objective: None
Accomplishments: Partially implemented and ongoing. The City worked during the 5th Cycle to provide information regarding sites in the City via an online Geographic Information System (GIS) web page. This web page was published in 2022 and contains up-to-date property information, including General Plan designation, zoning, development status (presence of buildings), and a host of other information. Upon completion of the Housing Element, the City will add Housing Element sites for very low, low, and moderate income housing to the web page.
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program will be modified to reflect the very low, low, and moderate income sites included in Chapter 4 of the Background Report, and consolidated with other programs that offer assistance to prospective affordable housing developers, and include specific actions and a timetable for implementation.
Program H-I-8: Approved Project Inventory
The City shall continue to maintain and make available to the public a list of approved residential projects (i.e., Residential Activity Report) and a list of the housing built by type and affordability categories. The City shall make the system userfriendly and aim to update the lists on a monthly basis.
Quantified Objective: None
Accomplishments: Implemented and ongoing. The City maintains a housing inventory map on the website. The map includes finished, entitled, and pending lots/units with the name, project number, type, number of units, location, and developer/builder.
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program has been effective in making the public aware of under construction/ready to build, approved, and pending projects.
Program H-I-9: Annexation
While the City currently (2015) has an adequate supply of residentially-zoned land, the City shall periodically review the supply of land zoned for residential use and shall initiate an annexation program when the available supply of land is less than 120 percent of the projected eight-year housing need.
Quantified Objective: None
Accomplishments: Implemented and ongoing. The City reviews its inventory to ensure adequate sites are available. During the 5th Cycle, the City initiated multiple annexations to meet housing needs.
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program will be modified and consolidated with other programs that task the City with ensuring adequate sites to accommodate the City’s housing needs.
Program H-I-10: Permit Process and Development Fee
Schedule
The City shall evaluate the effect of the existing and proposed rates on the cost of new housing when revising the City’s permit processing and development fee structure.
Quantified Objective: None
Accomplishments: Implemented and ongoing. The City evaluates its fees to ensure that fee adjustments reflect the actual cost of providing services and are not unnecessarily high. The City last reviewed and updated its fee schedule in 2023. As part of the fee update, the City had a fee analysis performed to ensure that the fees reflect a reasonable cost of service. The analysis did not consider the fees effect on housing prices.
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program will be modified and consolidated with other programs that task the City with reviewing and updating department procedures and fee structures on a regular basis. Fee adjustments should continue to reflect the cost of providing services, with the Housing Plan including a program to provide for fee reductions or deferrals when feasible for affordable and special needs housing.
Program H-I-11: Review Multifamily Parking Standards Accomplishments: Implemented.
The City has amended the Zoning Code to require parking spaces by number of bedrooms.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-199
The City shall review parking standards for multifamily uses and consider modifying the requirements to be based on the number of bedrooms to reduce parking requirements for
smaller units (e.g., studio and one bedroom units).
Quantified Objective: None
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program has been implemented and will be removed.
GOAL 4: To encourage the maintenance and continued improvement of the existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods.
Program H-I-12: CDBG Funds for Affordable Housing
Preservation
The City shall continue to participate in the San Joaquin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program and annually seek CDBG funding for City projects and programs that support the preservation and maintenance of affordable housing. In the alternative the City may apply for direct allocation funds under the State CDBG program.
Housing objectives shall be a high priority in the use of CDBG funds.
Quantified Objective: 30 low- and 30 very low-income units Accomplishments: Implemented and ongoing. The City has continued to participate in the San Joaquin Urban County to access CDBG and HOME funds and to participate in regional solutions to housing needs. The City committed $150,000 of its 2020 CDBG grant funding to assist HOPE Ministries with the purchase of sites where existing shelters are located in order to preserve these housing facilities for the homeless population and has committed CDBG and HOME funds to the County rehabilitation program, resulting in the rehabilitation of two lower income units.
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program has been effective and will be modified and consolidated with other programs that task the City with continued pursuit of CDBG funds to support the preservation and maintenance of affordable housing.
Program H-I-13: Code Enforcement
The City shall continue to encourage the rehabilitation of substandard residential properties by homeowners and
landlords, using the Code Enforcement program when
necessary, to improve overall housing quality and conditions in the city.
Quantified Objective: None
Accomplishments: Implemented and ongoing. Through Manteca’s participation in the San Joaquin Urban County and HOME Consortium, the City’s residents have access to the County of San Joaquin Home Rehabilitation Program, which assists property owners with improving their property, including repairs and improvements to address substandard conditions. The City’s Code Enforcement Division investigates violations of the Manteca Municipal Code and other State and Federal codes related to land use, building, business licensing and operation, health code, and various other non- criminal statutes. Code Enforcement's goal is to gain voluntary compliance for violations of state and local laws. Code Enforcement Officers work with other divisions of the City, County and State officials to gain compliance with these codes. They abate public nuisances and properties deemed to be a public health or safety hazard. Abatement measures are executed through coordinated and cooperative steps that include Notice of Violation, Notice and Order and administrative penalties addressed upon those who fail to comply with municipal and state laws.
Services are performed under the direction of the Services Division Captain.
During the 5th Cycle, two homeowners were assisted with housing rehabilitation through the Urban County/HOME Consortium Home Rehabilitation Program administered by the County on behalf of the County and the cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Manteca, Ripon, and Tracy.
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program has been effective and will be modified and combined with other programs that promote the preservation of housing, track enforcement activities to identify any trends related to housing quality and housing safety to ensure that assistance is targeted where necessary, address complaints and any identified health and safety issues related to the City’s housing stock, provide homeowners and property owners with resources regarding housing rehabilitation and emergency repair programs to promote a safe and healthy living environment for the City’s residents, and include specific actions and a timetable for implementation.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-200
Program H-I-14: Preserve At-Risk Units
The City shall maintain contact with the operators of at-risk affordable housing (i.e., affordable projects that could convert to market rate within 10 years) to ensure the preservation of affordable units. The City shall provide technical assistance to potential purchasers of at-risk affordable housing,
including non-profits, developers, and tenants to help
preserve affordable housing in Manteca. Technical assistance could include connecting at-risk housing project owners with funding agencies or service providers to extend the
affordability of the housing. In the event a project is determined to be at-risk of converting to market rate housing, the City shall ensure the owner has met the tenant noticing requirements as set forth in California Government Code Sections 65863.10 and 65863.11. The City shall ensure that tenants are informed of their eligibility to obtain special Housing Choice Vouchers for tenants of converted HUD
properties.
Quantified Objective: 120 lower-income units
Accomplishments: Implemented and ongoing. The City regularly maintains contact with the operators of affordable housing, and has provided technical assistance to potential purchasers of affordable and market-rate housing in Manteca. The City did not have any assisted projects at risk of converting to market rate during the 5th Cycle. The 5th Cycle Element identified Vernal Apartments, with 54 market-rate units, as at risk of converting. This development was a Section 8 project that had opted out in 2004, prior to the 5th Cycle. The 5th Cycle Element also identified the owner-occupied Cedar Glen units as at-risk of converting. However, these units were not at risk as the affordability restrictions expired on these units in 2008-2010 (15 years from the date of sale of each unit) and the units were no longer restricted in the 5th Cycle.
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program has been effective and will be modified to ensure that the City addresses conversion of at-risk units, including noticing requirements consistent with the requirements of State law and outreach to tenants to reduce the risk of displacement of lower income residents.
GOAL 5: To provide adequate housing opportunities for persons with special needs, including seniors, persons with disabilities, single parents, large families, persons packing permanent shelter, and residents with extremely low incomes.
Program H-I-15: Support for Homeless Shelters and
Transitional Housing
The City shall pursue State and Federal funds to support existing emergency shelters and transitional housing with maintenance and operation costs.
Quantified Objective: None
Accomplishments: Implemented and ongoing.
The City coordinated with the San Joaquin County CDBG Urban County/San Joaquin County Successor Agency (Urban County) in 2020 to identify an industrial building at 555 Industrial Park Drive to be rehabilitated to serve as a one-stop homeless shelter with a capacity for 218 persons. The Urban County, which includes the City of Manteca as a participating agency, committed $500,000 for the rehabilitation of the facility. The City also committed $160,000 of its 2020 CDBG funding to continue to support HOPE Family Shelter operations and purchase of property where shelters are currently located to ensure continued provision of shelter and housing assistance services for homeless and at-risk households.
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program has been somewhat effective and will be modified and combined with other programs that proactively address homelessness and working with regional service providers and non-profit organizations.
Program H-I-16: Publicizing Reasonable Accommodation
The City shall prepare and maintain an up-to-date public information brochure on reasonable accommodation for
persons with disabilities and provide that information on the City’s website.
Quantified Objective: None
Accomplishments: Underway. The City is in the process of preparing and publicizing an informational brochure on reasonable accommodation and will post it to the City’s website upon completion. It is anticipated that this will be complete and implemented prior to adoption of this 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program will be removed.
Program H-I-17: Housing for Persons with Disabilities
The City shall support funding applications for County, State, and Federal funding for the construction and rehabilitation of supportive housing for persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities.
Quantified Objective: None
Accomplishments: Implemented and ongoing. The City reviews State and Federal funding sources annually and pursues funding opportunities that align with pending and potential projects in the City.
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program will be modified and consolidated with other programs that address funding for housing for persons with disabilities on a regular basis.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-201
GOAL 6: To promote equal opportunity to secure safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for everyone in the community regardless of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or disability.
Program H-I-18: San Joaquin Fair Housing Program
The City shall post and distribute information on the
enforcement program of the State Fair Employment and
Housing Commission and the services of the San Joaquin
Fair Housing Association.
The City shall coordinate with the San Joaquin Fair Housing Association for administration of a fair housing program. The City shall annually review the activities of the San Joaquin Fair Housing Association to ensure that it is meeting the City’s fair housing objectives and to evaluate its cost effectiveness. The City may establish and administer its own fair housing program.
The City shall distribute information provided by the San Joaquin Fair Housing Association (including brochures,
flyers, posters, and similar publications) in public locations throughout the city, including the Community Development Department Office, Administration Office, libraries, and the senior center. In addition, the Community Development
Department shall have such information available on the City website and distribute it to churches, developers, non-profit agencies, and others who request it. Information shall be provided in languages other than English where appropriate.
Quantified Objective: None
Accomplishments: Implemented and ongoing. The City is subject to and enforces state and federal fair housing laws. In coordination with the Urban County, the City also commits a portion of available CDBG funds on an annual basis to San Joaquin Fair Housing to ensure fair housing information is available to the City’s residents and landlords.
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program will be modified to include other actions to promote fair housing, based on the analysis provided in the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing section of the Housing Plan.
GOAL 7: To encourage energy efficient residential and neighborhood designs that reduce total housing costs by lowering ongoing operation and maintenance costs.
Program H-I-19: Energy Efficiency Opportunities
The City shall continue to post and distribute information on currently available weatherization programs. The City shall also produce and distribute information regarding Title 24, green building, durable materials and designs, innovative building construction techniques and materials, land use and circulation patterns, water conservation, and renewable energy opportunities.
Quantified Objective: None
Accomplishments: Implemented and ongoing. The City has assisted lower income homeowners through its participation in the County Housing Rehabilitation program, which prioritizes addressing health and safety hazards and provides funding for a broad range of improvements, including property maintenance, functional obsolescence, energy efficiency, and removal of architectural barriers for the disabled. Common repairs permitted under this loan program include, but are not limited to new roof and gutters, electrical and plumbing upgrades, and installation of ramps and grab bars.
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program has been partially implemented and will be modified to ensure that the City continues to publicize energy efficiency opportunities.
Program H-I-20: Building Codes
The City shall ensure that local building codes are consistent with state mandated or recommended green building
standards.
Quantified Objective: None
Accomplishments: Implemented. The City has adopted the 2055 California Building Standards Code, including the current State mandated CalGreen requirements.
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program has been implemented in its entirety. This program will be consolidated with other housing programs will ensure that the City implements State law, including current building codes, including CalGreen.
GOAL 8: To ensure that Housing Element programs are implemented on a timely basis and the progress of each program is monitored and evaluated annually.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-202
Program H-I-21: Housing Element Implementation Reporting The City shall review and report on the implementation of Housing Element programs to the Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) using a format provided by HCD.
Quantified Objective: None
Accomplishments: Implemented and ongoing. The City has submitted Annual Progress Reports in the format required by HCD from 2018-2022 and will continue to do the same.
Status: Keep Modify Remove
This program will be continued to ensure ongoing reporting related to RHNA progress and Housing Element implementation.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-203
7. OTHER REQUIREMENTS
A. ENERGY CONSERVATION
Manteca’s General Plan update embodies the City’s commitment to sustainability with the goal of improving climate resiliency through reducing greenhouse gas emissions through sustainable energy, transportation, land use, and local government actions that maximize energy efficiency and reduce energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions.
Local governments are uniquely positioned to have a major impact on the environmental sustainability of a community due to their broad authority on local issues. The City of Manteca has been proactive in promoting energy and resource conservation in new housing and in the retrofit of existing housing, as described in the following section. These City-sponsored initiatives are supplemented by a variety of programs offered by other agencies and organizations.
B. GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM
The City encourages residential construction of durable materials and designs suited to local conditions that contribute to reduction of the life-cycle cost of the dwelling through continued implementation of CALGreen to ensure new development is energy and water efficient. The City will also consider establishing additional incentives to achieve energy and water conservation efficiencies higher than those required by CALGreen. The City will also encourage the incorporation of energy conservation design features in existing and future residential developments to conserve resources and reduce housing costs.
Program 24 will also ensure that “green buildings” are designed, renovated, re-used, or operated in a manner that enhances resource efficiency and sustainability. These structures reduce water consumption, improve energy efficiency, and lessen a building’s overall environmental impact.
C. LOCAL ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides natural gas and electric services for the City of Manteca. PG&E also offers a variety of programs to increase energy conservation and reduce monthly energy costs for lower-income households. The following programs, offered by PG&E, are aimed at increasing energy efficiency, and are available to PG&E customers in Manteca:
• California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) is PG&E’s discount program for low-income households and housing facilities. CARE provides a 20% discount on monthly gas and energy bills. Participants qualify through income guidelines or if enrolled in certain public assistance programs. • Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA) is an electric-only discount program for families of 3 or more with low- to moderate-income. The program offers a monthly discount of 18% and is available to both single-family and multifamily residential customers. • Relief for Energy Assistance for Community Help (REACH) is a one-time energy assistance program for low-income homeowners who cannot pay their utility bill because of a sudden financial hardship. The program is targeted to the elderly, disabled, sick, working poor, and unemployed. Eligibility is determined by the Salvation Army and requires a household income that does not exceed 200% of the federal poverty level. • Medical Baseline Program provides allowances to customers who personally are, or who live with, someone who is dependent on life-support equipment or have other serious medical conditions which create an added need for electricity. This program allows customers to receive discounted rates for electricity by increasing their allocation of "baseline usage," which is available at lower rates. Income is not a factor in qualifying for this program. • The Energy Savings Assistance Program provides qualified customers with energy-saving improvements such as lighting, weatherization, and water-saving measures at no charge. Participants must live in a house, mobile home or apartment that is at least 5 years old. Income restrictions apply.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-204
• The Green Saver Program enables income-qualified residential customers in select communities to save 20% on their electricity bill on top of any applicable CARE or FERA discounts by subscribing to 100% solar energy.
The HERO Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program has been available to Manteca residents since 2015. Through this program, residents can pay for energy and water-saving improvements to their home through their property taxes for up to 20 years with tax-deductible interest. These improvements include solar panel installations, heating and cooling systems, energy-saving windows and doors, roofing, and insulation.
The San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (HAS) offers a Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) that offers incomeeligible residents of San Joaquin County a credit to their utility bill. Along with the utility credit, clients can also receive valuable information about energy conservation and practical tips on how to save energy and keep your utility bill at a manageable level. The HSA also operates a Weatherization Program that can assist renters or owners by installing energy saving measures and through repairs to homes, multi-unit dwellings, and mobile homes. These dwellings qualify for weatherization measures if the household income does not exceed a certain amount determined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Your residence may qualify for repair or replacement of a refrigerator, stove, water heater, or microwave; insulation; minor home repair, LED light bulbs; smoke and carbon monoxide detectors; shade screens; weather-stripping; and much more.
In addition to the local programs described above, the California Department of Community Services and Development (CSD) administers the Federally-funded Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). This program provides two types of assistance: Home Energy Assistance and Energy Crisis Intervention. The first type of assistance is a direct payment to utility bills for qualified low-income households. The second type of assistance is available to low-income households that are in a crisis situation. CSD also offers free weatherization assistance, such as attic insulation, caulking, water heater blankets, and heating and cooling system repairs to low-income households. Another service that LIHEAP provides is energy budget counseling, education on basic energy efficiency practices, and instruction on the proper use and maintenance of installed weatherization measures.
Through Program 25, the City will continue to post and distribute information on currently available energy efficiency and weatherization programs. The City will also produce and distribute information regarding Title 24, green building, durable materials and designs, innovative building construction techniques and materials, land uses and circulation patterns, water conservation, and renewable energy opportunities. The City will also ensure that local building codes are consistent with state mandated or recommended green building standards.
D. WATER AND SEWER PRIORITY
In an effort to prioritize sewer, the City has adopted a Growth Management Program (Title 18 of the MMC) that has expanded the City’s sewer treatment system, as well as implement a sewer allocation system which distributes available sewage treatment capacity between residential, commercial, industrial and other development.
Program 4 will ensure that the City adopts policies and procedures to provide priority water service for developments that include lower income housing units, consistent with State law (Government Code Section 65589.7) and Programs 24 and 25 will ensure that new buildings reduce water consumption.
E. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
This Housing Element has been prepared in coordination with the 2040 General Plan Update. As part of the effort, the Housing Element incorporates the land use designations and land use map included in the 2040 General Plan and with the goals, policies, and programs included in the General Plan. No inconsistencies were identified between the General Plan and Housing Element.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
BACKGROUND REPORT
HBR-205
The City reviews all General Plan Amendments for internal consistency with all elements of the General Plan (which includes the Housing Element) pursuant to Government Code section 65300.5 and Zoning Ordinance Section 17.10.200. In order to maintain and ensure consistency with the General Plan, the City will review the Housing Element during its annual review of the General Plan to ensure consistency is achieved and maintained during the planning period with all other legal required elements and revise as necessary. Beginning in 2024, the City will also post the annual review and progress report to the City website for public viewing.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
City of Manteca
6th Cycle Housing Element
Adoption Draft
Appendices
August 2024
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Appendix A
Inventory of Residential Sites
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Appendix A - Inventory of Vacant and Underutilized Sites
APN ADDRESS
General
Plan Zoning
Zoning
(Program 3
Rezone) Parcel Size Vacant/Under EXISTING USE
4th/5th
Cycle Sites -
Program 3
Apply Land Value
Improvements
Value
Total Value
(Land +
Improvements)
Improvement
Value/
Total Value
Existing
Density
Existing
Units
Physical
Obsolescence of
Existing Use
Economic
Obsolescence of
Existing
Use
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
Maximum
Capacity
Realistic
Density
Realistic
Capacity Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
224-040-010-000 1456 S MAIN ST CMU CMU 0.17 Vacant VACANT NA 27886 0 27886 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 5.0 24.0 4 0 0 4 0 223-410-050-000 1125 E YOSEMITE AVE CMU CMU 0.23 Vacant VACANT NA 100000 0 100000 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 6.0 24.0 6 0 0 6 0 241-300-160-000 2124 W YOSEMITE AVE CMU CG CMU 0.60 Vacant VACANT NA 204979 57814 262793 0.22 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 18.0 24.0 14 8 6 0 0 241-300-170-000 2110 W YOSEMITE AVE CMU CG CMU 0.61 Vacant VACANT NA 246068 0 246068 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 18.0 24.0 15 9 6 0 0 197-240-040-000 2160 N UNION RD CMU SP 0.90 Vacant VACANT NA 274821 0 274821 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 27.0 24.0 22 13 9 0 0 204-100-560-000 2165 N UNION RD CMU SP 0.94 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT No 32625 101221 133846 0.76 1.06 1 No Yes 20.1 30.0 0.0 22.8 0 0 0 0 0 202-220-280-000 2075 W LOUISE AVE CMU CMU 0.97 Vacant VACANT NA 133675 0 133675 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 29.0 24.0 23 14 9 0 0 223-430-090-000 1147 E YOSEMITE AVE CMU CMU 1.00 Vacant VACANT 5th - No 440000 0 440000 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 30.0 24.0 24 14 10 0 0 241-300-250-000 693 S AIRPORT WAY CMU M1 CMU 1.00 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT No 102550 117223 219773 0.53 1.00 1 No Yes 20.1 30.0 0.0 22.8 0 0 0 0 0 198-170-190-000 207 N AIRPORT WAY CMU M1 CMU 1.09 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 71591 239662 311253 0.77 0.92 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 31.0 24.0 25 15 10 0 0 198-170-180-000 225 N AIRPORT WAY CMU M1 CMU 1.09 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 200960 257641 458601 0.56 0.92 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 31.0 24.0 25 15 10 0 0 198-170-170-000 247 N AIRPORT WAY CMU M1 CMU 1.09 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 91223 237182 328405 0.72 0.92 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 31.0 24.0 25 15 10 0 0 204-100-580-000 1237 W LATHROP RD CMU SP 1.10 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 25473 35483 60956 0.58 0.91 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 32.0 24.0 25 15 10 0 0 241-300-550-000 527 S AIRPORT WAY CMU M1 CMU 1.18 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 51654 90959 142613 0.64 0.85 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 34.0 24.0 27 16 11 0 0 241-300-540-000 483 S AIRPORT WAY CMU M1 CMU 1.19 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 115000 282000 397000 0.71 0.84 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 34.0 24.0 28 17 11 0 0 241-300-530-000 437 S AIRPORT WAY CMU M1 CMU 1.19 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 214439 128663 343102 0.37 0.84 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 34.0 24.0 28 17 11 0 0 226-160-460-000 1231 W ATHERTON DR CMU PD 1.21 Vacant VACANT NA 193512 0 193512 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.00 36.0 24.0 29 17 12 0 0 219-050-180-000 1196 S UNION RD CMU R1 CMU 1.23 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 68314 115012 183326 0.63 0.81 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 35.0 24.0 29 17 12 0 0 224-040-030-000 1532 S MAIN ST CMU CMU 1.27 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 210235 630706 840941 0.75 0.79 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 37.0 24.0 29 17 12 0 0 202-220-310-000 1160 N AIRPORT WAY CMU CMU 1.27 Vacant VACANT NA 7952 0 7952 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 38.0 24.0 30 18 12 0 0 241-300-450-000 863 S AIRPORT WAY CMU M1 CMU 1.35 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 144117 168137 312254 0.54 0.74 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 39.0 24.0 31 19 12 0 0 241-300-230-000 579 S AIRPORT WAY CMU M1 CMU 1.38 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 142990 98727 241717 0.41 0.72 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 40.0 24.0 32 19 13 0 0 197-240-050-000 2170 N UNION RD CMU SP 1.52 Vacant VACANT NA 547068 0 547068 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 45.0 24.0 36 22 14 0 0 241-300-440-000 795 S AIRPORT WAY CMU M1 CMU 1.61 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 131236 164046 295282 0.56 0.62 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 47.0 24.0 38 23 15 0 0 228-060-250-000 2170 S AUSTIN RD CMU MP 1.89 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT 5th - Yes 306000 576300 882300 0.65 0.53 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 55.0 24.0 44 26 18 0 0 197-240-060-000 2180 N UNION RD CMU SP 2.01 Vacant VACANT NA 747038 0 747038 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 60.0 24.0 48 29 19 0 0 241-300-690-000 YOSEMITE AVE AND AIRPORT WAY CMU M1 CMU 2.12 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 417224 23512 440736 0.05 0.47 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 62.0 24.0 50 30 20 0 0 224-040-300-000 1184 E WOODWARD AVE CMU CN 2.43 Vacant VACANT NA 1030567 0 1030567 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 72.0 24.0 58 35 23 0 0 198-160-220-000 295 N AIRPORT WAY CMU R1 CMU 2.73 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 11085 222102 233187 0.95 0.37 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 80.0 24.0 65 39 26 0 0 204-100-210-000 1425 W LATHROP RD CMU SP 2.81 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT 5th - Yes 36266 12472 48738 0.26 0.36 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 83.0 24.0 66 40 26 0 0 204-100-220-000 1387 W LATHROP RD CMU SP 2.83 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT 5th - Yes 127164 55375 182539 0.30 0.35 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 83.0 24.0 67 40 27 0 0 204-100-550-000 2203 N UNION RD CMU SP 3.73 Vacant VACANT No 131189 0 131189 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 111.0 24.0 90 54 36 0 0 228-060-240-000 2090 S AUSTIN RD CMU MP 4.00 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT 5th - Yes 36957 57012 93969 0.61 0.25 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 119.0 24.0 95 57 38 0 0 226-160-450-000 1265 W ATHERTON DR CMU PD 4.46 Vacant VACANT No 712085 0 712085 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.00 133.0 24.0 107 64 43 0 0 224-040-080-000 1482 S MAIN ST CMU CMU 4.48 Vacant VACANT 4th - No 36034 0 36034 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 134.0 24.0 108 65 43 0 0 224-050-070-000 1840 PILLSBURY RD CMU CMU 5.00 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT No 885852 125768 1011620 0.12 0.20 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 149.0 24.0 119 71 48 0 0 218-090-060-000 1558 N MAIN ST CMU CMU 6.67 Vacant VACANT 4th - No 1023545 0 1023545 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 200.0 24.0 160 96 64 0 0 224-040-100-000 475 E QUINTAL RD CMU CMU 9.18 Vacant VACANT 4th - No 58765 0 58765 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 275.0 24.0 220 132 88 0 0 228-020-280-000 565 S AUSTIN RD CMU CMU 9.46 Underutilized 2 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS No 54631 257285 311916 0.82 0 2 NA NA 20.1 30.0 281.0 24.0 225 135 90 0 0 228-020-310-000 641 S AUSTIN RD CMU CMU 10.00 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT No 57748 277594 335342 0.83 0.20 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 299.0 24.0 239 143 96 0 0 228-060-280-000 2260 S AUSTIN RD CMU MP CMU 11.38 Vacant VACANT 5th - No 435405 0 435405 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 341.0 24.0 0 0 0 0 0 221-140-080-000 712 INDUSTRIAL PARK DR CMU M1 CMU 11.86 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT No 243671 87308 330979 0.26 0.08 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 0.0 24.0 0 0 0 0 0 228-060-260-000 2104 S AUSTIN RD CMU MP 12.73 Vacant VACANT / ORCHARD 5th - No 282446 11379 293825 0.04 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 0.0 24.0 0 0 0 0 0 223-102-130-000 112 N GRANT AVE DW CBD-2 0.03 Vacant VACANT NA 12526 0 12526 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 1.0 27.0 1 0 0 1 0 217-233-260-000 348 N MAPLE AVE DW PD 0.06 Vacant VACANT NA 78837 0 78837 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 2.0 27.0 2 0 0 2 0 217-233-270-000 344 N MAPLE AVE DW PD 0.06 Vacant VACANT NA 78837 0 78837 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 2.0 27.0 2 0 0 2 0 217-233-290-000 336 N MAPLE AVE DW PD 0.06 Vacant VACANT NA 78837 0 78837 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 2.0 27.0 2 0 0 2 0 217-233-280-000 340 N MAPLE AVE DW PD 0.06 Vacant VACANT NA 78837 0 78837 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 2.0 27.0 2 0 0 2 0 223-102-120-000 110 N GRANT AVE DW CBD-1 0.07 Vacant VACANT NA 86655 0 86655 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 2.0 27.0 2 0 0 2 0 221-020-030-000 128 S GRANT AVE DW CBD-2 0.11 Vacant VACANT NA 5079 0 5079 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 4.0 27.0 3 0 0 3 0 217-250-630-000 222B W ALAMEDA ST DW R2 0.12 Vacant VACANT NA 51528 0 51528 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 4.0 27.0 3 0 0 3 0 223-102-140-000 114 N GRANT AVE DW CBD-2 0.13 Vacant VACANT NA 108279 0 108279 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 5.0 27.0 4 0 0 4 0 221-110-050-000 632 E YOSEMITE AVE DW CMU 0.13 Vacant VACANT NA 84093 10512 94605 0.11 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 5.0 27.0 4 0 0 4 0 219-312-020-000 105 WILLOW AVE DW CMU 0.15 Vacant VACANT NA 44148 8408 52556 0.16 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 6.0 27.0 4 0 0 4 0 217-225-030-000 224 N MAPLE AVE DW R1 CBD-3 0.15 Vacant VACANT NA 60180 0 60180 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 6.0 27.0 4 0 0 4 0 223-102-150-000 116 N GRANT AVE DW CBD-2 0.16 Vacant VACANT NA 68207 3477 71684 0.05 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 6.0 27.0 4 0 0 4 0 223-230-230-000 617 E YOSEMITE AVE DW CMU 0.16 Vacant VACANT NA 64926 0 64926 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 6.0 27.0 4 0 0 4 0 223-230-300-000 603 E YOSEMITE AVE DW CMU 0.16 Vacant VACANT NA 147164 26279 173443 0.15 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 6.0 27.0 4 0 0 4 0 223-230-290-000 605 E YOSEMITE AVE DW CMU 0.16 Vacant VACANT NA 92750 0 92750 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 6.0 27.0 4 0 0 4 0 223-230-250-000 611 E YOSEMITE AVE DW CMU 0.16 Vacant VACANT NA 92750 0 92750 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 6.0 27.0 4 0 0 4 0 221-070-280-000 113 S LINCOLN AVE DW R1 0.16 Vacant VACANT NA 40541 0 40541 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 6.0 27.0 4 0 0 4 0 221-070-290-000 117 S LINCOLN AVE DW R1 0.16 Vacant VACANT NA 40541 0 40541 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 6.0 27.0 4 0 0 4 0 223-080-610-000 309 N GRANT AVE DW R1 0.16 Vacant VACANT NA 30116 299 30415 0.01 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 6.0 27.0 4 0 0 4 0 223-101-080-000 126 N MAIN ST DW CBD-1 0.17 Vacant VACANT NA 45275 3279 48554 0.07 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 6.0 27.0 5 0 0 5 0 223-101-100-000 142 N MAIN ST DW CBD-1 0.17 Vacant VACANT NA 46040 3279 49319 0.07 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 6.0 27.0 5 0 0 5 0 221-020-290-000 211 MOFFAT BLVD DW CBD-2 0.17 Vacant VACANT NA 30622 0 30622 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 6.0 27.0 5 0 0 5 0 223-071-020-000 128 E ALAMEDA ST DW CMU 0.17 Vacant VACANT NA 452722 0 452722 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 6.0 27.0 5 0 0 5 0 217-250-640-000 222A W ALAMEDA ST DW R2 0.17 Vacant VACANT NA 51528 0 51528 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 6.0 27.0 5 0 0 5 0 219-386-100-000 110 W WETMORE ST DW CN 0.18 Vacant VACANT NA 95529 13645 109174 0.12 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 7.0 27.0 5 0 0 5 0 221-020-040-000 131 S GRANT AVE DW CBD-2 0.20 Vacant VACANT NA 43782 0 43782 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 8.0 27.0 5 0 0 5 0 223-104-010-000 132 N SHERMAN AVE DW CMU 0.20 Vacant VACANT NA 52426 0 52426 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 8.0 27.0 5 0 0 5 0 223-110-200-000 121 N FREMONT AVE DW CMU 0.22 Vacant VACANT NA 102353 0 102353 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 8.0 27.0 6 0 0 6 0
0.0 0
A-1
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Appendix A - Inventory of Vacant and Underutilized Sites
APN ADDRESS
General
Plan Zoning
Zoning
(Program 3
Rezone) Parcel Size Vacant/Under EXISTING USE
4th/5th
Cycle Sites -
Program 3
Apply Land Value
Improvements
Value
Total Value
(Land +
Improvements)
Improvement
Value/
Total Value
Existing
Density
Existing
Units
Physical
Obsolescence of
Existing Use
Economic
Obsolescence of
Existing
Use
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
Maximum
Capacity
Realistic
Density
Realistic
Capacity Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
217-225-020-000 234 N MAPLE AVE DW R1 0.37 Vacant VACANT NA 146880 0 146880 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 14.0 27.0 10 0 0 10 0 223-320-140-000 729 E YOSEMITE AVE DW CMU 0.45 Vacant VACANT NA 260000 0 260000 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 18.0 27.0 12 0 0 12 0 217-232-080-000 313 N MAPLE AVE DW R1 0.47 Vacant VACANT NA 12366 0 12366 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 18.0 27.0 13 0 0 13 0 223-071-010-000 470 N MAIN ST DW CMU 0.49 Vacant VACANT NA 603629 0 603629 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 19.0 27.0 13 0 0 13 0 221-020-050-000 229 MOFFAT BLVD DW CBD-2 CBD-3 0.72 Vacant VACANT 4th - No 159334 0 159334 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 28.0 27.0 19 11 8 0 0 217-233-310-000 357 N MAIN ST DW PD CBD-3 0.83 Vacant VACANT No 463755 0 463755 0.00 0 0 NA NA 30.1 40.0 33.0 27.0 22 13 9 0 0 219-300-230-000 524 W YOSEMITE AVE HDR R3 0.10 Vacant VACANT NA 10249 0 10249 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 3.0 24.0 2 0 0 2 0 219-386-050-000 130 W WETMORE ST HDR R3 0.13 Vacant VACANT NA 45089 0 45089 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 3.0 24.0 2 0 0 2 0 216-330-320-000 170 NORTHGATE DR HDR R3 0.19 Vacant VACANT NA 99178 0 99178 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 5.0 24.0 4 0 0 4 0 222-100-030-000 630 S AIRPORT WAY HDR CMU R3 0.51 Vacant VACANT NA 6927 0 6927 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 15.0 24.0 11 7 4 0 0 218-210-170-000 197 E LOUISE AVE HDR R3 0.66 Vacant VACANT NA 215000 0 215000 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 19.0 24.0 15 9 6 0 0 200-020-130-000 545 N UNION RD HDR CN R3 0.77 Vacant VACANT NA 367200 0 367200 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 23.0 24.0 18 11 7 0 0 200-020-120-000 577 N UNION RD HDR CN R3 0.77 Vacant VACANT NA 357000 0 357000 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 23.0 24.0 18 11 7 0 0 200-020-140-000 511 N UNION RD HDR CN R3 0.77 Vacant VACANT NA 372300 0 372300 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 23.0 24.0 18 11 7 0 0 200-140-180-000 216 N AIRPORT WAY HDR R3 0.97 Vacant VACANT NA 394515 0 394515 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 29.0 24.0 23 14 9 0 0 217-490-550-000 750 N UNION RD HDR CN R3 1.28 Vacant VACANT No 11918 0 11918 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 38.0 24.0 31 19 12 0 0 200-140-040-000 250 N AIRPORT WAY HDR R3 1.44 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT 5th - Yes 86894 107413 194307 0.55 0.69 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 42.0 24.0 34 20 14 0 0 208-220-330-000 576 COTTAGE AVE HDR R3 1.47 Vacant VACANT No 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 44.0 24.0 35 21 14 0 0 222-100-040-000 700 S AIRPORT WAY HDR CMU R3 1.88 Underutilized 2 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS 5th - Yes 24159 56028 80187 0.70 1.06 2 No Yes 20.1 30.0 0.0 24.0 0 0 0 0 0 222-100-050-000 724 S AIRPORT WAY HDR CMU R3 2.67 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT 5th - Yes 174090 63303 237393 0.27 0.37 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 79.0 24.0 63 38 25 0 0 208-210-190-000 347 N VASCONCELLOS AVE HDR R3 3.23 Vacant VACANT No 1262459 0 1262459 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 96.0 24.0 78 47 31 0 0 222-100-060-000 794 S AIRPORT WAY HDR CMU R3 3.27 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT 5th - Yes 26084 21016 47100 0.45 0.31 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 97.0 24.0 77 46 31 0 0 200-140-050-000 238 N AIRPORT WAY HDR R3 3.84 Vacant VACANT 5th - No 775000 0 775000 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 115.0 24.0 92 55 37 0 0 222-400-360-000 248 PACIFIC RD, MANTECA 0 LDR R1 0.24 Vacant VACANT NA 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 224-600-460-000 1910 LOVEJOY AVE LDR R1 0.06 Vacant VACANT NA 31535 0 31535 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 217-110-290-000 213 HEMLOCK AVE LDR R1 0.08 Vacant VACANT NA 5773 0 5773 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 223-200-320-000 724 E ALAMEDA ST LDR R1 0.08 Vacant VACANT NA 10200 0 10200 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 223-200-330-000 722 E ALAMEDA ST LDR R1 0.08 Vacant VACANT NA 2972 1907 4879 0.39 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 219-230-100-000 419 S VEACH AVE LDR R1 0.09 Vacant VACANT NA 10935 0 10935 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 217-260-310-000 516 LOMBARDO AVE LDR R1 0.09 Vacant VACANT NA 55679 0 55679 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 223-080-510-000 320 N SHERMAN AVE LDR R1 0.10 Vacant VACANT NA 5964 0 5964 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 217-280-010-000 127 W ARGONAUT ST LDR R1 0.11 Vacant VACANT NA 7213 0 7213 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 222-200-450-000 1033 KENNY AVE LDR PD 0.12 Vacant VACANT NA 125000 0 125000 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 219-386-030-000 142 W WETMORE ST LDR R1 0.13 Vacant VACANT NA 9161 0 9161 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 219-386-200-000 141 SOUTH ST LDR R1 0.13 Vacant VACANT NA 14770 0 14770 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 219-386-010-000 418 VINE AVE LDR R1 0.13 Vacant VACANT NA 9161 0 9161 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 219-180-170-000 818 MARION ST LDR R1 0.14 Vacant VACANT NA 9161 0 9161 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 217-050-430-000 210 ALMOND AVE LDR CN R1 0.15 Vacant VACANT NA 14559 0 14559 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 226-520-440-000 1236 SEPHOS ST LDR PD 0.15 Vacant VACANT NA 78868 0 78868 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 224-490-090-000 1573 SAND LN LDR R1 0.15 Vacant VACANT NA 32304 0 32304 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 217-050-440-000 206 ALMOND AVE LDR CN R1 0.17 Vacant VACANT NA 84939 1212 86151 0.01 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 223-143-330-000 649 E EDISON ST LDR R1 0.17 Vacant VACANT NA 21795 0 21795 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 222-400-250-000 319 GRAND PRIX AVE LDR R1 0.20 Vacant VACANT NA 19134 0 19134 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 208-110-340-000 900 BUTTON AVE LDR R1 0.20 Vacant VACANT NA 68527 0 68527 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 222-390-160-000 204 PACIFIC RD LDR R1 0.21 Vacant VACANT NA 57646 0 57646 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 217-350-380-000 1087 HACIENDA AVE LDR R1 0.21 Vacant VACANT NA 113361 0 113361 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 218-110-480-000 1382 ANDREW LN LDR R1 0.24 Vacant VACANT NA 132600 0 132600 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 208-660-130-000 1062 GRANITE PL LDR R1 0.24 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 153110 143501 296611 0.48 4.17 1 NA NA 2.1 8.0 1.0 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 222-400-300-000 405 GRAND PRIX AVE LDR R1 0.25 Vacant VACANT NA 115629 0 115629 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 2.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 223-330-080-000 1006 PINE ST LDR R1 0.26 Vacant VACANT NA 107219 32165 139384 0.23 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 2.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 223-080-520-000 318 N SHERMAN AVE LDR R1 0.29 Vacant VACANT NA 13049 0 13049 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 2.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 224-250-480-000 1903 PILLSBURY RD LDR R1 0.30 Vacant VACANT NA 25993 0 25993 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 2.0 4.8 1 0 0 0 1 224-250-500-000 1951 PILLSBURY RD LDR R1 0.36 Vacant VACANT NA 31644 0 31644 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 2.0 4.8 2 0 0 0 2 223-144-690-000 465 E ALAMEDA ST LDR R1 0.63 Vacant VACANT NA 171700 0 171700 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 5.0 4.8 3 0 0 0 3 208-210-030-000 695 N AUSTIN RD LDR R1 1.00 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 25638 91705 117343 0.78 1.00 1 No Yes 2.1 8.0 0.0 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 226-290-490-000 2014 OLEANDER AVE LDR PD 1.01 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 10318 192849 203167 0.95 0.99 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 7.0 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 223-144-620-000 556 E EDISON ST LDR R1 1.01 Vacant VACANT NA 278252 0 278252 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 8.0 4.8 5 0 0 0 0 228-020-340-000 837 S AUSTIN RD LDR R1 1.03 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 92235 75204 167439 0.45 0.97 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 7.0 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 208-130-090-000 1514 E LOUISE AVE LDR R1 1.22 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NA 177265 438657 615922 0.71 0.82 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 8.0 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 208-130-080-000 1486 E LOUISE AVE LDR R1 1.22 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 226503 406574 633077 0.64 0.82 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 8.0 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 208-130-070-000 1438 E LOUISE AVE LDR R1 1.22 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 249900 593640 843540 0.70 0.82 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 8.0 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 223-180-100-000 880 E LOUISE AVE LDR R1 1.42 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 107587 250287 357874 0.70 0.70 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 10.0 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 241-410-500-000 BRONZAN RD AND MCKINLEY AVE LDR CG 1.56 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 241770 241770 483540 0.50 0.64 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 11.0 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 224-440-640-000 1765 BANDONI LN LDR R1 1.70 Underutilized TWO SINGLE FAMILY UNITS NA 17779 76653 94432 0.81 1.18 2 No Yes 2.1 8.0 0.0 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 208-210-070-000 581 N AUSTIN RD LDR R1 1.78 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 225304 233970 459274 0.51 0.56 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 13.0 4.8 8 0 0 0 8 224-022-010-000 1178 W WOODWARD AVE LDR R1 1.84 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 119756 420961 540717 0.78 0.54 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 13.0 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 202-020-100-000 1626 N AIRPORT WAY LDR R1 1.90 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 184059 167326 351385 0.48 0.53 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 14.0 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 241-410-510-000 2813 BRONZAN RD LDR CG R1 2.13 Vacant VACANT NA 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 17.0 4.8 10 0 0 0 10 226-180-240-000 1437 PEACH AVE LDR PD 2.14 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 9886 121937 131823 0.93 0.47 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 16.0 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 Yes
241-410-480-000 2693 BRONZAN RD LDR CG R1 3.34 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 77976 70014 147990 0.47 0.30 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 25.0 4.8 15 0 0 0 15 241-410-460-000 2641 BRONZAN RD LDR CG R1 3.65 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 374793 165409 540202 0.31 0.27 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 28.0 4.8 17 0 0 0 17 A-2
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Appendix A - Inventory of Vacant and Underutilized Sites
APN ADDRESS
General
Plan Zoning
Zoning
(Program 3
Rezone) Parcel Size Vacant/Under EXISTING USE
4th/5th
Cycle Sites -
Program 3
Apply Land Value
Improvements
Value
Total Value
(Land +
Improvements)
Improvement
Value/
Total Value
Existing
Density
Existing
Units
Physical
Obsolescence of
Existing Use
Economic
Obsolescence of
Existing
Use
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density
Maximum
Capacity
Realistic
Density
Realistic
Capacity Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
222-240-120-000 1085 S UNION RD LDR R1 3.67 Vacant VACANT NA 107219 0 107219 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 29.0 4.8 18 0 0 0 18 208-090-110-000 1291 E LOUISE AVE LDR R1 4.46 Vacant VACANT NA 43888 0 43888 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 35.0 4.8 21 0 0 0 21 208-090-100-000 1383 E LOUISE AVE LDR R1 4.84 Vacant SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 97593 48795 146388 0.33 0.21 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 37.0 4.8 22 0 0 0 22 208-210-270-000 585 N AUSTIN RD LDR R1 4.94 Vacant VACANT NA 28469 1787 30256 0.06 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 39.0 4.8 24 0 0 0 24 228-020-380-000 919 S AUSTIN RD LDR R1 5.00 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 100926 153869 254795 0.60 0.20 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 39.0 4.8 23 0 0 0 23 224-040-210-000 2112 S MAIN ST LDR R1 5.00 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 34648 133346 167994 0.79 0.20 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 39.0 4.8 23 0 0 0 23 228-020-440-000 499 S AUSTIN RD LDR CMU R1 11.25 Vacant VACANT NA 1136533 0 1136533 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 90.0 4.8 54 0 0 0 54 208-210-260-000 501 N AUSTIN RD LDR R1 14.83 Vacant VACANT NA 68558 0 68558 0.00 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 118.0 4.8 71 0 0 0 71 208-210-280-000 629 N AUSTIN RD LDR R1 18.57 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 93018 122326 215344 0.57 0.05 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 147.0 4.8 88 0 0 0 88 208-210-120-000 743 N AUSTIN RD LDR R1 19.16 Vacant VACANT / ORCHARD NA 88517 47540 136057 0.35 0 0 NA NA 2.1 8.0 153.0 4.8 92 0 0 0 92 223-142-120-000 593 N LINCOLN AVE MDR PD 0.07 Vacant VACANT NA 29651 0 29651 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 1.0 15.0 1 0 0 1 0 223-142-140-000 569 N LINCOLN AVE MDR PD 0.07 Vacant VACANT NA 32772 0 32772 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 1.0 15.0 1 0 0 1 0 223-142-130-000 587 N LINCOLN AVE MDR PD 0.07 Vacant VACANT NA 29651 0 29651 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 1.0 15.0 1 0 0 1 0 219-220-500-000 730 OREGON ST MDR R2 0.11 Vacant VACANT NA 51991 0 51991 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 2.0 15.0 2 0 0 2 0 217-091-230-000 665 MEADOWLARK LN MDR R2 0.13 Vacant VACANT NA 26029 0 26029 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 2.0 15.0 2 0 0 2 0 217-040-060-000 119 ALMOND AVE MDR R2 0.20 Vacant VACANT NA 127500 0 127500 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 4.0 15.0 3 0 0 3 0 217-050-480-000 259 ALMOND AVE MDR R2 0.22 Vacant VACANT NA 119833 0 119833 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 4.0 15.0 3 0 0 3 0 217-250-130-000 334 W ALAMEDA ST MDR R2 0.24 Vacant VACANT NA 40611 0 40611 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 4.0 15.0 4 0 0 4 0 223-072-160-000 426 N GRANT AVE MDR R2 0.31 Vacant VACANT NA 111550 0 111550 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 6.0 15.0 5 0 0 5 0 219-360-190-000 190 LUPTON ST MDR R2 0.42 Vacant VACANT NA 163764 0 163764 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 8.0 15.0 6 0 0 6 0 223-120-170-000 443 E NORTH ST MDR R2 0.52 Vacant VACANT NA 20260 0 20260 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 10.0 15.0 8 0 0 8 0 217-590-280-000 425 PEARL PL MDR R2 0.59 Vacant VACANT NA 34431 0 34431 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 11.0 15.0 9 0 0 9 0 217-600-390-000 942 W CENTER ST MDR CN R2 0.61 Vacant VACANT NA 58018 0 58018 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 12.0 15.0 9 0 0 9 0 217-600-400-000 970 W CENTER ST MDR CN R2 0.61 Vacant VACANT NA 29007 0 29007 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 12.0 15.0 9 0 0 9 0 217-600-380-000 139 N WALNUT AVE MDR CN R2 0.61 Vacant VACANT NA 70456 0 70456 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 12.0 15.0 9 0 0 9 0 218-130-020-000 504 SOUTHLAND RD MDR R2 0.89 Vacant VACANT NA 5714 0 5714 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 17.0 15.0 13 0 0 13 0 217-600-360-000 341 N WALNUT AVE MDR R1 R2 1.07 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 120098 99279 219377 0.45 0.93 1 Yes Yes 8.1 20.0 20.0 15.0 15 0 0 15 0 217-030-010-000 959 HARDWOOD CT MDR R2 1.46 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 26116 106152 132268 0.80 0.68 1 Yes Yes 8.1 20.0 28.0 15.0 21 0 0 21 0 198-170-330-000 2309 W YOSEMITE AVE MDR M1 R2 1.79 Underutilized 2 SINGLE FMAILY UNITS NA 234452 227753 462205 0.49 0.56 2 Yes Yes 8.1 20.0 33.0 15.0 0 0 0 0 0 222-020-100-000 264 S AIRPORT WAY MDR CMU R2 1.85 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 141984 35494 177478 0.20 0.54 1 Yes Yes 8.1 20.0 36.0 15.0 27 0 0 27 0 198-170-310-000 218 SWANSON RD MDR M1 R2 1.86 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 11109 103659 114768 0.90 0.54 1 Yes Yes 8.1 20.0 36.0 15.0 27 0 0 27 0 222-020-170-000 444 S AIRPORT WAY UNIT B MDR CMU R2 1.88 Underutilized 4 MULTIFAMILY UNITS NA 240000 565000 805000 0.70 0.53 4 Yes Yes 8.1 20.0 33.0 15.0 0 0 0 0 0 198-170-090-000 290 SWANSON RD MDR M1 R2 1.95 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 11720 270463 282183 0.96 0.51 1 Yes Yes 8.1 20.0 38.0 15.0 28 0 0 28 0 198-170-410-000 264 SWANSON RD MDR M1 R2 2.00 Vacant VACANT NA 571200 0 571200 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 40.0 15.0 30 0 0 30 0 198-170-440-000 178 SWANSON RD MDR M1 R2 2.26 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 234372 52617 286989 0.18 0.44 1 Yes Yes 8.1 20.0 44.0 15.0 33 0 0 33 0 198-170-350-000 140 SWANSON RD MDR M1 R2 2.43 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 71813 93090 164903 0.56 0.41 1 Yes Yes 8.1 20.0 47.0 15.0 35 0 0 35 0 202-220-100-000 1318 N AIRPORT WAY MDR R2 3.04 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 36266 329976 366242 0.90 0.33 1 Yes Yes 8.1 20.0 59.0 15.0 45 0 0 45 0 226-160-160-000 1279 W WOODWARD AVE MDR R1 R2 3.28 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 192037 250388 442425 0.57 0.30 1 Yes Yes 8.1 20.00 64.0 15.00 48 0 0 48 0 226-160-150-000 1327 W WOODWARD AVE MDR R1 R2 3.82 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 341180 1151733 1492913 0.77 0.26 1 Yes Yes 8.1 20.00 75.0 15.00 56 0 0 56 0 198-170-420-000 232 SWANSON RD MDR M1 R2 4.00 Vacant VACANT NA 81563 0 81563 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 80.0 15.0 60 0 0 60 0 226-160-140-000 1375 W WOODWARD AVE MDR R1 R2 4.28 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 120000 460500 580500 0.79 0.23 1 Yes Yes 8.1 20.00 84.0 15.00 63 0 0 63 0 222-100-010-000 580 S AIRPORT WAY MDR CMU R2 4.32 Vacant VACANT NA 940000 0 940000 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 86.0 15.0 65 0 0 65 0 226-160-100-000 1957 W WOODWARD AVE MDR R1 R2 4.39 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 103474 62659 166133 0.38 0.23 1 Yes Yes 8.1 20.0 86.0 15.0 65 0 0 65 0 198-170-030-000 259 SWANSON RD MDR M1 R2 5.23 Vacant VACANT NA 1479721 21023 1500744 0.01 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 104.0 15.0 78 0 0 78 0 198-170-290-000 2201 W YOSEMITE AVE MDR M1 R2 9.02 Vacant VACANT NA 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 180.0 15.0 135 0 0 135 0 198-170-140-000 2241 W YOSEMITE AVE MDR M1 R2 9.64 Vacant VACANT NA 2333616 0 2333616 0.00 0 0 NA NA 8.1 20.0 192.0 15.0 145 0 0 145 0 222-100-150-000 2005 WAWONA ST VLDR RE 0.20 Vacant VACANT NA 127500 0 127500 0.00 0 0 NA NA 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 0 0 0 0 1 228-020-500-000 369 S AUSTIN RD VLDR RE 0.74 Vacant VACANT NA 175196 0 175196 0.00 0 0 NA NA 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 1 0 0 0 1 222-100-090-000 2027 WAWONA ST VLDR CG RE 1.25 Vacant VACANT NA 153000 0 153000 0.00 0 0 NA NA 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2 0 0 0 1 241-320-660-000 2750 W WOODWARD HDR R3 10.23 Vacant VACANT NA 1536150 0 1536150 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 306.0 20.1 206 124 82 0 0 218-100-040-000 1510 N MAIN CMU CMU 5.39 Vacant VACANT NA 1020000 0 1020000 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 161.0 20.1 108 65 43 0 0 198-160-270-000 2298 W LOUISE HDR R3 8.40 Vacant VACANT NA 50499 0 50499 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 252.0 24.0 0 0 0 0 0 226-100-480-000 2793 S MAIN CMU CMU 4.49 Vacant VACANT NA 45082 0 45082 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 134.0 20.1 90 54 36 0 0 241-300-080-000 2226 W YOSEMITE AVE MDR M1 R2 2.13 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 530,604 106,120 636,724 0.17 0.47 1 Yes Yes 8.1 20.00 41.0 15.00 31 0 0 31 0 241-300-070-000 2256 W YOSEMITE AVE MDR M1 R2 2.13 Underutilized 2 MULTIFAMILY UNITS NA 144,824 246,203 391,027 0.63 0.94 2 Yes Yes 8.1 20.00 41.0 15.00 30 0 0 30 0 241-310-380-000 1009 S AIRPORT WAY CMU CG CMU 12.42 Underutilized AGRICULTURAL/SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 61,281 3,530 64,811 0.05 0.08 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 371.0 20.1 249 149 100 0 0 241-310-430-000 1027 S AIRPORT WAY CMU CG CMU 2.36 Vacant VACANT NA 30,640 0 30,640 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 70.0 20.1 47 28 19 0 0 241-310-420-000 1045 S AIRPORT WAY CMU CG CMU 2.36 Vacant VACANT NA 30,640 0 30,640 0.00 0 0 NA NA 20.1 30.0 70.0 20.1 47 28 19 0 0 241-310-390-000 1069 S AIRPORT WAY CMU CG CMU 2.36 Underutilized SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 30,759 103,707 134,466 0.77 0.42 1 Yes Yes 20.1 30.0 69.0 20.1 46 28 18 0 0 Additional Sites (not counted toward RHNA)
226-290-490-000 2014 OLEANDER AVE LDR PD 1.01 ExtraCapacity SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 10318 192849 203167 0.95 0.99 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 7.0 4.8 4 0 0 0 4 228-020-340-000 837 S AUSTIN RD LDR R1 1.03 ExtraCapacity SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 92235 75204 167439 0.45 0.97 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 7.0 4.8 4 0 0 0 4 208-130-090-000 1514 E LOUISE AVE LDR R1 1.22 ExtraCapacity SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NA 177265 438657 615922 0.71 0.82 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 8.0 4.8 5 0 0 0 5 208-130-080-000 1486 E LOUISE AVE LDR R1 1.22 ExtraCapacity SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 226503 406574 633077 0.64 0.82 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 8.0 4.8 5 0 0 0 5 208-130-070-000 1438 E LOUISE AVE LDR R1 1.22 ExtraCapacity SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 249900 593640 843540 0.70 0.82 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 8.0 4.8 5 0 0 0 5 223-180-100-000 880 E LOUISE AVE LDR R1 1.42 ExtraCapacity SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 107587 250287 357874 0.70 0.70 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 10.0 4.8 6 0 0 0 6 241-410-500-000 BRONZAN RD AND MCKINLEY AVE LDR CG 1.56 ExtraCapacity SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 241770 241770 483540 0.50 0.64 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 11.0 4.8 6 0 0 0 6 224-022-010-000 1178 W WOODWARD AVE LDR R1 1.84 ExtraCapacity SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 119756 420961 540717 0.78 0.54 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 13.0 4.8 8 0 0 0 8 202-020-100-000 1626 N AIRPORT WAY LDR R1 1.90 ExtraCapacity SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 184059 167326 351385 0.48 0.53 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 14.0 4.8 8 0 0 0 8 226-180-240-000 1437 PEACH AVE LDR PD 2.14 ExtraCapacity SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NA 9886 121937 131823 0.93 0.47 1 Yes Yes 2.1 8.0 16.0 4.8 9 0 0 0 9 198-170-330-000 2309 W YOSEMITE AVE MDR M1 R2 1.79 ExtraCapacity 2 SINGLE FMAILY UNITS NA 234452 227753 462205 0.49 0.56 2 Yes Yes 8.1 20.0 33.0 15.0 25 0 0 25 0 A-3
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Appendix B
Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
1 / 31
84.21% 16
15.79% 3
Q1 Do you live in Manteca?
Answered: 19 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 19
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
2 / 31
16.67% 3
5.56% 1
11.11% 2
61.11% 11
5.56% 1
Q2 How long have you lived in the City?
Answered: 18 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 18
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 49 yrs 5/2/2023 11:48 PM
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
0-2 years
2-5 years
5-10 years
10+ years
Other (please specify)
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
3 / 31
55.56% 10
44.44% 8
27.78% 5
22.22% 4
22.22% 4
16.67% 3
11.11% 2
5.56% 1
0.00% 0
Q3 What made you decide to live here? (Select all that apply) Answered: 18 Skipped: 1
Total Respondents: 18
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Don't live in the city 5/9/2023 8:12 AM
2 Small town at the time 5/4/2023 9:48 AM
3 Was born here 5/2/2023 11:48 PM
4 Train connectivity to bay area 5/1/2023 1:30 PM
5 Grew up in Manteca 4/27/2023 1:10 PM
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Affordability
Proximity to job/work
Other (please specify)
Quality of housing stock
Safety of neighborhood
Quality of local school system
Proximity to family and/or friends
City services and programs
Proximity to shopping and services
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
4 / 31
88.24% 15
11.76% 2
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
Q4 Do you currently own or rent your home?
Answered: 17 Skipped: 2
TOTAL 17
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I own my home
I rent my home
I live with extended family or with another household
I rent a room in a home
I am currently without permanent shelter
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
5 / 31
94.12% 16
5.88% 1
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
Q5 Select the type of housing that best describes your current home.
Answered: 17 Skipped: 2
TOTAL 17
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
There are no responses.
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Single-family home (detached)
Duplex/attached home
Multi-family home (apartment/condominium)
Accessory Dwelling Unit, granny flat, guest house
Mobile home
Currently without permanent shelter
Other (please specify)
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
6 / 31
82.35% 14
11.76% 2
5.88% 1
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
Q6 How would you rate the physical condition of the residence you live in? Answered: 17 Skipped: 2
TOTAL 17
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Sound: Very good to excellent condition and needs minimal repairs Minor : Shows signs of minor deferred maintenance (e.g., peeling paint, chipped stucco, missing shingles, etc.) Moderate: Needs one modest rehabilitation improvements (e.g., new roof, new wood siding, replacement of stucco, etc.)
Substantial: Needs two or more major upgrades (e.g., new foundation, roof replacement, new plumbing, new electrical, etc.)
Dilapidated: Building appears structurally unsound, unfit for human habitation in its current condition, and demolition or major rehabilitation is required
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
7 / 31
64.71% 11
17.65% 3
11.76% 2
5.88% 1
0.00% 0
Q7 How satisfied are you with your current housing situation? Answered: 17 Skipped: 2
TOTAL 17
# IF YOU ANSWERED DISSATISFIED OR SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED PLEASE PROVIDE A REASON BELOW.
DATE
There are no responses.
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I am very satisfied
I am somewhat satisfied
I am somewhat dissatisfied
I am dissatisfied
If you answered dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied please provide a reason below.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
8 / 31
47.06% 8
29.41% 5
29.41% 5
17.65% 3
17.65% 3
11.76% 2
5.88% 1
Q8 Which of the following housing upgrades or expansions have you considered making on your home?
Answered: 17 Skipped: 2
Total Respondents: 17
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Enhance weather proofing 5/11/2023 8:33 AM
2 New walls (interior) 5/2/2023 11:50 PM
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Landscaping
Roofing, painting, and general home repairs
HVAC, solar, and electrical
Accessory dwelling unit
Does not apply
Other (please specify)
Room addition
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
9 / 31
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
17.65% 3
0.00% 0
29.41% 5
23.53% 4
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
23.53% 4
5.88% 1
Q9 Which of the following best describes your household type? Answered: 17 Skipped: 2
TOTAL 17
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Couple but when we moved here had 1 kid now an adult 5/4/2023 9:50 AM
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Single person household
Single parent with children under 18
Single person living with family
Single person living with roomates
Couple
Couple with children under 18
Couple living with roommates
Adult head of household (non-parent) with children under 18 Multi-generational or extended family household (parents, grandparents, aunts/uncles, children, grandchildren, etc. all under the same roof)
Other (please specify)
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
10 / 31
21.43% 3
7.14% 1
0.00% 0
7.14% 1
7.14% 1
7.14% 1
78.57% 11
Q10 If you wish to own a home in Manteca but do not currently own one, what issues are preventing you from owning a home at this time? (Select all that apply)
Answered: 14 Skipped: 5
Total Respondents: 14
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I cannot find a home within my target price range
I do not currently have the financial resources for an appropriate down payment I do not currently have the financial resources for an adequate monthly mortgage payment I cannot find a home that suits my living needs (housing size, disability accommodations) I cannot currently find a home that suits my quality standards I do not currently wish to own a home in Manteca
I already own a home in Manteca
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
11 / 31
7.69% 1
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
84.62% 11
7.69% 1
Q11 If you wish to rent a home in Manteca but do not currently rent one, what issues are preventing you from renting a home at this time? (Select all that apply)
Answered: 13 Skipped: 6
Total Respondents: 13
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I cannot find a home within my target rental cost
I cannot find a home that suits my living needs (housing size, disability accommodations) I cannot currently find a home that suits my quality standards I do not currently wish to rent a home in Manteca
I already rent a home in Manteca
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
12 / 31
78.57% 11
21.43% 3
Q12 Do you think that the range of housing options currently available in the City of Manteca meets your needs?
Answered: 14 Skipped: 5
TOTAL 14
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
13 / 31
42.86% 6
57.14% 8
Q13 Do you think that the range of housing options currently available in the City meet the needs of the community?
Answered: 14 Skipped: 5
TOTAL 14
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
14 / 31
50.00% 7
50.00% 7
42.86% 6
42.86% 6
28.57% 4
28.57% 4
21.43% 3
7.14% 1
Q14 What types of housing are most needed in the City of Manteca? (Select all that apply)
Answered: 14 Skipped: 5
Total Respondents: 14
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 No more unlimited house building 5/5/2023 10:34 PM
2 low income housing for families. 5/2/2023 7:33 AM
3 Single story houses 5/1/2023 9:08 PM
4 No more homes needed 5/1/2023 1:34 PM
5 Affordable senior housing. 4/27/2023 1:17 PM
6 Affordable Housing 4/25/2023 12:58 PM
7 Mobile home park 4/25/2023 12:25 PM
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Single family, small (less than 1,600 square foot home) Other (please specify)
Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex
Townhomes or Condominiums (multi-family ownership homes) Single family, medium to large (1,600 square foot home or larger) Accessory Dwelling Unit
Apartments (multi-family rental homes)
Co-housing (individual homes that are part of larger development with shared common space, such as kitchen, living, recreation, and garden areas)
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
15 / 31
Q15 How important are the following housing priorities to you and your family?
Answered: 14 Skipped: 5
78.57%
11 14.29%
2 7.14%
1 0.00%
0 14
78.57%
11 14.29%
2 0.00%
0 7.14%
1 14
64.29%
9 28.57%
4 7.14%
1 0.00%
0 14
57.14%
8 35.71%
5 0.00%
0 7.14%
1 14
57.14%
8 35.71%
5 7.14%
1 0.00%
0 14
57.14%
8 35.71%
5 7.14%
1 0.00%
0 14
35.71%
5 21.43%
3 42.86%
6 0.00%
0 14
35.71%
5 14.29%
2 42.86%
6 7.14%
1 14
35.71%
5 21.43%
3 35.71%
5 7.14%
1 14
35.71%
5 35.71%
5 14.29%
2 14.29%
2 14
35.71%
5 35.71%
5 21.43%
3 7.14%
1 14
28.57%
4 28.57%
4 35.71%
5 7.14%
1 14
21.43%
3 50.00%
7 21.43%
3 7.14%
1 14
VERY
IMPORTANT
SOMEWHAT
IMPORTANT
NOT
IMPORTANT
DON'T
KNOW
TOTAL
Provide housing to meet Manteca's social and economic needs, including both existing and future residents, as well as employers
Housing affordable to working families
Ensure that children who grow up in Manteca can afford to live here
Rehabilitate existing housing
Promote sustainable, efficient, and fire-safe housing to address safety, energy, and climate change impacts
Sustainable, walkable development (housing within walking distance to services, schools, and/or the downtown)
Create more mixed-use (commercial/office and residential) projects to bring different land uses closer together
Integrate affordable housing throughout the community to create mixed-income neighborhoods
Establish programs to help at-risk homeowners keep their homes, including mortgage loan programs
Ensure all persons and households have fair and equitable access to housing and housing opportunities
Lease-to-own housing (condominiums, apartments)
Support fair/equitable housing opportunities and programs to help maintain and secure neighborhoods that have suffered
foreclosures
Provide ADA-accessible housing
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
16 / 31
Q16 Are there any populations or persons that need additional housing types or dedicated policies and programs to ensure they can access housing in Manteca?
Answered: 14 Skipped: 5
42.86%
6 50.00%
7 7.14%
1 0.00%
0 14 1.64
42.86%
6 35.71%
5 14.29%
2 7.14%
1 14 1.86
42.86%
6 35.71%
5 7.14%
1 14.29%
2 14 1.93
35.71%
5 35.71%
5 7.14%
1 21.43%
3 14 2.14
30.77%
4 38.46%
5 0.00%
0 30.77%
4 13 2.31
15.38%
2 53.85%
7 23.08%
3 7.69%
1 13 2.23
VERY
IMPORTANT
SOMEWHAT
IMPORTANT
NOT
IMPORTANT
DON'T
KNOW
TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
Seniors
Persons with a disability, including
developmental
Single Parent Head of Households
Homeless persons or at risk of
homelessness
Farmworkers
Large families (5 or more persons)
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
17 / 31
53.85% 7
30.77% 4
7.69% 1
7.69% 1
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
Q17 What is your race/ethnicity?
Answered: 13 Skipped: 6
TOTAL 13
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 White & Asian 5/1/2023 9:29 PM
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
White/Non-Hispanic
Asian
Hispanic
Other (please specify)
African American
Native American
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
18 / 31
33.33% 4
41.67% 5
41.67% 5
8.33% 1
8.33% 1
0.00% 0
41.67% 5
8.33% 1
0.00% 0
Q18 Do any of the following apply to you or someone in your household (check all that apply):
Answered: 12 Skipped: 7
Total Respondents: 12
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Ages 55 to 64
Ages 65 or over
Large family (5 or more people)
Farmworker
A single female head of household with children
A single male head of household with children
Children under 18
Have a developmental disability
Have a disability (non-developmental)
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
19 / 31
Q19 What housing challenges have you experienced?
Answered: 13 Skipped: 6
23.08%
3 76.92%
10 13
23.08%
3 76.92%
10 13
23.08%
3 76.92%
10 13
15.38%
2 84.62%
11 13
7.69%
1 92.31%
12 13
7.69%
1 92.31%
12 13
7.69%
1 92.31%
12 13
0.00%
0 100.00%
13 13
0.00%
0 100.00%
13 13
0.00%
0 100.00%
13 13
0.00%
0 100.00%
13 13
0.00%
0 100.00%
13 13
YES NO TOTAL
I am concerned about my rent going up to an amount I can't afford.
I am concerned that if I ask my property manager or landlord to repair my home that my rent will go up or I will be evicted.
My home is not big enough for my family or household.
There is a lot of crime in my neighborhood.
I struggle to pay my rent or mortgage payment.
I cannot find a place to rent due to bad credit, previous evictions, or foreclosure.
I am concerned that I may be evicted.
I need assistance finding rental housing.
My home is in poor condition and needs repair.
I have been discriminated against when trying to rent housing.
I have been discriminated against when trying to purchase housing.
I need assistance with understanding my rights related to fair housing.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
20 / 31
66.67% 4
16.67% 1
33.33% 2
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
16.67% 1
16.67% 1
16.67% 1
Q20 Do you or someone in your family have any of the following specific housing needs? Please check all that apply.
Answered: 6 Skipped: 13
Total Respondents: 6
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Senior independent living (senior single family community or senior apartments) Independent living for someone with a disability
Assisted living for senior (55 and over) that provides assistance with daily tasks and has increasing levels of care (from assisted living to skilled nursing)
Assisted living for disabled persons that provides assistance with daily tasks and has increasing levels of care (from assisted living to skilled nursing)
Emergency shelter
Supportive or transitional housing that provides services and support to avoid homelessness Supportive services to find and obtain housing.
Daily living assistance and services to be able to live independently.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
21 / 31
92.86% 13
7.14% 1
Q21 Have encountered discrimination or other issues that have affected your ability to live in safe, decent housing of your choice? If so, please explain any discrimination or fair housing issues you have encountered.
Answered: 14 Skipped: 5
TOTAL 14
# YES (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Harrassment - due to racial issues. Generally, minors acting out and dumping trash in my backyard (next to ped walkway) and tried to poison my dog (in the past) 5/11/2023 8:38 AM
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
No
Yes (please specify)
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
22 / 31
Q22 Multifamily. Looking at the map above, please identify your preference for new multifamily housing development in each area.
Answered: 10 Skipped: 9
33.33%
3 11.11%
1 44.44%
4 0.00%
0 11.11%
1 9 1.11
22.22%
2 33.33%
3 44.44%
4 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 9 1.56
22.22%
2 22.22%
2 44.44%
4 11.11%
1 0.00%
0 9 1.11
10.00%
1 30.00%
3 40.00%
4 10.00%
1 10.00%
1 10 0.40
0.00%
0 33.33%
3 55.56%
5 11.11%
1 0.00%
0 9 0.44
11.11%
1 33.33%
3 55.56%
5 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 9 1.11
11.11%
1 33.33%
3 55.56%
5 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 9 1.11
11.11%
1 11.11%
1 44.44%
4 11.11%
1 22.22%
2 9 -0.44
10.00%
1 20.00%
2 50.00%
5 10.00%
1 10.00%
1 10 0.20
20.00%
2 10.00%
1 30.00%
3 20.00%
2 20.00%
2 10 -0.20
30.00%
3 10.00%
1 30.00%
3 10.00%
1 20.00%
2 10 0.40
22.22%
2 22.22%
2 44.44%
4 0.00%
0 11.11%
1 9 0.89
11.11%
1 44.44%
4 44.44%
4 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 9 1.33
11.11%
1 22.22%
2 55.56%
5 0.00%
0 11.11%
1 9 0.44
11.11%
1 22.22%
2 55.56%
5 0.00%
0 11.11%
1 9 0.44
11.11%
1 22.22%
2 66.67%
6 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 9 0.89
30.00%
3 20.00%
2 30.00%
3 0.00%
0 20.00%
2 10 0.80
STRONGLY
PREFER
PREFER NEUTRAL DO NOT
PREFER
STRONGLY DO
NOT PREFER
TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
23 / 31
Q23 Mixed Use. Looking at the map above, please identify your preference for new mixed use development in each area.
Answered: 9 Skipped: 10
25.00%
2 25.00%
2 37.50%
3 0.00%
0 12.50%
1 8 1.00
25.00%
2 12.50%
1 50.00%
4 0.00%
0 12.50%
1 8 0.75
0.00%
0 12.50%
1 75.00%
6 0.00%
0 12.50%
1 8 -0.25
22.22%
2 33.33%
3 33.33%
3 0.00%
0 11.11%
1 9 1.11
11.11%
1 11.11%
1 44.44%
4 11.11%
1 22.22%
2 9 -0.44
0.00%
0 25.00%
2 50.00%
4 0.00%
0 25.00%
2 8 -0.50
0.00%
0 25.00%
2 50.00%
4 0.00%
0 25.00%
2 8 -0.50
0.00%
0 0.00%
0 50.00%
4 12.50%
1 37.50%
3 8 -1.75
11.11%
1 11.11%
1 44.44%
4 0.00%
0 33.33%
3 9 -0.67
0.00%
0 0.00%
0 50.00%
4 12.50%
1 37.50%
3 8 -1.75
0.00%
0 0.00%
0 50.00%
4 12.50%
1 37.50%
3 8 -1.75
12.50%
1 25.00%
2 37.50%
3 0.00%
0 25.00%
2 8 0.00
12.50%
1 12.50%
1 50.00%
4 0.00%
0 25.00%
2 8 -0.25
12.50%
1 25.00%
2 50.00%
4 0.00%
0 12.50%
1 8 0.50
22.22%
2 33.33%
3 33.33%
3 0.00%
0 11.11%
1 9 1.11
25.00%
2 12.50%
1 50.00%
4 0.00%
0 12.50%
1 8 0.75
22.22%
2 11.11%
1 44.44%
4 0.00%
0 22.22%
2 9 0.22
STRONGLY
PREFER
PREFER NEUTRAL DO NOT
PREFER
STRONGLY DO
NOT PREFER
TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
24 / 31
Q24 Single Family. Looking at the map above, please identify your preference for new single family housing in each area.
Answered: 9 Skipped: 10
12.50%
1 37.50%
3 37.50%
3 0.00%
0 12.50%
1 8 0.75
12.50%
1 37.50%
3 37.50%
3 0.00%
0 12.50%
1 8 0.75
0.00%
0 37.50%
3 37.50%
3 12.50%
1 12.50%
1 8 0.00
12.50%
1 12.50%
1 50.00%
4 12.50%
1 12.50%
1 8 0.00
0.00%
0 25.00%
2 50.00%
4 12.50%
1 12.50%
1 8 -0.25
0.00%
0 25.00%
2 62.50%
5 0.00%
0 12.50%
1 8 0.00
0.00%
0 25.00%
2 62.50%
5 0.00%
0 12.50%
1 8 0.00
0.00%
0 0.00%
0 50.00%
4 12.50%
1 37.50%
3 8 -1.75
11.11%
1 11.11%
1 44.44%
4 0.00%
0 33.33%
3 9 -0.67
11.11%
1 0.00%
0 44.44%
4 11.11%
1 33.33%
3 9 -1.11
0.00%
0 0.00%
0 62.50%
5 12.50%
1 25.00%
2 8 -1.25
12.50%
1 12.50%
1 62.50%
5 0.00%
0 12.50%
1 8 0.25
12.50%
1 12.50%
1 62.50%
5 0.00%
0 12.50%
1 8 0.25
12.50%
1 12.50%
1 62.50%
5 0.00%
0 12.50%
1 8 0.25
12.50%
1 12.50%
1 62.50%
5 0.00%
0 12.50%
1 8 0.25
12.50%
1 12.50%
1 62.50%
5 0.00%
0 12.50%
1 8 0.25
0.00%
0 12.50%
1 50.00%
4 12.50%
1 25.00%
2 8 -1.00
STRONGLY
PREFER
PREFER NEUTRAL DO NOT
PREFER
STRONGLY DO
NOT PREFER
TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
25 / 31
Q25 Are there other housing types needed in specific areas of the City? Please describe.
Answered: 1 Skipped: 18
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Low income based housing for famiies are needed. 5/2/2023 7:39 AM EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
26 / 31
Q26 Housing Rehabilitation. Looking at the map above, please identify areas in need of housing rehabilitation.
Answered: 6 Skipped: 13
40.00%
2 20.00%
1 20.00%
1 0.00%
0 20.00%
1 5 2.20
20.00%
1 20.00%
1 20.00%
1 20.00%
1 20.00%
1 5 1.40
0.00%
0 20.00%
1 40.00%
2 20.00%
1 20.00%
1 5 0.80
0.00%
0 40.00%
2 0.00%
0 40.00%
2 20.00%
1 5 0.80
16.67%
1 16.67%
1 33.33%
2 16.67%
1 16.67%
1 6 1.33
0.00%
0 20.00%
1 20.00%
1 40.00%
2 20.00%
1 5 0.60
0.00%
0 40.00%
2 20.00%
1 40.00%
2 0.00%
0 5 1.00
0.00%
0 20.00%
1 0.00%
0 60.00%
3 20.00%
1 5 0.40
0.00%
0 20.00%
1 0.00%
0 60.00%
3 20.00%
1 5 0.40
0.00%
0 20.00%
1 0.00%
0 60.00%
3 20.00%
1 5 0.40
0.00%
0 20.00%
1 0.00%
0 60.00%
3 20.00%
1 5 0.40
40.00%
2 40.00%
2 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 20.00%
1 5 2.40
16.67%
1 33.33%
2 16.67%
1 16.67%
1 16.67%
1 6 1.50
25.00%
1 25.00%
1 0.00%
0 25.00%
1 25.00%
1 4 1.50
25.00%
1 25.00%
1 0.00%
0 25.00%
1 25.00%
1 4 1.50
0.00%
0 20.00%
1 0.00%
0 60.00%
3 20.00%
1 5 0.40
0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 80.00%
4 20.00%
1 5 0.00
SIGNIFICANT
REHABILITATION:
SOME OR ALL
HOUSING IN THIS
AREA IS IN
DISREPAIR OR
UNSAFE.
MODERATE
REHABILITATION:
SOME HOUSING
IN THIS AREA IS
IN DISREPAIR.
MINOR
REHABILITATION:
MINOR REPAIRS,
BUT HOUSING IS
GENERALLY IN
GOOD CONDITION.
NO
REHABILITATION:
HOUSING IS IN
GOOD
CONDITION.
(NO
LABEL)
TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
27 / 31
Q27 Community Investment. Looking at the map above, please identify areas in need of improved access to jobs, services, education, or recreation.
Answered: 1 Skipped: 18
0.00%
0 100.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 1
100.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 1
0.00%
0 100.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 1
100.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 1
0.00%
0 100.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 1
100.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 1
0.00%
0 100.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 1
100.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 1
100.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 1
100.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 1
100.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 1
100.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 1
0.00%
0 100.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 1
0.00%
0 100.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 1
0.00%
0 100.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 1
100.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 1
100.00%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 1
JOBS:
IMPROVE
TRANSIT
JOBS: ADDITIONAL
EMPLOYEE-GENERATING
DEVELOPMENT
(COMMERCIAL, OFFICES,
RESEARCH/TECHNOLOGY,
ETC.)
SERVICES:
INCREASE
ACCESS TO
HEALTHCARE
SERVICES:
INCREASE
ACCESS TO
DAILY LIVING
SERVICES
(GROCERY,
BANKING,
ETC.)
EDUCATION:
INCREASE
ACCESS TO
SCHOOLS
RECREATION:
INCREASE
ACCESS TO
PARKS,
RECREATION
FACILITIES,
AND OPEN
SPACE
TOTAL
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
28 / 31
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
14.29% 1
71.43% 5
14.29% 1
0.00% 0
Q28 What age range most accurately describes you?
Answered: 7 Skipped: 12
TOTAL 7
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
0-17 years old
18-23 years old
24-39 years old
40-55 years old
56-74 years old
75+ years old
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
29 / 31
Q29 Please describe any additional housing comments or concerns you would like to share with the City.
Answered: 4 Skipped: 15
# RESPONSES DATE
1 No more building. The city has not addressed huge traffic issues and has no plans to. The shopping areas around Daniels is meant for small town access so traffic is terrible around airport. Main St and airport are traffic nightmares and the city plans for the hugely dangerous overpass like union that has way more diverging traffic than a standard due to extreme turns.
CA has flat out run out of resources to be doing unlimited building. 5/5/2023 10:47 PM
2 School growth and services. Attract private school/education providers to which would eventually reduce transit needs (travelling outside Manteca weekly for private tutoring needs) and would attract more people to Manteca. Provide better accessibility outside freeway between Manteca, Lathrop, Tracy and Mountain House. Attract and target small/medium size business in science, technology, R&D, entertainment services. Better Infrastructure...current internet outage issue is very bad for new people looking to settle down for hybrid work environment. More green environments in new communities, traffic signals, sports facilities. 5/4/2023 8:34 PM
3 Keep the Country! No Develop! 5/2/2023 10:43 PM
4 Low income housing is need for families. Also, easier for families to get permits to add onto, or remodel a space to house additional family members
5/2/2023 7:40 AM
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
30 / 31
100.00% 4
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
100.00% 4
0.00% 0
Q30 If you would like to be added to the City's contact list for the Housing Element Update, please enter your contact information below. Note: This information will be kept separate from the remainder of the survey responses in order to ensure responses are published anonymously.
Answered: 4 Skipped: 15
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Name
Company
Address
Address 2
City/Town
State/Province
ZIP/Postal Code
Country
Email Address
Phone Number
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Manteca Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
31 / 31
Contact information provided in response to Question 30 is removed for the privacy of survey respondents.
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Appendix C
Development Standards Analysis
EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Appendix C - Development Standards Analysis
R-1 R-2 R-3 CMU R-3 (Test) R-3 (Test)
City Standards
Units Per Acre 8 15 25 25 25 25
Lot Coverage 60% 70% 70% 100% 70% 70%
Maximum Residential FAR - - -- --
Maximum Building Height 30 35 45 45 45 45
Required Landscaping (Minimum %) 40% 30% 30% 0% 25% 30% Minimum Open Space per Unit (Multifamily) - - 400 400 400 200 Prototype Project
Site Size (acres) 60.00 10.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Unit Type Single Family Single Family Multifamily Multifamily Multifamily Multifamily Units (Based on Maximum Units per Acre) 480.0 150.0 125.0 125.0 125.0 125.0 Average Unit Size (S.F.) 2,075 1,900 1,045 1,045 1,045 1,045 Private Open Space per Unit - - 400 400 400 400
Private Storage per Unit - - - - - -
Building Stories (within Maximum Building Height) 1.75 2.75 3 3.5 3 3 Covered Parking Spaces (per unit) 1 11 111
Uncovered Parking Spaces (per unit) 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 On-Site Office (S.F.) - - 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Total Residential Structure S.F. (average unit size x total units plus office) 996,000 285,000 132,125 132,125 132,125 132,125 Covered Parking Spaces (s.f.) 86,400 27,000 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 Uncovered Parking Space (s.f.) 77,760 24,300 15,390 15,390 15,390 15,390 Open Space (Landscaped) S.F. 1,045,440 130,680 65,340 54,450 - 65,340 Private Open Space S.F. (Minimum Requirement x Units /
Stories) - - 16,667 14,286 16,667 8,333
Internal Streets/Utilities (18% of site for single family, 15% of site for multifamily) 470,448 78,408 32,670 32,670 32,670 32,670 First Floor Building Footprint (Parking included in Residential Structure) 680,366 124,800 56,696 48,596 56,696 56,696
First Floor Building Footprint (Residential Structure plus Separate Carports) 712,457 141,000 70,946 64,025 70,946 70,946 Lot Coverage (First Floor Footprint / Lot Size) with covered parking in residential structure 26% 29% 26% 22% 26% 26% Lot Coverage (First Floor Footprint / Lot Size) with covered parking in carports 27% 32% 33% 29% 33% 33%
Floor Area Ratio 0.381 0.654 0.607 0.607 0.607 0.607
Does Prototype Meet City Standards?
Prototype uses City's building height, private storage, open space, and landscaping standards Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Lot Coverage Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Floor Area Ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Minimum Site Area per Dwelling Unit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Is Site Adequate to Accommodate Project?
Ground Floor Coverage (First Floor Building, Uncovered Parking, Streets, Open Space/Stories, Landscaping) 2,306,105 374,388 201,013 126,371 190,123 192,679 Ground Floor Coverage (acres) 52.9 8.6 4.6 2.9 4.4 4.4
Minimum Site Area Needed as a % of Total Site Size 88% 86% 92% 58% 87% 88% Do All Ground Floor Uses Exceed Site Size? No No No No No No EXHITBIT "A" ATTACHMENT 2