Mountain House City Council
October 14, 2026

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-92

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN HOUSE APPROVING INTERFUND

LOANS FROM THE WATER BOND FUND TO THE WASTEWATER BOND FUND IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $24,800,000 AND FROM THE STORMWATER BOND FUND TO THE WASTEWATER BOND FUND IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $6,500,000, BOTH FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING AMOUNTS OWED

TO DEVELOPERS FOR WASTEWATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Mountain House (“City”) provides water, wastewater, and storm drainage utility services and facilities to properties within the City; and WHEREAS, under the Master Acquisition and Reimbursement Agreement and related Project Acquisition Agreements, the City owes developers for the costs of facilities they constructed for the City’s Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drain Systems, and those unpaid amounts accrue interest at a variable rate tied to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (the “Developer Notes”); and WHEREAS, on October 14, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-____ authorizing documents related to the issuance by the Mountain House Financing Authority of its Utility Systems Revenue Bonds, Subordinate Series 2026 (the “2026 Bonds”), the proceeds of which will be used to pay Developer Notes; and
WHEREAS, proceeds of the 2026 Bonds are allocated among the Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drain Systems, and the shares allocated to the Water System and the Storm Drain System are expected to exceed the Developer Notes for those Systems, while the share allocated to the Wastewater System is not expected to be sufficient to pay the Developer Notes for the Wastewater System; and WHEREAS, lending the excess Water System and Storm Drain System proceeds to the Wastewater Bond Fund will allow the City to pay additional Wastewater System Developer Notes, replacing variablerate obligations with fixed-rate bonds and reducing overall costs to utility customers; and WHEREAS, the Interfund Loan Policy adopted by the Board of Directors of the Mountain House Community Services District on September 10, 2014, provides that interfund loans are approved by resolution and that loan agreements state the loan amount, an identified repayment source, the timing of repayment, and, for loans from utility funds, an interest component; and WHEREAS, the proposed Interfund Loan Agreements attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A and B (the “Agreements”) state each of those terms; and
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2023, the Board of Directors of the Mountain House Community Services District adopted Resolution No. R-2023-27 approving an interfund loan from the Wastewater Bond Fund to the Water Bond Fund, which remains outstanding and is not affected by this Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN HOUSE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council finds that the recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporates them into this Resolution.

Item 8.1
Mountain House                                               Page 367 of 618

Section 2. Findings. The City Council finds that (a) the Water Bond Fund and the Stormwater Bond Fund will have sufficient funds from proceeds of the 2026 Bonds to make the loans after paying the Developer Notes for their respective Systems; (b) the loans will not impair the ability of the lending funds to meet their obligations; and (c) the interest payable under the Agreements will compensate the lending funds for investment earnings they would otherwise have received.

Section 3. Approval of Interfund Loan Agreements. The City Council approves the following interfund loans and the Agreements in substantially the forms attached: (a) a loan from the Water Bond Fund to the Wastewater Bond Fund in an amount not to exceed $24,800,000 (Exhibit A); and (b) a loan from the Stormwater Bond Fund to the Wastewater Bond Fund in an amount not to exceed $6,500,000 (Exhibit B). The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to execute the Agreements on behalf of the City, with any changes that the City Manager, with the approval of the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate, provided that no change increases the maximum principal amount of either loan.

Section 4. Loan Amounts. The amount of each loan will be determined by the Finance Director after the 2026 Bonds are issued and will equal the proceeds of the 2026 Bonds allocated to the lending fund’s System that are not needed to pay that System’s Developer Notes, up to the maximum amount stated in Section 3. The Finance Director will document the amount of each loan in the City’s accounting records.

Section 5. Use of Loan Proceeds. Proceeds of the loans may be used only to pay Developer Notes for Wastewater System capital improvements.

Section 6. Implementation. The City Manager and the Finance Director, or their designees, are authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to implement this Resolution, including making the transfers described in the Agreements, administering the loans, and reflecting the loans and loan payments in the City’s budgets and annual financial statements.

Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution.

Section 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

Section 9. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

Item 8.1
Mountain House                                               Page 368 of 618

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Mountain House at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of October, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Andy Su, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Margaret Wimberly, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
John D. Bakker, City Attorney
Exhibits:

A – Interfund Loan Agreement (Water Bond Fund to Wastewater Bond Fund) B – Interfund Loan Agreement (Stormwater Bond Fund to Wastewater Bond Fund) Item 8.1
Mountain House                                               Page 369 of 618 TITLE: Review of the 2023-2031 City of Mountain House Public Review Draft Housing Element
MEETING DATE: October 14, 2026
PREPARED BY: Jailah Smith, Contract Planner and PlaceWorks

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and provide feedback on the Public Review Draft Housing Element and authorize staff, by minute order, to incorporate City Council direction and public comments, as appropriate, and submit the revised Draft Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its initial 90-day review.

BACKGROUND
State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580–65589.11) requires every city and county in California to adopt a Housing Element as part of its General Plan. The Housing Element must be updated every eight years and is subject to review by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Because the City of Mountain House was incorporated during the 6th Cycle Housing Element planning period, the City is preparing its first City-specific Housing Element for the remainder of the 6th Cycle, which covers the period from December 31, 2023, through December 31, 2031. Mountain House was not an incorporated jurisdiction when the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) originally adopted the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and therefore did not receive a direct RHNA allocation.

Following incorporation, the City and San Joaquin County completed a transfer of 5,113 units from the County's RHNA allocation to the City. The City Council approved the RHNA transfer on December 10, 2025, establishing the City's RHNA allocation for preparation of its first City-specific Housing Element.

On January 14, 2026, the City Council authorized a Consultant Agreement with PlaceWorks for preparation of the City's first Housing Element and associated environmental compliance documentation, in an amount not to exceed $134,433 and with a contract term through December 31, 2027. PlaceWorks was selected through a competitive Request for Proposals process and has worked with City staff since that time to prepare the Public Review Draft Housing Element and support the City through the Housing Element review process.

A Housing Element is required to include the following components:
 Housing needs assessment
 Assessment of fair housing
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 370 of 618  Analysis of potential constraints to housing, including governmental and nongovernmental constraints
 Inventory and analysis of adequate sites to meet the RHNA  Review of the previous Housing Element
 Policies and programs to address the City's housing needs

DISCUSSION
The Public Review Draft Housing Element is being presented to the City Council for review and feedback during the 30-day public review period. The draft follows City Council discussions held on April 29 and August 26, 2026, regarding preparation of the City's first City-specific Housing Element.

The Public Review Draft Housing Element was published on September 14, 2026, for a 30-day public review period ending October 15, 2026. Following the close of the public review period, staff will incorporate and respond to comments received, including comments provided by the City Council at this meeting, make minor corrections already identified in the Public Review Draft, and revise the Housing Element as appropriate. Staff is requesting authorization to submit the revised Draft Housing Element to HCD for its initial 90-day review.

Following HCD's review, staff will address any findings and make revisions as necessary. If revisions are required, the revised draft will be publicly noticed and posted for seven calendar days prior to resubmittal to HCD for a subsequent 60-day review. Once HCD determines that the draft meets statutory requirements, staff will return to the City Council for consideration of adoption. Following adoption, the Housing Element will be submitted to HCD for a final determination of substantial compliance.

Community Engagement
The City conducted public outreach for the 2023–2031 Housing Element through stakeholder consultations, an online community survey, a community workshop, and City Council discussions. From April through May 2026, the City consulted with four stakeholder organizations representing housing, recreation, education, and development interests, while also soliciting input from additional organizations serving fair housing and special-needs populations. The City's online survey, available from March through June 2026, received 50 responses, and the City held a community workshop on April 2, 2026, attended by 19 participants.

Outreach identified high housing costs and limited affordability, a lack of housing diversity, workforce housing challenges, and the need for senior and accessible housing as key concerns. Participants also identified transportation and school capacity as important considerations associated with future housing growth. Public input informed proposed Housing Element programs addressing infrastructure coordination and a broader range of housing unit sizes.

Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 371 of 618 The City also conducted public outreach through an online survey for owners and renters of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in Mountain House. Mailers were sent to owners and renters between August 21 and September 14, 2026. As of the preparation of this staff report, 21 responses had been received.

Public Review Draft Housing Element
The Public Review Draft Housing Element includes eight chapters and one appendix, as summarized below:

Chapter Description
Chapter 1: Introduction Overview of the Housing Element, applicable State law requirements, and sources utilized in preparation of the draft.

Chapter 2: Public Outreach
and Engagement
Overview of the public outreach and engagement efforts conducted in preparation of the draft Housing Element.

Chapter 3: Evaluation of the
Previous Housing Element*
Overview of actions the City has taken to support housing production. *Because this is the City's first City-specific Housing Element, this chapter reviews actions taken by the City since incorporation rather than implementation of a previous City Housing Element.

Chapter 4: Housing Needs
Assessment
Overview of housing needs within Mountain House and the region, including trends in population, households, housing stock, assisted housing at risk, and regional housing needs.

Chapter 5: Housing Sites
Analysis
Overview of the City's strategy to meet the RHNA, including available vacant sites, approved or pending residential projects, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and infrastructure capacity.

Chapter 6: Assessment of Fair
Housing
Overview of housing conditions, access, and barriers to opportunity in Mountain House, including actions to promote equitable access to housing and affirmatively further fair housing.

Chapter 7: Housing
Constraints
Overview of market, governmental, and environmental constraints associated with housing in Mountain House.

Chapter 8: Goals, Policies,
and Programs
Outlines the City's housing goals and the policies and programs necessary to implement them.

Appendix A: Vacant
Residential Site Inventory Inventory of vacant residential sites.

Meeting the RHNA
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 372 of 618 Mountain House's RHNA is 5,113 units for the 2023–2031 planning period, distributed among the applicable income categories. State law allows jurisdictions to utilize a variety of strategies to accommodate their RHNA, including building permits issued since the beginning of the projection period (the City's July 1, 2024, incorporation date), approved and pending residential projects (since the City's July 1, 2024, incorporation date), vacant sites currently zoned to allow residential development, and projected accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

Based on these sources, the City's Housing Sites Analysis identifies sufficient residential capacity to accommodate the City's RHNA across all income categories. The detailed capacity analysis, including vacant residential and mixed-use sites, building permits issued, approved and/or pending projects, and projected ADUs over the remainder of the planning period, is provided in Table 5-8B of Chapter 5 of the Housing Element.

Goals, Policies, and Programs
The Goals, Policies, and Programs chapter (Chapter 8) establishes the framework for addressing the housing needs identified through the Housing Element's analysis and community engagement. The draft Housing Element includes six goals focused on adequate housing supply, housing affordability, specialneeds housing, removing barriers to housing production, fair housing and equity, and housing preservation and quality.

The draft also includes 27 programs that provide specific actions to implement these goals and address identified housing needs and State requirements. The programs focus on expanding housing opportunities for households across income levels and life stages, supporting special-needs populations, removing constraints to housing production, expanding affordability opportunities, and affirmatively furthering fair housing. Community input also informed the programs, including the need for a diverse housing stock and improved coordination with the school district, transportation networks, and local infrastructure. These programs were presented to the City Council on August 26, 2026.

Each program includes specific actions, implementation timeframes, responsible parties, potential funding sources, and measurable outcomes. Implementation of the programs will be tracked through the City's annual Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR), which documents progress toward meeting the RHNA and implementing Housing Element programs.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no additional fiscal impact associated with the requested action. Preparation of the Housing Element is being performed under the previously approved Consultant Agreement with PlaceWorks.

STRATEGIC PLAN
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 373 of 618 Preparation of the Housing Element supports the City’s Strategic Plan by advancing completion of the City’s first comprehensive General Plan.

CEQA
Environmental review required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be completed in connection with adoption of the Housing Element and will rely, as appropriate, on the environmental analysis contained in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report.

ACTION FOLLOWING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
Following the close of the 30-day public review period on October 15, 2026, staff will incorporate and respond to comments received during the public review period, including comments provided by the City Council, and revise the Housing Element as appropriate. State law requires at least 10 business days to consider and incorporate public comments before submitting the revised Draft Housing Element to HCD.

Pursuant to City Council authorization, staff will then submit the revised Draft Housing Element to HCD for its initial 90-day review. Following HCD review and any necessary revisions, staff will return to the City Council for consideration of adoption.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Public Review Draft Housing Element

Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 374 of 618 City of Mountain House
Housing Element
Public Review Draft | September 2026

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 375 of 618

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Mountain House Housing Element Page ii

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 376 of 618

TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Mountain House
Housing Element
Public Review Draft | September 2026
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 200
Folsom, California 95630
www.placeworks.com

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 377 of 618

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 378 of 618 Mountain House Housing Element Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1-7 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................ 1-7 Mountain House History .................................................................................................................. 1-8 Content and Organization................................................................................................................ 1-9 Regional Housing Needs Allocation ............................................................................................... 1-10 General Plan Consistency............................................................................................................... 1-10

2. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT................................................................................... 2-11 Stakeholder Consultations............................................................................................................. 2-11 Common Themes........................................................................................................................... 2-12 Consultation Summaries................................................................................................................ 2-13 Online Community Survey ............................................................................................................. 2-15 Community Workshops.................................................................................................................. 2-16 Addressing Comments and Feedback............................................................................................ 2-17 Noticing the Draft........................................................................................................................... 2-17

3. EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT.................................................................. 3-1

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT.................................................................................................. 4-1 Data Sources .................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Population Characteristics............................................................................................................... 4-2 Household Characteristics ............................................................................................................... 4-4 Income Characteristics..................................................................................................................... 4-9 Employment Trends....................................................................................................................... 4-12 Housing Stock Characteristics........................................................................................................ 4-14 Special-Needs Groups.................................................................................................................... 4-19 Analysis of At-Risk Housing ............................................................................................................ 4-28 Financial Resources........................................................................................................................ 4-28

5. HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 5-1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation ................................................................................................. 5-1 Meeting the RHNA ........................................................................................................................... 5-2 Vacant Sites Inventory ..................................................................................................................... 5-8 Future Residential Capacity ........................................................................................................... 5-12 Site and Environmental Constraints............................................................................................... 5-18 Availability of Infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 5-18

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 379 of 618

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ii September 2026

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING................................................................................................ 6-1 Local History..................................................................................................................................... 6-1 Local Outreach ................................................................................................................................. 6-2 Description of Census Tracts............................................................................................................ 6-2 Tax Credit Allocation Committee Opportunity Area Designation.................................................... 6-2 Areas of Concentrated Poverty and Affluence ................................................................................ 6-5 Education ....................................................................................................................................... 6-18 Proximity to Jobs............................................................................................................................ 6-18 Environmental and Related Health Outcomes .............................................................................. 6-22 Transportation Mobility ................................................................................................................. 6-25 Special Housing Needs................................................................................................................... 6-27 Farmworkers.................................................................................................................................. 6-31 Overcrowding and Overpayment................................................................................................... 6-32 Homelessness and Evictions .......................................................................................................... 6-41 Disaster-Driven Displacement........................................................................................................ 6-42 Fair Housing Enforcement.............................................................................................................. 6-45 Contributing Factors....................................................................................................................... 6-47

7. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS ........................................................................................................... 7-1 Potential Governmental Constraints ............................................................................................... 7-1 Nongovernmental Constraints....................................................................................................... 7-26 Energy Conservation ...................................................................................................................... 7-29

8. GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS ........................................................................................... 8-1 Quantified Objectives..................................................................................................................... 8-28 APPENDIX A: VACANT RESIDENTIAL SITE INVENTORY......................................................................... A-1

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 380 of 618

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Mountain House Housing Element Page iii
TABLES
Table 1-1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation, City of Mountain House .................................................... 1-10 Table 4-1 Population Change — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2010–2026............................ 4-2 Table 4-2 Age Characteristics — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2026...................................... 4-3 Table 4-3 Population Breakdown by Race/Ethnicity — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2026.. 4-4 Table 4-4 Household Types — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024......................................... 4-5 Table 4-5 Housing Tenure — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2026 ........................................... 4-5 Table 4-6 Average Household Size — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2010, 2020, and 2025.. 4-6 Table 4-7 Tenure by Persons per Household — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024.............. 4-7 Table 4-8 Overcrowding — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024.............................................. 4-8 Table 4-9 HCD 2026 Income Limits by Household size, San Joaquin County................................................ 4-9 Table 4-10 Households Overpaying by Household Income Classification — Mountain House, 2018–2022 .................................................................................................. 4-11 Table 4-11 Employment by Industry — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024......................... 4-12 Table 4-12 Annual Labor Force Data — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2025......................... 4-13 Table 4-13 Largest Employers – San Joaquin County, 2026........................................................................ 4-13 Table 4-14 Housing Units by Type — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2026............................. 4-14 Table 4-15 Number of Bedrooms — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024.............................. 4-15 Table 4-16 Vacant Units by Type — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024 .............................. 4-16 Table 4-17 Age of Housing Stock and Conditions — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2026 ..... 4-17 Table 4-18 Ability to Pay for Housing Based on HCD Income Limits — San Joaquin County, 2025............ 4-18 Table 4-19 Median Home Sale Prices — Mountain House, 2026............................................................... 4-19 Table 4-20 Average Monthly Rents — Mountain House, 2026 .................................................................. 4-19 Table 4-21 Senior Population and Households — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024......... 4-20 Table 4-22 Disability by Type — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024 .................................... 4-21 Table 4-23 Population with a Developmental Disability — Mountain House (ZIP 95391), 2021............... 4-22 Table 4-24 Regional Center Consumers by Residence Type — Mountain House (ZIP 95391), 2021 ......... 4-22 Table 4-25 Large Households — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024.................................... 4-23 Table 4-26 Female Headed Households — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024 ................... 4-23 Table 4-27 Farmworkers by Type of Farm Labor — San Joaquin County, 2022 ......................................... 4-24 Table 4-28 Extremely Low-Income Households — Mountain House, 2018–2022 ..................................... 4-25 Table 4-29 Point-In-Time Count, Sheltered and Unsheltered Homeless — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024............................................................................................................................. 4-26 Table 4-30 Overnight and Emergency Facilities.......................................................................................... 4-27 Table 4-31 Funding Programs..................................................................................................................... 4-29 Table 5-1 Mountain House RHNA ................................................................................................................. 5-2 Table 5-2 Building Permits Issued - July 1, 2024 to Present ......................................................................... 5-3 Table 5-3 Approved and Pending Projects.................................................................................................... 5-5

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 381 of 618

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page iv September 2026
Table 5-4 Projected ADUs............................................................................................................................. 5-8 Table 5-5 Sample Projects............................................................................................................................. 5-9 Table 5-6 Vacant Land Inventory ................................................................................................................ 5-11 Table 5-7 Surplus Capacity when Annexed................................................................................................. 5-12 Table 5-8A Summary of Building Permits issued and Approved/Pending Project Capacity to Meet the RHNA .................................................................................................................................................. 5-16 Table 5-8B Summary of Site Capacity and Projected ADUs to Meet the RHNA ......................................... 5-16 Table 6-1 Identified RHNA by Census Tract ................................................................................................ 6-17 Table 6-2 Identified RHNA by Census Tract ................................................................................................ 6-26 Table 6-3 Identified RHNA by Census Tract ................................................................................................ 6-31 Table 6-4 Identified RHNA by Census Tract ................................................................................................ 6-39 Table 6-5 Factors Contributing to Fair Housing Issues................................................................................ 6-47 Table 7-1 Land Use Designations Allowing Residential Developments........................................................ 7-2 Table 7-2 Residential Zoning Designations................................................................................................... 7-3 Table 7-3 General Lot and Structure Standards, City of Mountain House ................................................... 7-4 Table 7-4 Lot and Structure Standards, Specific Plan III Area....................................................................... 7-4 Table 7-5 Parking Requirements for Mountain House ................................................................................. 7-6 Table 7-6 Housing Types Permitted in Mountain House .............................................................................. 7-8 Table 7-7 Planning Permit Fees................................................................................................................... 7-15 Table 7-8 Development Fees by Housing Type, Fiscal Year 2025–2026 .................................................... 7-17 Table 7-9 Development Review and Permit Processing, City of Mountain House..................................... 7-22 Table 7-10 Permit Processing Time by Development Type, City of Mountain House ................................ 7-23 Table 7-11 Vacant Land Sales, City of Mountain House, 2021–2023 ......................................................... 7-26 Table A-1 Vacant Residential Sites Inventory .................................................................................................. 1

FIGURES
Figure 4-1 Mountain Housing City Limits, Census Tracts, and Census-Designated Place Boundaries ......... 4-1 Figure 4-2 Household Income Distribution — Mountain House, 2024 ...................................................... 4-10 Figure 5-1 Mountain House Specific Plans.................................................................................................. 5-10 Figure 5-2 Available Vacant Sites................................................................................................................ 5-13 Figure 6-1 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, 2026 ........................................................................................... 6-4 Figure 6-2 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence, 2022 ......................................................................... 6-8 Figure 6-3 Median Household Income by Block Group .............................................................................. 6-11 Figure 6-4 Percentage of Population Living Below the Poverty Line.......................................................... 6-12 Figure 6-5 Predominant Communities........................................................................................................ 6-14 Figure 6-6 Non-White Population............................................................................................................... 6-15 Figure 6-7: Jobs within a 45-minute drive................................................................................................... 6-21

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 382 of 618

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page v September 2026
Figure 6-8 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 ................................................................................................................... 6-24 Figure 6-9 Percentage of Population with a Disability................................................................................ 6-28 Figure 6-10 Percentage of Population in Female-Headed Households...................................................... 6-30 Figure 6-11 Households Experiencing Overcrowding................................................................................. 6-34 Figure 6-12 Renter Overpayment ............................................................................................................... 6-37 Figure 6-13 Housing Cost Burden Among Homeowners ............................................................................ 6-40 Figure 6-14 Flood Hazard Areas in San Joaquin County.............................................................................. 6-43 Figure 6-15 Fire Hazard Severity Zones....................................................................................................... 6-44 Figure 7-1 30-Year Fixed Mortgage Average............................................................................................... 7-28

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 383 of 618

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page vi September 2026
This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 384 of 618

1. INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify housing solutions that solve our local housing problems and to meet or exceed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The City of Mountain House (City) recognizes that housing need is met through many resources and interest groups. To respond to the increasing housing pressures facing Mountain House, the Housing Element update presents goals, policies, and programs centered in racial equity, environmental justice, and resilience pertaining to housing access, preservation, stability, and production. Together, these goals, policies, and programs comprise the City’s housing action plan for the 2023- 2031 planning period. The content of this chapter will guide daily decision making by City officials and staff and will provide benchmarks on the housing programs that the City initiated to meet its overall housing goals.

California Government Code Section 65583 requires that the Housing Element include the following components:
 A review of the previous element’s goals, policies, programs, and objectives to ascertain the effectiveness of each of these components as well as the overall effectiveness of the Housing Element.  An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints related to meeting these needs.
 An analysis and program for preserving assisted housing developments.  A statement of community goals, quantified objectives, and policies related to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing.
 A program with an eight-year schedule of actions that the City is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies in the Housing Element.

The Housing Element is intended to be an action-oriented planning tool. Unlike other General Plan elements, which typically cover a 10- to 20-year period, state law establishes an eight-year planning period for housing elements. This is the City’s first Housing Element and covers the 2023–2031 planning period.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 385 of 618

1. INTRODUCTION

Mountain House History
From Gold Rush Waystation to Incorporated City
Mountain House has evolved from a modest 19th-century travel stop into one of California's largest masterplanned communities and, most recently, an incorporated city. Its origins trace back to 1849, when pioneer Thomas Goodall established a blue-tented rest stop at the base of the Altamont Hills to serve miners and travelers journeying to Stockton during the Gold Rush. The location became known as the “Mountain House,” a name that would endure for generations.

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the surrounding area developed into the small agricultural and transportation communities of Wicklund and Bethany. These settlements were supported by the Central Pacific Railroad and early irrigation systems that helped sustain local farming operations. By the 1940s, however, the communities had largely disappeared, their buildings removed and the land returning to predominantly agricultural use for the next several decades.

A new chapter began in 1991 when Trimark Communities acquired more than 4,000 acres of farmland in southwestern San Joaquin County near Interstate 205. Three years later, in 1994, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors approved the Mountain House Master Plan. Envisioned as a self-contained, pedestrian-friendly “new town,” the community was designed to accommodate regional growth while avoiding the patterns of conventional suburban sprawl. The plan called for a 30-year buildout consisting of 12 distinct villages, each centered around a neighborhood school, park, and commercial area. Construction officially began in 2001 with the development of infrastructure and the first residential neighborhoods.

As the community grew, residents established the Mountain House Community Services District in 2008 after reaching 1,000 registered voters, creating a framework for local governance. That same year, the national housing market collapse significantly impacted the community. Mountain House became known for having one of the highest concentrations of underwater mortgages in the nation, and residential construction slowed dramatically. Despite these setbacks, development rebounded by 2011 and continued at a rapid pace. The community's decades-long growth culminated in March 2024, when more than 90 percent of voters approved incorporation. Mountain House officially became a city on July 1, 2024, marking its transition from masterplanned community to California's newest municipality.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 386 of 618

1. INTRODUCTION

Content and Organization
The Housing Element is organized into the following sections and has been structured to comply with state Housing Element guidelines.

Section 1. Introduction
This section outlines the State of California’s Housing Element requirements, explains the purpose of the Housing Element, describes how the document is organized, and discusses its relationship to the broader General Plan.

Section 2. Public Outreach and Engagement
This section summarizes the community engagement process and the opportunities the City provided for public involvement during preparation of the Housing Element.

Section 3. Evaluation of the Previous Housing Element
This section evaluates the City’s prior Housing Element, reviewing progress made toward implementing programs and meeting objectives. As this is Mountain House’s first Housing Element, the section focuses on the City’s accomplishments to date since incorporation.

Section 4. Housing Needs Assessment
This section presents demographic and housing data, including population trends, age, ethnicity, household characteristics, income, employment, housing conditions, housing needs by income level, and the needs of special populations.

Section 5. Housing Sites Inventory
This section identifies the vacant and underutilized sites in the city that are suitable to accommodate Mountain House’s share of the RHNA.

Section 6. Assessment of Fair Housing
This section provides an Assessment of Fair Housing, examining patterns of segregation, disparities in access to opportunity, and fair housing issues. It identifies actions to address discrimination and promote inclusive, equitable communities.

Section 7. Housing Constraints
This section evaluates governmental and nongovernmental constraints that may affect housing production in Mountain House. Governmental constraints include planning, zoning, and building regulations that influence development patterns and housing affordability. Nongovernmental constraints include land and construction costs, financing availability, environmental conditions, and market factors that affect the feasibility of housing development.

Section 8. Goals, Policies, and Programs
This section outlines the City’s goals, policies, and programs to address identified housing needs. Based on the analyses in previous sections, it establishes the actions the City will take to meet local housing objectives and fulfill its RHNA obligations.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 387 of 618

1. INTRODUCTION

Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65584, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) assigns the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) to San Joaquin County, which is then distributed to jurisdictions based on their share of the countywide household population. Upon incorporation, Mountain House received a formal transfer of RHNA units from the County, positioning the City to actively plan for growth and expand its range of housing opportunities.

As shown in Table 1‑1, Mountain House is required to plan for 5,113 units across very low-, low-, moderate‑, and above‑moderate‑income categories, supporting the community’s long‑term goal of providing diverse and attainable housing opportunities.

Table 1-1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation, City of Mountain House Income Category 2023 – 2031 RHNA Percentage of Total
Very Low 1,309 26%
Low 821 16%
Moderate 886 17%
Above Moderate 2,097 41%
Total 5,113 100%
Source: San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), Final RHNA Methodology (2022), RHNA Transfer, December 2025. *It is assumed that 50 percent of the very low-income category is allocated to the extremely low-income category.

General Plan Consistency
State law requires that “the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies.” The purpose of requiring internal consistency is to avoid policy conflict and provide a clear policy guide for the future maintenance, improvement, and development of housing in the city.

The Housing Element has been prepared to align with the policy direction established across all other elements of the City’s first city-specific General Plan, planned for adoption in late 2026, including the Land Use; Circulation (Transportation); Safety; Environmental Justice; Open Space, Conservation, and Parks; Noise; and Public Facilities and Services Elements. As the City updates or amends the individual elements over time, the Housing Element will be reviewed and revised as necessary to maintain full internal consistency, as required by Government Code Section 65300.5.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 388 of 618

2. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

2. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
State law requires cities and counties to make a diligent effort to engage all segments of the community in preparing a Housing Element. Government Code Section 65583(c)(9) specifies that “the local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community, specifically lower‑income households and special needs groups, in the development of the Housing Element.” To meet the requirements of state law, Mountain House engaged in public outreach and encouraged community involvement, as summarized below and described herein.
 Stakeholder consultations
 Community surveys
 Community workshops and meetings
Stakeholder Consultations
To ensure that the City solicits feedback from various segments of the community, consultations were conducted with a range of stakeholders representing perspectives on housing needs, development, and community services. From April through May 2026, staff reached out to stakeholder organizations to offer each the opportunity to provide one-on-one input on housing needs and programs. Consultations were completed with the following four organizations.
 Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin
 Mountain House Parks and Recreation Department
 Lammersville Unified School District (LUSD)
 Mountain House Developers (master developer)
Requests for consultation were extended but no responses were received from the following stakeholder group:
 San Joaquin Fair Housing
The stakeholders were asked questions generally covering the following topics.  Programs and services: What programs or services do you currently provide for Mountain House residents?
 Housing preferences: What types of housing would better support city residents? Is there adequate rental housing? Are there opportunities for homeownership?  Housing barriers and opportunities: What are the unmet housing needs in the city? What opportunities exist to improve housing in the future?

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 389 of 618

1. INTRODUCTION

 Housing conditions: How would you characterize the physical condition of housing in Mountain House?  Equity and fair housing: Are there specific populations facing unique housing challenges? How do housing challenges differ across neighborhoods or villages?  Partnerships: What partnerships with local governments, housing authorities, or nonprofits exist or would be beneficial?
Common Themes
The consultations revealed several key observations and common themes related to housing issues and opportunities in the City of Mountain House.
 High housing costs and limited affordability: Mountain House is characterized by relatively high housing costs, with home prices typically in the $800,000 to $1,000,000 range. This makes homeownership inaccessible for lower- and moderate-income households, including entry-level workers and singleincome earners. Rental housing is available but expensive, and most new construction targets uppermiddle-income households. The limited supply of subsidized housing (only a small number of Section 8 units and housing choice vouchers are active in the city) leaves a significant gap for households who cannot afford market-rate options.
 Workforce housing gap for public employees and service workers: Multiple stakeholders highlighted that full-time City employees, teachers, and other public sector workers often cannot afford to live in Mountain House and instead commute from Tracy, Stockton, or other lower-cost communities.

Approximately 91 percent of LUSD staff live within 25 miles of the district, but only about 61 percent live in Mountain House or Tracy. Even individuals earning the highest teacher salaries would have difficulty affording housing in Mountain House.
 Housing stock dominated by large single-family homes with limited diversity: Mountain House’s housing supply is made up of predominantly larger(4- and 5-bedroom homes), market-rate, single-family detached homes typically designed for families with children and two incomes. There is limited housing diversity in terms of unit size, type, and price point given the community has largely, to-date, built singlefamily homes at a higher rate than the San Joaquin County average. Smaller units for seniors, singleperson households, and lower-income renters are largely absent.  Need for senior and accessible housing: As Mountain House matures and its founding resident cohort ages, the need for smaller, accessible, and age-appropriate housing will grow. Currently, this need is largely unmet. Several stakeholders noted that seniors and people with disabilities lack housing options suited to their circumstances and that this gap will become increasingly significant as the community approaches full buildout.
 Homelessness is minimal: Unlike many California communities, Mountain House has very limited visible homelessness. However, there are early signs of housing instability, primarily among young adults leaving their family homes and a small number of foster youth and families in temporary or doubled-up

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 390 of 618

2. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

situations. Stakeholders broadly agree that proactive planning is important to avoid larger housing stability challenges as the city grows.
 Commuting and transportation constraints: Mountain House’s location along the SR-205 and Interstate 580 corridor means that residents who work in the Bay Area or Sacramento face long commutes. Prepandemic traffic congestion on the corridor during the early morning commute was a consistent concern.

Return-to-office pressures in the tech industry have renewed commute burdens. Improved transit connections were identified as important to the long-term viability of the community and to its original vision of people living and working locally.

Consultation Summaries
Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin
A consultation was conducted with Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin (HACSJ) on Friday, April 24, 2026. HACSJ is a local government organization that provides and advocates for safe, affordable, and attractive living environments for low-income working families, elderly residents, and persons with disabilities in San Joaquin County. The agency administers the Housing Choice Voucher program (formerly known as Section 8), which provides rental subsidies to eligible households as well as public housing and other affordable housing programs. HACSJ also provides educational resources for tenants and landlords and maintains an inventory of landlords who accept housing choice vouchers throughout the county.

HACSJ noted that the limited supply of affordable housing in Mountain House is a persistent challenge. The city’s high housing costs make it difficult for lower-income households to access the market, and the number of housing choice vouchers available for use within Mountain House is very small relative to the regional need.

HACSJ highlighted the importance of encouraging more landlords to accept housing vouchers, expanding partnerships with developers and local governments, and increasing the diversity of housing types available in the city—including multifamily units and housing for seniors and persons with disabilities—to better serve a broader range of income levels as Mountain House continues to build out.

Mountain House Parks and Recreation Department
A consultation was conducted on Thursday, April 16, 2026, with the Mountain House Parks and Recreation Department (MHPRD), which provides recreational programs, sports, special events, and community activities for Mountain House residents. The department operates within the village-based structure of the Master Plan, which designates a neighborhood park in each village and is working toward the addition of larger sports complexes and recreation areas as the city grows. MHPRD reiterated a common pattern in Mountain House in which full-time employees generally do not live in the city due to prohibitive housing costs, while part-time staff who often live with family are somewhat more likely to reside locally.

The department reported that visible homelessness is essentially absent in Mountain House, reflecting the community’s planned upscale character. Housing conditions are generally described as excellent, consistent with the relatively new and well-maintained character of most of the housing stock, though some vacancy was

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 391 of 618

1. INTRODUCTION

observed during the post-2008 housing downturn. Some physical differences between older and newer village neighborhoods were noted, with newer areas showing denser development patterns, less vegetation, and less green space between homes. Staff were largely unaware of housing assistance programs, nonprofit partnerships, or other social service resources operating in the city, suggesting an opportunity for improved internal communication and cross-departmental coordination around housing-related needs.

Lammersville Unified School District
A consultation was conducted on Friday, April 17, 2026, with Lammersville Unified School District (LUSD), which serves Mountain House and portions of Tracy. The district currently enrolls approximately 8,384 students and is projected to reach 11,000 to 13,000 students at full buildout, at which point three additional TK-8 schools will be needed. The community’s student population is predominantly upper-middle class and socioeconomically stable, with housing instability affecting only about 1.5 students per 1,000 enrolled—substantially lower than most California school districts. Of these, 13 students were identified as foster or homeless youth, primarily in situations involving couch-surfing, temporarily doubled up, or leaving the family home due to conflict. The district also serves a small, lower-income enclave near the community which includes approximately 175 students.

LUSD expressed concern about teacher and staff housing, noting that single-income educators at even the highest salary levels would struggle to afford housing in Mountain House and often opt to live in more affordable communities to the east. Approximately 15 percent of staff departures have cited relocation as a reason for leaving, though not always due to housing cost specifically. The district also flagged the high school overcrowding issue as a pressing near-term challenge; the single high school utilizes online courses to manage demand.

Resolving this will require coordination between the district, the master developer, and the City to plan and fund expansion. Looking further ahead, LUSD noted that Mountain House’s original vision of residents living and working in the community rather than commuting to the Bay Area could be realized if major tech employers establish a presence locally, which would also reduce commute burdens and reinforce demand for a wider range of housing types.

Mountain House Developers (Master Developer)
The City met with Mountain House Developers on May 15, 2026, to discuss questions related to the Housing Element. Prior to the meeting, the developers provided a list of questions regarding Housing Element requirements, including how housing units are credited toward Housing Element obligations, No Net Loss procedures, and whether specific projects would qualify for credit during the reporting period. During the meeting, staff responded to these questions and provided an overview of the purpose and function of the Housing Element. No additional actions or commitments resulted from the discussion.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 392 of 618

2. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

Online Community Survey
The City released an online community survey in March 2026 to gather information regarding existing housing and future housing needs. The community survey was available from March 2026 through June 2026.

The survey was made available on the City’s website, social media, and a flyer with a QR code was provided at City Hall Lobby, the City’s website, and on the City’s social media pages. The City received 50 responses. Of the 50 responses, 74 percent of respondents owned their residence, while 26 percent rented their residence. 80.8 percent of respondents worked outside of Mountain House, and 19.2 percent of respondents worked in the city.

The community survey responses provide insight into residents’ perceptions of current housing conditions and future housing needs in the City of Mountain House. The main takeaways for the community survey include the following.
 Underserved populations: Respondents identified low-income families (53%), seniors on fixed incomes (50%), empty nesters (32%), educators (32%), and healthcare workers (32%) as the groups with the greatest unmet housing needs.
 Future housing priorities: Residents expressed the strongest interest in planning for a wide range of housing, from smaller, affordable single-family homes (54%), senior housing (32%), to larger/luxury homes (29%).
 Community strengths: Mountain House's small-town atmosphere (84%) and high-quality schools (68%) were the most influential factors attracting people to live in the community.  Barriers to housing development: The most significant challenges identified were the lack of jobs that support the local cost of living (60%), traffic congestion caused by limited major roadway connections (58%), and overcrowded schools (47%). Permit fees (10%), processing times (10%), and land availability (15%) were generally not viewed as major barriers.
 Barriers to obtaining housing: High home prices (78%), rental costs (78%), and utility expenses (73%) were identified as the primary obstacles to securing housing, while limited housing inventory (13%), financing challenges (19%), and limited housing type options (22%) were viewed as less significant.  Preferred housing types: Single-family homes received the strongest support by a wide margin (54%), followed by senior housing (32%). Farmworker/service worker housing (0%), condominiums (12%), student housing (10%), and community land trusts or cooperative housing (2%) received the lowest levels of support.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 393 of 618

1. INTRODUCTION

Community Workshops
Community Workshop – April 2, 2026
The City of Mountain House held its first community workshop for the 2023– 2031 Housing Element on April 2, 2026, from 6:00 to 8:00 pm. A total of 19 people attended. This format was an open house style workshop that included a presentation introducing the Housing Element process and interactive board activities.

Community input was gathered through a stakeholder workshop attended primarily by higher-income property owners, with 80 percent of participants reporting annual incomes above $125,501 and nearly threequarters representing households of four or more people. Most participants currently reside in single-family homes and identified senior housing (55+) and residential mixed-use development as the community's greatest housing needs, reflecting strong interest in housing options for aging residents and mixed-use neighborhoods. Affordable owner housing and single-family homes also received notable support, indicating continued demand for attainable homeownership opportunities.

Participants identified high housing costs and transportation as the most significant housing challenges facing the community, followed closely by concerns regarding the lack of school capacity. Teachers and healthcare workers, young adults and students, and seniors were viewed as the groups experiencing the greatest difficulty finding housing in Mountain House, highlighting both workforce and age-specific housing needs.

During workshop discussions, residents raised concerns regarding the City's ability to accommodate future housing growth, including the availability of suitable vacant land, the methodology used to track Housing Element progress, and the implications if designated housing sites do not yield the anticipated number of units. Participants also questioned whether higher-density development necessarily results in affordability and expressed concerns that infrastructure, particularly school capacity and commercial services, may not keep pace with planned residential growth. Several residents noted that the community’s single high school is already strained and emphasized the need to better align housing development with supporting infrastructure investments.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 394 of 618

2. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

City Council Study Session—May 14, 2026
On May 14, 2026, a study session was held with the City Council to introduce the Housing Element project which included an overview of state housing law requirements, the progress completed to date, and preliminary findings regarding the City's ability to accommodate its RHNA. Council feedback centered on ensuring ADUs are counted toward meeting the RHNA requirement, approaches to the available land inventory, including how existing and future development is considered as part of the Housing Element.

Addressing Comments and Feedback
In addition to the State required programs, several program actions can be directly attributed to the public input received. For example, one of the more prominent pieces of public input received was the need to coordinate infrastructure improvements with new residential development. Program HE-1.4 will continue requiring new development to provide, fund, or contribute its fair share toward necessary infrastructure improvements consistent with applicable plans, standards, and development requirements. Additionally, public input stressed a need for a variety of housing unit sizes to accommodate households with diverse needs. Program HE-2.1 directly addresses this by encouraging residential projects to provide a range of housing unit sizes, including both smaller and larger units (including studio and one-bedroom units).

Noticing the Draft
During the preparation of this Housing Element update, public input was actively encouraged in a variety of ways. The element was posted to the City’s website, and a hard copy was available for review at the Planning Department counter. The City emailed a link to all individuals and organizations, including organizations representing low- and moderate-income households and special needs groups that had expressed interest in or previously requested notices relating to the Housing Element.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65585, the draft Housing Element was made available for public comment for 30 days, from September 3 to October 3. The draft was posted on the City’s website, and residents were notified of its availability through social media and the Mountain House Matters newspaper.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 395 of 618

1. INTRODUCTION

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 396 of 618

2. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

3. EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT
Per Government Code Section 65588, “Each local government shall review its housing element as frequently as appropriate to evaluate all of the following: (1) The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal. (2) The effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community's housing goals and objectives. (3) The progress of the city, county, or city and county in implementation of the housing element.”
The City of Mountain House incorporated on July 1, 2024, and adopted the San Joaquin County General Plan as its own. As a newly incorporated city, Mountain House does not yet have Housing Element programs specific to the City’s jurisdiction for which implementation progress can be reported. However, since incorporation, the City has taken several actions to support housing production, including, but not limited to, the following:
 The City adopted Title 9, Development Title as part of the Mountain House Municipal Code in September 2024, with a completed comprehensive update of the Development Title in January 2026.  The City is preparing its first General Plan with adoption planned for the end of 2026 or early 2027.  The City adopted density bonus provisions as part of the development title.  The City has posted the current schedule of fees, exactions, and affordability requirements on the City’s website as required by state law to meet transparency requirements.  The City requires second units (now commonly known as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)) in all the Specific Plans, with 6.5 percent within Specific Plan I and II and 10 percent in Specific Plan III (averaging

9.29 percent across all residential units) of all new residential single-family residential buildings (Master Plan Policy 3.3.4(b). It has been recorded that 9.43 percent of the primary housing stock in the community includes an ADU.
 The City adopted the 2025 California Building Code on January 28, 2026.  The City collects development fees on every building permit to provide affordable housing to low-income households within the Mountain House community. As of April 2026, there was $11.5 million in available funding that the City can use toward future affordable development projects.

The recently adopted and ongoing actions cumulatively improve housing opportunities for special housing needs groups by strengthening the City's regulatory framework, expanding housing options through density bonuses and accessory dwelling units, updating development standards, and increasing funding available for affordable housing. Together, these efforts support the development of a broader range of housing types that can better meet the needs of seniors, persons with disabilities, farmworkers, female-headed households, large households, and individuals experiencing homelessness.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 397 of 618

3. EVALUATION OF THE PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 398 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mountain House Housing Element Page 4-1

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
This chapter describes the characteristics of Mountain House’s population and housing that are essential to understanding the City’s housing needs. This section is organized as follows:
 Data Sources
 Population Characteristics
 Household Characteristics
 Employment Trends
 Housing Stock Characteristics
 Special-Needs Groups
 Analysis of At-Risk Housing
 Financial Resources
Data Sources
The analysis in this section primarily uses data from
multiple sources reflecting Mountain House's unique status as a newly incorporated city. The City of Mountain House incorporated on July 1, 2024; therefore, the most recent American Community Survey (ACS) and Decennial Census
reports Mountain House as a Census Designated Place
(CDP). The City and CDP boundaries slightly differ;
therefore, the data may have a slight margin of error. See Figure 4-1 for a map of the CDP vs the city limits.

The primary source used in the Housing Needs Assessment is the 5-Year Estimates from the 2020–2024 ACS. The ACS is conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau and provides
estimates of numerous housing-related indicators based
on samples averaged over a five-year period. Although the ACS typically has a higher margin of error, it also provides more detailed data that is not available through the U.S.

Decennial Census.

The California Department of Finance (DOF) E-5 Population and Housing Estimates (2026) are used to reflect postFigure 4-1 Mountain House City Limits, Census Tracts, and Census-Designated
Place Boundaries

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 399 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

incorporation conditions in Mountain House, including updated figures for population, households, housing unit types, vacancy rates, and occupancy status. The DOF provides more current data than the ACS, though it does not offer the same depth of demographic and socioeconomic detail available through Census products.

Data from Claritas, a private demographic data provider, is also incorporated to provide current-year demographic, household, and income data that bridges the gap between the 2020–2024 ACS and present conditions. Additional sources include the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), the DOF, and the Employment Development Department (EDD). The EDD provides employment and industry data and projections that are more specific than what is typically available through the U.S. Census.

Due to differences in data sources and geographies, particularly Mountain House’s transition from a CDP to an incorporated city, some figures (e.g., population or the number of households) may vary across sections of this report.

Population Characteristics
Population
Mountain House has experienced significant population growth from 2010 through 2026, consistent with its development as a master-planned community. As shown in Table 4-1, the City's population grew from 9,675 in 2010 to 24,499 in 2020, an increase of 153.2 percent. Between 2020 and 2026, the population continued to grow to an estimated 31,639, a further increase of 29.1 percent. By comparison, San Joaquin County grew by

38.3 percent between 2010 and 2020, from 563,598 to 779,233 residents. Between 2020 and 2026, the County's population grew by an additional 5.5 percent to an estimated 822,301.

Table 4-1 Population Change — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2010–2026

Mountain House San Joaquin County
2010 2020 2026 2010 2020 2026
Population 9,675 24,499 31,639 563,598 779,233 822,301
Population Growth -- 14,824 7,140 - 215,635 43,068
Growth Rate (%) -- 153.2% 29.1% - 38.3% 5.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010; Claritas 2020 and 2026.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 400 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mountain House Housing Element Page 4-3
Age Characteristics
Table 4-2 illustrates the age distribution of Mountain House and San Joaquin County as a whole, according to Claritas 2026 estimates. Mountain House's age distribution reflects a city largely composed of young families, with a higher share of young children and school-age youth, as well as adults in the 35 to 54 age range. The share of school-age children (5 to 17) was notably higher in Mountain House at 23.9 percent, compared to 18.5 percent countywide. The 35 to 44 and 45 to 54 age groups were also more prominent in Mountain House at 19.4 and

15.4 percent, respectively, compared to 14.0 and 12.4 percent countywide. Mountain House had a substantially lower share of residents aged 65 and older, at 7.6 percent, compared to 14.7 percent countywide.

Table 4-2 Age Characteristics — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2026 Age Group
Mountain House San Joaquin County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Under 5 2,113 6.7% 52,430 6.4%
5 to 17 7,549 23.9% 151,774 18.5%
18 to 24 3,087 9.8% 82,501 10.0%
25 to 34 2,756 8.7% 108,381 13.2%
35 to 44 6,124 19.4% 115,066 14.0%
45 to 54 4,882 15.4% 101,690 12.4%
55 to 64 2,709 8.6% 89,682 10.9%
65+ 2,419 7.6% 120,777 14.7%
Total 31,639 100.0% 822,301 100.0%
Source: Claritas 2026.

Race and Ethnicity
Table 4-3 shows the distribution of the population in 2026 by race and ethnicity. As shown, approximately 61.7 percent of the Mountain House population identified as Asian, making it by far the largest racial group in the city. This is notably higher than in the County as a whole, where Asian residents comprised 21.9 percent of the population. White residents represented 16.6 percent of Mountain House's population, compared to 29.1 percent countywide. With regard to ethnicity, the Hispanic or Latino population made up 13.1 percent of Mountain House's population, significantly lower than the County as a whole at 43.6 percent.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 401 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 4-3 Population Breakdown by Race/Ethnicity —
Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2026
Race/Ethnicity
Mountain House San Joaquin County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
White 5,254 16.6% 239,592 29.1%
Black or African American 1,841 5.8% 61,110 7.4%
American Indian and Alaska Native 256 0.8% 12,900 1.6%
Asian 19,507 61.7% 180,168 21.9%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 209 0.7% 6,405 0.8% Some Other Race 1,749 5.5% 199,855 24.3%
Two or More Races 2,823 8.9% 122,271 14.9%
Total 31,639 100.0% 822,301 100.0%
Hispanic or Latino 4,128 13.1% 358,877 43.6%
Source: Claritas 2026.

Household Characteristics
Household Types
Table 4-4 shows the distribution of household types for Mountain House and San Joaquin County as of 2024, based on ACS 2020–2024 estimates. As shown, Mountain House is predominantly composed of family households, which account for 86.9 percent of all households, compared to 75.8 percent countywide. Marriedcouple families represent the largest household type in Mountain House at 78.3 percent, significantly higher than that of the county at 52.1 percent, consistent with the city's family-oriented character. Nonfamily households, including those living alone, made up 13.1 percent of Mountain House households, compared to

24.2 percent countywide.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 402 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mountain House Housing Element Page 4-5
Table 4-4 Household Types — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024 Household Type
Mountain House San Joaquin County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Family Households 6,141 86.9% 191,546 75.8%
Married-Couple Family 5,535 78.3% 131,591 52.1%
Other Family 606 8.6% 59,955 23.7%
Male-Headed Households 248 3.5% 21,071 8.3%
Female-Headed Households 358 5.1% 38,884 15.4%
Nonfamily Households 926 13.1% 61,147 24.2%
Householder Living Alone 797 11.3% 49,276 19.5%
Householder Not Living Alone 129 1.8% 11,871 4.7%
Total Households 7,067 100.0% 252,693 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2020–2024 (5-Year Estimates), B11001.

Households by Tenure
Tenure isthe proportion of owner- versus renter-occupied units and is an indicator of the housing stock makeup.

Tenure data by unit type and number of bedrooms can also help estimate demand for various housing types. As shown in Table 4-5, owner-occupied units in Mountain House account for 73.4 percent of all occupied units, well above the San Joaquin County rate of 59.3 percent. Correspondingly, renter-occupied units account for just 26.6 percent of occupied units in Mountain House, compared to 40.7 percent countywide. This pattern reflects Mountain House's significantly higher concentration of owner-occupied units and lower share of renteroccupied units relative to San Joaquin County as a whole.

Table 4-5 Housing Tenure — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2026 Tenure
Mountain House San Joaquin
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Owner-Occupied Units 6,008 73.4% 142,884 59.3%
Renter-Occupied Units 2,177 26.6% 98,235 40.7%
Total 8,185 100.0% 241,119 100.0%
Source: Claritas 2026.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 403 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Household Size
Average household size is calculated by dividing the household population by the number of occupied housing units, excluding the group quarters population. Larger household sizes indicate greater demand for dwelling units with three or more bedrooms to accommodate population growth. Household size is also an important measure of overcrowding.

As shown in Table 4-6, Mountain House has consistently had a larger average household size than San Joaquin County across all three reference years: 3.66 in 2010, 4.03 in 2020, and 3.36 in 2025, compared to 3.0, 3.1, and

3.06 countywide, respectively. Although household size declined between 2020 and 2025, Mountain House continues to exceed the countywide average.

Table 4-6 Average Household Size — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2010, 2020, and 2025
Mountain House San Joaquin County
2010 2020 2025 2010 2020 2025
Average Household
Size (All Households) 3.66 4.03 3.36 3.0 3.1 3.06
Source: California Department of Finance 2025; U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2010 and 2020, B25010.

Table 4-7 shows tenure by persons per household for Mountain House and San Joaquin County as a whole. In Mountain House, four-person households made up the largest share across all household types, accounting for

40.3 percent of all households compared to 15.7 percent countywide. This pattern held consistently across both tenure categories; 41.4 percent of owner-occupied and 37.6 percent of renter-occupied households in Mountain House were four-person households, compared to 16.2 and 14.7 percent countywide, respectively. This indicates that Mountain House is predominantly composed of larger family households, in contrast to San Joaquin County where smaller one- and two-person households are more prevalent.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 404 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mountain House Housing Element Page 4-7
Table 4-7 Tenure by Persons per Household — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024 Persons per Household
Mountain House San Joaquin County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
All Households
1 Person 797 11.3% 49,276 19.5%
2 Persons 965 13.7% 66,957 26.5%
3 Persons 1,154 16.3% 47,843 18.9%
4 Persons 2,848 40.3% 39,584 15.7%
5 or More Persons 1,303 18.4% 49,033 19.4%
Total 7,067 100.0% 252,693 100.0%
Owner Occupied
1 Person 375 7.6% 25,915 16.5%
2 Persons 615 12.4% 45,462 29.0%
3 Persons 977 19.8% 29,480 18.8%
4 Persons 2,048 41.4% 25,444 16.2%
5 or More Persons 927 18.8% 30,404 19.4%
Total 4,942 100.0% 156,705 100.0%
Renter Occupied
1 Person 422 19.9% 23,361 24.3%
2 Persons 350 16.5% 21,495 22.4%
3 Persons 177 8.3% 18,363 19.1%
4 Persons 800 37.6% 14,140 14.7%
5 or More Persons 376 17.7% 18,629 19.4%
Total 2,125 100.0% 95,988 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2020–2024 (5-Year Estimates), B25009.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 405 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Overcrowded Households
The Census defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 or more persons per room, excluding bathrooms and kitchens, with units exceeding 1.5 persons per room considered severely overcrowded.

Overcrowding is closely linked to household size, housing availability, and affordability and impacts both owners and renters, though renters are generally more significantly affected.

As shown in Table 4-8, owner-occupied units in Mountain House had an overcrowding rate of 8.0 percent, compared to 3.9 percent countywide, while renter-occupied units were overcrowded at 11.3 percent, compared to 13.7 percent countywide. This pattern shows that Mountain House's overcrowding rate slightly exceeds the county average; severe overcrowding is less prevalent, with renter-occupied units representing the greatest area of concern.

Table 4-8 Overcrowding — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024 Persons per Room
Mountain House San Joaquin County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Owner Occupied

0.50 or less 2,350 47.6% 97,724 62.4%

0.51 to 1.00 2,193 44.4% 52,922 33.8%

1.01 to 1.50 372 7.5% 4,637 3.0%

1.51 to 2.00 27 0.5% 1,205 0.8%

2.01 or more 0 0.0% 217 0.1%
Total 4,942 100.0% 156,705 100.0%
Renter Occupied

0.50 or less 945 44.5% 41,782 43.5%

0.51 to 1.00 940 44.2% 41,110 42.8%

1.01 to 1.50 138 6.5% 7,542 7.9%

1.51 to 2.00 102 4.8% 3,988 4.2%

2.01 or more 0 0.0% 1,566 1.6%
Total 2,125 100.0% 95,988 100.0%
Total Households 7,067 100.0% 252,693 100.0%
Overcrowded (1.01 or more) 639 9.0% 19,155 7.6%
Severely Overcrowded (1.51 or more) 129 1.8% 6,976 2.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2020–2024 (5-Year Estimates), B25014.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 406 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mountain House Housing Element Page 4-9
Income Characteristics
Income Limits
Housing choices such as tenure (owning versus renting), housing type, and location are dependent on household income. However, household size and type often affect the proportion of income that can be spent on housing.

HCD publishes annual tables of official federal and state income limits for determining these maximums for a variety of programs.

State statutory limits are based on federal limits set and periodically revised by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. HUD’s limits are based on surveys of local area median income (AMI).

Table 4-9 shows the 2026 HCD income limits for San Joaquin County. The AMI for a four-person household in the county was $108,100 in 2026. Income limits for larger or smaller households were higher or lower, respectively, and are calculated using a formula developed by HUD. The commonly used income categories for a household of four are:
 Acutely Low Income: 0 to 15 percent of AMI ($0 to $16,200)  Extremely Low Income: 15 to 30 percent of AMI ($16,200 to $33,000)  Very Low Income: 30 to 50 percent of AMI ($33,000 to $54,050)  Low Income: 50 to 80 percent of AMI ($54,050 to $86,500)  Moderate Income: 80 to 120 percent of AMI ($86,500 to $129,700)  Above Moderate Income: Above 120 percent of AMI ($129,700 or more) Table 4-9 HCD 2026 Income Limits by Household size, San Joaquin County Income
Category 1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person 6-Person 7-Person 8-Person Acutely
Low $11,350 $12,950 $14,600 $16,200 $17,500 $18,800 $20,100 $21,400 Extremely
Low $22,750 $26,000 $29,250 $33,000 $38,680 $44,360 $50,040 $55,720 Very Low $37,850 $43,250 $48,650 $54,050 $58,400 $62,700 $67,050 $71,350 Low $60,550 $69,200 $77,850 $86,500 $93,450 $100,350 $107,300 $114,200 Median $75,650 $86,500 $97,300 $108,100 $116,750 $125,400 $134,050 $142,700 Moderate $90,800 $103,750 $116,750 $129,700 $140,100 $150,450 $160,850 $171,200 Source: HCD 2026 Income Limits.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 407 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Income Distribution
As shown in Figure 4-2, Mountain House households have notably high income levels compared to San Joaquin County overall. Among owner-occupied households, 70.7 percent earned $150,000 or more and 88 percent earned $100,000 or more, though 5.3 percent earned less than $50,000. By comparison, only 35.2 percent of owner-occupied households countywide earned $150,000 or more, 57.2 percent earned $100,000 or more, and

17.8 percent earned less than $50,000. Renter-occupied households showed greater income diversity, with 62.2 percent earning $100,000 or more and 17.3 percent earning less than $50,000. The median household income was $177,163, nearly double the San Joaquin County median of $92,179.

Figure 4-2 Household Income Distribution — Mountain House, 2024 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2020–2024 (5-Year Estimates), B25118 and S1901. * Please note that percentages may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

1.1% 2.2% 2.0% 3.3% 3.4%

17.3%

70.7%

10.0%

2.7% 4.6%

8.7%

11.9%

26.9%

35.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Less than
$19,999
$20,000 to
$34,999
$35,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 to
$149,999
$150,000 or
more
Mountain House Household Income Distribution
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 408 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mountain House Housing Element Page 4-11
Overpayment
Overpayment is defined as paying more than 30 percent of monthly household income for housing costs.

Severely overpaying is defined as paying more than 50 percent of monthly household income for housing costs.

Table 4-10 shows the CHAS data regarding the number of households by income group overpaying (greater than 30 percent) and severely overpaying (greater than 50 percent) for Mountain House. As shown here, lowerincome households comprise a disproportionate share of cost-burdened households in Mountain House, representing 31.0 percent of all overpaying households and 88.9 percent of severely overpaying households, especially lower-income renters, who comprise 64.3 percent of severely overpaying renter households.

The City has included Program HE-3.7 to assist with reducing housing cost burden among lower-income households, with a particular focus on extremely low-income households.

Table 4-10 Households Overpaying by Household Income Classification — Mountain House, 2018–2022
Income Category
Owner Renter Total
Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage
Households Overpaying (>30%)
Extremely Low 70 8.7% 45 7.3% 115 8.1%
Very Low 15 1.9% 30 4.9% 45 3.2%
Low 120 14.9% 155 25.2% 280 19.7%
Moderate 14 1.7% 0 0.0% 14 1.0%
Above Moderate 585 72.8% 385 62.6% 965 68.0%
Total 804 100% 615 100.0% 1,419 100.0%
Severely Overpaying (>50%)
Extremely Low 70 46.7% 45 21.4% 115 31.9%
Very Low 15 10.0% 30 14.3% 45 12.5%
Low 25 16.7% 135 64.3% 160 44.4%
Moderate 10 6.7% 0 0.0% 10 2.8%
Above Moderate 30 20.0% 0 0.0% 30 8.3%
Total 150 100.0% 210 100.0% 360 100.0%
Source: HUD CHAS 2018–2022.

Note: HUD CHAS data uses HAMFI income brackets, which do not align precisely with California HCD State Income Limit categories, particularly at the moderate-income tier (CHAS uses 100 percent AMI as a cutoff; HCD uses 120 percent)

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 409 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Employment Trends
Table 4-11 shows employment by industry for both Mountain House and San Joaquin County. In Mountain House, Educational Services, Healthcare, and Social Assistance was the largest employment sector, representing

26.2 percent, followed by Professional, Scientific, and Management and Administrative and Waste Management Services at 22.3 percent. The county similarly led with Educational Services, Healthcare, and Social Assistance at

20.8 percent, followed by Professional, Scientific, and Management and Administrative and Waste Management Services, which accounted for only 11.1 percent countywide. The data reflects Mountain House's significantly higher concentration of professional and knowledge-based workers.

Table 4-11 Employment by Industry — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024 Industry
Mountain House San Joaquin County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting;
Mining 530 4.5% 14,756 4.2%
Construction 384 3.2% 28,677 8.2%
Manufacturing 1,036 8.8% 34,233 9.8%
Wholesale Trade 141 1.2% 9,429 2.7%
Retail Trade 910 7.7% 41,329 11.8%
Transportation and Warehousing; Utilities 483 4.1% 31,483 9.0% Information 436 3.7% 4,983 1.4%
Finance and Insurance; Real Estate, Rental, and
Leasing 453 3.8% 15,097 4.3%
Professional, Scientific, and Management;
Administrative and Waste Management Services 2,638 22.3% 39,123 11.1% Educational Services; Healthcare and Social
Assistance 3,101 26.2% 72,873 20.8%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation;
Accommodation and Food Services 827 7.0% 26,798 7.6%
Other Services Except Public Administration 612 5.2% 14,781 4.2% Public Administration 266 2.3% 17,537 5.0%
Total 11,817 100.0% 351,099 100.0%*
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2020–2024 (5-Year Estimates), C24050. * Please note that percentages may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

Table 4-12 shows that Mountain House had a labor force of 12,200 in 2025, with 11,900 employed and 300 unemployed, resulting in an unemployment rate of 2.1 percent. This was significantly lower than San Joaquin County's unemployment rate of 6.4 percent, where 24,100 of the county's 379,600 labor force participants were unemployed.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 410 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mountain House Housing Element Page 4-13
Table 4-12 Annual Labor Force Data — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2025 Labor Force Employment Unemployment
Number
Unemployment
Rate
Mountain House 12,200 11,900 300 2.1%
San Joaquin County 379,600 355,500 24,100 6.4%
Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Force Data, January 2026.

Table 4-13 shows the largest employers in San Joaquin County. While most major employers are concentrated in Stockton and Lodi, some are located in neighboring Tracy. The major employers include a range of industries including healthcare, government, distribution, and food processing.

Table 4-13 Largest Employers – San Joaquin County, 2026 Employer Name Location Industry
Amazon Fulfillment Ctr Stockton Mail Order Fulfillment Service Ashley Lane LP Stockton Real Estate
Blue Shield of California Lodi Insurance
Chevron Lodi Service Stations-Gasoline & Oil
Dameron Hospital Stockton Hospitals
Foster Care Svc Stockton Foster Care
Leprino Foods Co Tracy Cheese Processors (Manufacturers) Lodi Health Home Health Agency Lodi Home Health Service Medline Tracy Physicians & Surgeons Equip & SuppliesWholesale NA Chaderjian Youth Stockton State Govt-Correctional Institutions O-G Packing & Cold Storage Co Stockton Fruits & Vegetables-Growers & Shippers Prima Frutta Packing Inc Linden Fruit & Produce Packers Safeway Distribution Center Tracy Distribution Centers (Wholesale) San Joaquin County CA Public Works Stockton Government Offices-County San Joaquin County Human Svc Stockton Government Offices-County San Joaquin County School District Stockton School Districts San Joaquin General Hospital French Camp Hospitals
San Joaquin Sheriff's Office French Camp Government Offices-County SJGOV Stockton Government Offices-County
St Joseph's Regional Health Stockton Health Services
Stockton Police Dept Stockton Non-Profit Organizations
Stockton Unified Sch Dist. Stockton Facilities Management

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 411 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Employer Name Location Industry
Stockton Unified School Dist. Stockton Schools
Walmart Supercenter Stockton Department Stores
Waste Management-Lodi Transfer Lodi Solid Waste Collection Source: Employment Development Department, 2026.

Housing Stock Characteristics
Housing Type
HCD defines a housing unit as a house; an apartment; a mobile home or trailer; a group of rooms; or a single room occupied as separate living quarters, or, if vacant, intended for occupancy as separate living quarters.

Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from other individuals in the building and have direct access from outside the building or through a common hall.

Table 4-14 shows that the majority of Mountain House's housing stock consists of single-family units representing 84.1 percent, notably higher than that of the county at 78.8 percent. Multifamily units accounted for 8 percent, compared to 18.0 percent countywide, reflecting the city's predominantly single-family development pattern. Mobile homes represented 0 percent of Mountain House's housing stock, comparable to the county at 3.2 percent.

Due to a discrepancy between the 2026 DOF data and City building permit records, this analysis relies on City permit data. Specifically, while DOF reports approximately 373 mobile home units in Mountain House, the City has no mobile home units. Therefore, City permit data were used as the more accurate source.

Table 4-14 Housing Units by Type — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2026 Housing Unit Type
Mountain House San Joaquin County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Single Family 7,769 84.1% 215,883 78.9%
Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 255 2.8% 14,979 5.5%
Multifamily 5+ Units 476 5.2% 34,023 12.4%
Mobile Homes 0 0% 8,613 3.1%
Accessory Dwelling Units 742 8.0% * *
Total 9,242 100.0%** 273,498 100.0%**
Source: City of Mountain House Community Development Department, 2026; California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates, 2026.
*DOF does not separately categorize ADUs, county-level ADU counts are not available. **Percentages may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 412 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mountain House Housing Element Page 4-15
Housing Size
Table 4-15 shows that the majority of Mountain House's housing units had 4 bedrooms at 44.9 percent, followed by 3 bedrooms at 23.5 percent and 5 or more bedrooms at 14.7 percent. This differs from the county, where 3- bedroom units dominated at 38.8 percent, followed by 4-bedroom units at 23.8 percent and 2-bedroom units at 20.8 percent. Mountain House's higher concentration of larger units (homes with more bedrooms) is consistent with the city's predominantly single-family development pattern and larger average household sizes.

As shown in Table 4-15, large households of five or more persons total 1,303, representing 18.4 percent of all Mountain House households, while units with five or more bedrooms total 1,079, or 14.7 percent of the total housing stock. This indicates that the supply of the largest units is slightly below the number of large households in the city, which may present a more limited supply for very large households seeking appropriately sized units.

Table 4-15 Number of Bedrooms — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024 Bedrooms
Mountain House San Joaquin County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
No Bedroom 494 6.7% 9,381 3.5%
1 Bedroom 352 4.8% 18,353 6.9%
2 Bedrooms 394 5.4% 55,526 20.8%
3 Bedrooms 1,728 23.5% 103,457 38.8%
4 Bedrooms 3,302 44.9% 63,516 23.8%
5 or More Bedrooms 1,079 14.7% 16,703 6.3%
Total 7,349 100.0%* 266,936 100.0%*
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2020–2024 (5-Year Estimates), B25041. * Please note that percentages may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

Vacancy Rate
Residential vacancy rate is a good indicator of the balance between housing supply and demand in a community. When the demand for housing exceeds the available supply, the vacancy rate will be low. When there is an excess supply, the rate will be high. A vacancy rate of 3 to 5 percent is generally indicative of a healthy market. When vacancy rates fall below 3 percent, there is upward pressure on home prices and rents.

As shown in Table 4-16, vacancy is categorized in different ways.  “For Rent” refers to vacant units actively available on the rental market  “For Rent, Not Occupied” refers to units already rented but not yet occupied at the time of the survey  “For Sale Only” includes units listed exclusively for sale

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 413 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

 “Sold, Not Occupied” refers to units sold but not yet occupied by the new owner  “For Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use” captures units intended for part-time use, such as vacation homes
 “For Migrant Workers” includes units held for seasonal farm laborers  “Other Vacant” encompasses units held off the market for reasons such as ongoing repairs or legal proceedings
Table 4-16 shows that Mountain House had a total of 282 vacant units in 2024, representing a vacancy rate of approximately 3.1 percent of total units (8,968). Of those, the largest share of vacant units in Mountain House were for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use at 37.9 percent, followed by other vacant units at 29.8 percent. Notably, Mountain House had no units listed for rent, compared to 22.8 percent of vacant county units, suggesting very limited rental availability within the city.

Table 4-16 Vacant Units by Type — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024 Vacancy Status
Mountain House San Joaquin County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
For Rent 0 0.0% 3,253 22.8%
For Rent, Not Occupied 48 17.0% 461 3.2%
For Sale Only 43 15.2% 801 5.6%
Sold, Not Occupied 0 0.0% 1,823 12.8%
For Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional
Use 107 37.9% 1,365 9.6%
For Migrant Workers 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Other Vacant 84 29.8% 6,540 45.9%
Total Vacant Units 282 3.1% 14,243 5.3%
Total Housing Units 8,968 100.0% 269,626 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2020–2024 (5-Year Estimates), B25004.

Housing Age and Condition
Age is one measure of housing stock conditions and a factor in determining the need for rehabilitation. Without proper maintenance, housing units deteriorate over time. Thus, units that are older are more likely to need major repairs (e.g., a new roof or plumbing). Generally, houses 30 years and older are considered aged and are more likely to require major or minor repairs. In addition, older houses may not be built to current standards for fire and earthquake safety.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 414 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mountain House Housing Element Page 4-17
Significant housing construction in Mountain House started around 2005, as shown in Table 4-17, after the Master Plan was adopted. Before that, minimal housing units existed in what is now the City of Mountain House.

Because of this, the city's housing stock is considerably newer than San Joaquin County as a whole. According to City building permit data presented in Table 4-17, very few units approach the 30-year threshold (1996 or earlier) at which housing typically begins to require rehabilitation or major systems repairs. Mountain House likely has a very small rehabilitation need and most likely no units needing replacement. This is very different than San Joaquin County, when looking at data from the Department of Finance, where approximately 69.1 percent of the housing stock is 30 years old or older.

Mountain House residents are eligible for the San Joaquin County Home Rehabilitation Program, which offers low-interest amortized and deferred payment loans to low-income homeowners to make residential building improvements. The County also administers Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) funds, which support housing rehabilitation and related activities for low- and moderate-income residents.

Table 4-17 Age of Housing Stock and Conditions — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2026 Year Built
Mountain House San Joaquin County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Built 2020 or later 2,541 30.0% 16,704 6.3%
Built 2010 to 2019 2,914 34.3% 20,657 7.8%
Built 2000 to 2009 3,045 35.8% 44,878 16.9%
Built 1990 to 1999 2 0.0% 33,766 12.7%
Built 1980 to 1989 3 0.0% 36,052 13.6%
Built 1970 to 1979 0 0.0% 36,065 13.6%
Built 1960 to 1969 1 0.0% 23,679 8.9%
Built 1950 to 1959 0 0.0% 24,071 9.1%
Built 1940 to 1949 0 0.0% 12,169 4.6%
Built 1939 or earlier 0 0.0% 17,659 6.6%
Total 8,506 100.0%* 265,700 100.0%*
Source: City of Mountain House, 2026; Claritas 2026.
* Please note that percentages may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

Housing Cost and Affordability
Table 4-18 shows the affordable rents and maximum purchase prices based on HCD income limits for San Joaquin County. As shown, the maximum affordable rent for a very low-income four-person household is $1,308 per month, and the maximum affordable purchase price is $224,716. For extremely low-income households, the maximum affordable rent is $804 per month, and the maximum purchase price is $138,138. Low-income households of four can afford a maximum monthly rent of $2,093 and a maximum purchase price of $359,632.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 415 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Table 4-18 Ability to Pay for Housing Based on HCD Income Limits — San Joaquin County, 2025
1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons 5 Persons
Extremely Low Income (30% of Median)
Income Level $22,000 $25,150 $28,300 $32,150 $37,650
Max. Monthly Gross Rent $550 $629 $708 $804 $941
Max. Purchase Price $94,527 $108,061 $121,596 $138,138 $161,770 Very Low Income (50% of Median)
Income Level $36,650 $41,850 $47,100 $52,300 $56,500
Max. Monthly Gross Rent $916 $1,046 $1,178 $1,308 $1,413 Max. Purchase Price $157,473 $179,816 $202,373 $224,716 $242,762 Low Income (80% of Median)
Income Level $58,600 $67,000 $75,350 $83,700 $90,400
Max. Monthly Gross Rent $1,465 $1,675 $1,884 $2,093 $2,260 Max. Purchase Price $251,785 $287,877 $323,754 $359,632 $388,419 Moderate Income (120% of Median)
Income Level $87,850 $100,400 $112,950 $125,500 $135,550 Max. Monthly Gross Rent $2,196 $2,510 $2,824 $3,138 $3,389 Max. Purchase Price $377,463 $431,386 $485,309 $539,232 $582,414 1 Based on the San Joaquin County 2025 State Income Limits. 2 Assumes 30 percent of income is available for monthly rent, including utilities, or mortgage payment, taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners insurance.
3 Assumes a 95 percent loan-to-value mortgage at a 6.2 percent annual interest rate with a 30-year term; assumes property taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners insurance account for 21 percent of total monthly housing payment.

Home Sales Prices
According to the ACS 2019–2024, the median home value in Mountain House was $946,900 in 2024, significantly higher than the San Joaquin County median of $562,500. According to Zillow data from March 2026, median sale prices in Mountain House ranged from $650,000 for a 3-bedroom home to $756,000 for a 4-bedroom home, as shown in Table 4-19. Comparing these figures to the ability-to-pay estimates in Table 4-18, homeownership in Mountain House is out of reach for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and even moderate-income households.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 416 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mountain House Housing Element Page 4-19
Table 4-19 Median Home Sale Prices — Mountain House, 2026 Bedroom Type Median Sale Price
3 Bedroom $650,000
4 Bedroom $756,000
5 Bedroom $1,099,000
Source: Zillow, March 12, 2026.

The median gross rent in Mountain House exceeded $3,500 per month in 2024, nearly double the San Joaquin County median of $1,788, according to the ACS 2019–2024. According to Zillow data from March 2026, average monthly rents ranged from $1,700 for a 1-bedroom unit to $2,675 for a 2-bedroom unit, $3,178 for a 3-bedroom unit, and $3,510 for a 4-bedroom unit, as shown in Table 4-20. Comparing these rents to the ability-to-pay estimates in Table 4-18, a 4-bedroom unit at $3,510 per month is out of reach for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households and marginally exceeds the maximum affordable rent for moderate-income households at $3,138 per month.

Table 4-20 Average Monthly Rents — Mountain House, 2026 Unit Type Average Monthly Rent
Studio N/A
1 Bedroom $1,700
2 Bedroom $2,675
3 Bedroom $3,178
4 Bedroom $3,510
Source: Zillow, March 12, 2026.

Special-Needs Groups
Seniors
Seniors are defined as persons 65 years and older, and senior households are those headed by a person 65 years and older. Seniors have special housing needs based on factors such as age, health, self-care capacity, economic status, and homeownership. Particular needs include smaller and more efficient housing, barrier-free and accessible housing, and efficient transportation services. Various programs can help meet the needs of seniors, including congregate care, supportive services, rental subsidies, shared housing, and housing rehabilitation assistance.

Table 4-21 shows that 6.4 percent of Mountain House's total population was 65 years or older, notably lower than San Joaquin County at 14.0 percent. Senior-headed households represented 5.6 percent of all households

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 417 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

in Mountain House, with 54.9 percent of senior households being owner occupied and 45.1 percent being renter occupied, suggesting a relatively higher rental housing need among Mountain House seniors.

Table 4-21 Senior Population and Households — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024 Category
Mountain House San Joaquin County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Population
Total Population 25,513 100.0% 816,108 100.0%
Persons 65 Years and Over 1,640 6.4% 113,930 14.0%
Households
Total Households 7,067 100.0% 252,693 100.0%
Senior-Headed Households 397 5.6% 61,396 24.3%
Owner 218 54.9% 47,541 77.4%
Renter 179 45.1% 13,855 22.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2020–2024 (5-Year Estimates), B25007 and S0101.

Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of employment and income challenges; the need for accessible, affordable, and appropriate housing; and higher healthcare costs associated with a disability. A disability is defined by the US Census Bureau as a physical, mental, or emotional condition that lasts over a long period of time and makes it difficult to live independently.

Living arrangements of disabled persons depend on the severity of the disability. Many persons with disabilities live in their own homes in an independent situation or with other family members. The US Census collects data for several categories of disability. The ACS defines six aspects of disability: hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living.
 Hearing difficulty: Deafness or serious difficulty hearing.  Vision difficulty: Blindness or serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses.  Cognitive difficulty: Serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions due to a physical, mental, or emotional condition.
 Ambulatory difficulty: Serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.  Self-care difficulty: Difficulty dressing or bathing (Activities of Daily Living [ADL]).

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 418 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mountain House Housing Element Page 4-21
 Independent living difficulty: Difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping, due to a physical, mental, or emotional condition.

According to the 2020–2024 ACS, 6.0 percent of the population in the city had some type of disability. As shown in Table 4-22, the majority of individuals in Mountain House had a cognitive difficulty at 46.0 percent, followed by ambulatory difficulty at 35.8 percent, and independent living difficulty at 35.2 percent.

Table 4-22 Disability by Type — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024 Disability Type
Mountain House San Joaquin County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Total Population with a Disability 1,532 6.0% 102,868 12.7% Hearing Difficulty 223 14.6% 25,275 24.6%
Vision Difficulty 214 14.0% 22,395 21.8%
Cognitive Difficulty 705 46.0% 39,343 38.2%
Ambulatory Difficulty 548 35.8% 50,972 49.6%
Self-Care Difficulty 431 28.1% 22,785 22.1%
Independent Living Difficulty 539 35.2% 38,508 37.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2020–2024 (5-Year Estimates), S1810.

Note: Percentages are calculated as a share of the total population with a disability. Because individuals may have more than one disability type, percentages will not add up to 100 percent.

Persons with Developmental Disabilities
California Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) requires the City to include the needs of those with a developmental disability within the community in its analysis of special-needs groups. According to Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, "developmental disability" means a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age; continues or can be expected to continue indefinitely; and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. It includes intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism.

This term also includes disabling conditions closely related to intellectual disability or requiring similar treatment but does not include other conditions that are solely physical in nature.

Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled persons require a group living environment where supervision is provided.

The most severely affected persons may require an institutional environment where medical aid and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person's living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 419 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

According to the Department of Developmental Services, shown in Table 4-23, as of 2021, Mountain House had a total of 172 residents with a developmental disability. Of these individuals, 130 (75.6 percent) were between the ages of 0 and 17, and 42 (24.4 percent) were 18 years and over.

Table 4-23 Population with a Developmental Disability — Mountain House (ZIP 95391), 2021 Age Group Number (ZIP 95391) Percentage
17 Years or Younger 130 75.6%
18+ Years 42 24.4%
Total Developmental Disability Population 172 100.0%
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, January 2022.

Table 4-24 shows the residence type of regional center consumers in Mountain House as of 2021. The majority, 168 individuals, lived in the home of a parent, family member, or guardian, with fewer than 11 residing in independent or supported living arrangements and fewer than 11 in foster or family homes. No residents were housed in community care or intermediate care facilities, indicating that family-based care is the predominant living arrangement for developmentally disabled individuals in Mountain House.

Table 4-24 Regional Center Consumers by Residence Type — Mountain House (ZIP 95391), 2021 ZIP
Code
Home of
Parent/Family/
Guardian
Independent/
Supported
Living
Community
Care
Facility
Intermediate
Care Facility
Foster/
Family
Home
Other Total
Residents
95391 168 <11 0 0 <11 0 >168
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, January 2022.

Large Households
Large households are defined as households with five or more members. Large households comprise a specialneeds group because of the need for larger dwelling units with three or more bedrooms, which are often in limited supply and therefore command higher prices. To save for other basic necessities, such as food, clothing, and medical care, it is common for large lower-income households to reside in smaller dwelling units, frequently resulting in overcrowding.

Table 4-25 shows large household data for Mountain House and San Joaquin County as of 2024. There were 7,067 total households in Mountain House, of which 18.4 percent were made up of five or more persons, closely mirroring San Joaquin County at 19.4 percent. Owner-occupied large households accounted for 13.1 percent of all Mountain House households, while renter-occupied large households accounted for 5.3 percent, indicating that large households in Mountain House are more prevalent among owners than renters.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 420 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mountain House Housing Element Page 4-23
Table 4-25 Large Households — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024 Household Size
Mountain House San Joaquin County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Owner Occupied, 5 or More Persons 927 13.1% 30,404 12.0% Renter Occupied, 5 or More Persons 376 5.3% 18,629 7.4% Total 5 or More Persons 1,303 18.4% 49,033 19.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2020–2024 (5-Year Estimates), B25009.

Female-Headed Households
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a single-headed household contains a household head and at least one dependent, which could include a child, elderly parent, or non-related child. Female-headed households have special housing needs because they are most likely either single parents or single elderly adults living on low- or poverty-level incomes. Single-parent households with children often require special consideration and assistance as a result of their greater need for affordable housing, accessible daycare, healthcare, and a variety of other supportive services. Single-parent households also tend to receive unequal treatment in the rental housing market. Moreover, because of their relatively lower household incomes, single-parent households are more likely to experience difficulties in finding affordable, decent, and safe housing.

Survivors of domestic violence with children represent a particularly vulnerable sub-group of female-headed households with acute housing needs. According to HCD and the National Low Income Housing Coalition's Women and Housing Task Force, the female-headed household group probably has the most extensive housing needs and is disproportionately affected by the current housing situation. This housing need is exacerbated by a lack of adequate and affordable childcare, which would enable the mother to pursue ways of increasing her earning capacity. With rising childcare costs, few women in this group are able to work and care for their children at the same time.

Table 4-26 shows there were 358 female-headed households in Mountain House, representing 5.1 percent of all households, notably lower than San Joaquin County at 15.4 percent. Of those, 2.7 percent were households with children under 18. Female-headed households without related children under 18 represented 2.4 percent of all Mountain House households.

Table 4-26 Female Headed Households — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024 Type of Household
Mountain House San Joaquin County
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Total Households 7,067 100.0% 252,693 100.0%
Total Female Householders 358 5.1% 38,884 15.4%

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 421 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Female Households with Related
Children <18 189 2.7% 19,496 7.7%
Female Households without
Related Children < 18 169 2.4% 19,388 7.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2020–2024 B11003; B11001.

Farmworkers
Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. Permanent farmworkers typically work in fields, orchards, and processing plants.

When workloads increase during harvest periods, the labor force is supplemented by seasonal or migrant labor.

Agricultural activity in Mountain House is limited given its urban nature as a master-planned community.

According to the 2024 ACS, 530 workers, or 4.5 percent of the employed labor force, were employed in the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining sectors. This figure represents residents employed in these industries and does not reflect the number of agricultural jobs located within Mountain House.

The surrounding San Joaquin County, however, supports a significant agricultural workforce. Table 4-27 shows that as of 2022, San Joaquin County had 1,534 total farms with 16,068 hired farmworkers. Of those, 8,951 workers worked 150 days or more, while 7,117 worked fewer than 150 days.

Migrant farm labor on farms with hired labor totaled 3,740 workers across 254 farms. While Mountain House itself has little demonstrated need for seasonal or transient farmworker housing, the broader regional agricultural workforce underscores the importance of considering farmworker housing needs at the countywide level.

Table 4-27 Farmworkers by Type of Farm Labor — San Joaquin County, 2022 Type of Farm Labor Workers Farms
Total Farms - 1,534
Hired farm workers 16,068 -
Workers by days worked – 150 days or more 8,951 1,009
Workers by days worked – Less than 150 days 7,117 1,021 Migrant farm labor on farms with hired labor 3,740 254
Migrant farm labor on farms reporting only contract labor 1,116 92 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (2024), 2022 Census of Agriculture, Volume 1, Chapter 2: County Level Data, California.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 422 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mountain House Housing Element Page 4-25
Extremely Low-Income Households
An extremely low-income (ELI) household is defined as a household earning 30 percent or less of the area median income. According to HCD, the median income for a four-person household in San Joaquin County was $108,100 in 2025. Based on this definition, an extremely low-income household of four earns less than $33,000 a year.

Employees earning the California minimum wage of $16.50 per hour and working 40 hours a week would be considered extremely low income, as their total annual earnings would be $34,320.

As shown in Table 4-28, extremely low-income households in Mountain House total 205 households, representing approximately 3.3 percent of all occupied households, based on HUD CHAS 2018–2022 data. Of these, 135 are renter-occupied (65.9 percent) and 70 are owner-occupied (34.1 percent). All 70 extremely lowincome owner households are overpaying for housing and are also severely cost-burdened, representing 34.1 percent of all extremely low-income households in Mountain House. Among extremely low-income renter households, 45 of 135 are overpaying, representing 22.0 percent of all extremely low-income households, and all overpaying renter households are also severely cost-burdened.

Households with extremely low incomes have a range of housing situations and needs. This population includes persons experiencing homelessness, persons with disabilities, farmworkers, college students, single parents, seniors living on fixed incomes, and the long-term unemployed. For some extremely low-income residents, housing may not present a challenge, as students, domestic workers, or family members may live in accessory dwelling units or shared arrangements at low or no rent. Other extremely low-income residents spend a substantial share of their monthly income on housing or alternate between homelessness and temporary living arrangements with friends and family.

Extremely low-income households often face a combination of housing challenges related to income, credit status, disability or mobility status, family size, household composition, or supportive service needs, and these challenges may be compounded by limited affordable housing opportunities. Many extremely low-income households seek rental housing and are most likely to experience overpayment, overcrowding, or substandard housing conditions, along with the risk of displacement. Some extremely low-income households may include members with mental health conditions, physical disabilities, or other special needs. Program HE-2.6 has been included to help address the needs of extremely low-income households.

Table 4-28 Extremely Low-Income Households — Mountain House, 2018 –2022 Extremely Low-Income Household Characteristics Number Percentage of Total ELI Total Extremely low-income households 205 100.0%
Total Extremely low-income households – renters 135 65.9% Total Extremely low-income households – owners 70 34.1% Extremely low-income Renter households overpaying 45 22.0% Extremely low-income Owner households overpaying 70 34.1% Extremely low-income Renter households severely overpaying 45 22.0% Extremely low-income Owner households severely overpaying 70 34.1% Source: HUD CHAS 2018–2022.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 423 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Persons Experiencing Homelessness
For any community, measuring the number of homeless individuals is a difficult task, in part because homelessness is a temporary, not permanent, condition in most cases. Therefore, a more appropriate measure of the magnitude of homelessness is the number of people who experience homelessness over time, not the exact number of homeless people at any given time. However, the most recent information available for the city is a “point-in-time” (PIT) count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons. It is important to note that the PIT count can be impacted by different elements, including the time of year the count is performed, weather conditions that force migrant farm workers to move north, general weather conditions, and data collection methods.

The most recent Point-in-Time (PIT) count was conducted in early 2024. In 2024, the Continuum of Care revised its methods to include an evening street and shelter count, an afternoon youth count, as well as a survey. It is estimated that this change in strategy may have improved the accuracy and breadth of the community that could be reached through the process. Since the 2024 PIT Count was conducted prior to the City's incorporation, data specific to Mountain House was not available, including the total number of individuals experiencing homelessness or the areas within the city where these individuals tend to live or congregate. Conversations with Rank Security, which provides public safety support in the form of 24/7 mobile patrols and visibility at key locations throughout the city, is aware of one person who is unhoused.

The 2024 PIT count reported 3,469 unsheltered homeless individuals living within the geographic region of San Joaquin County (Table 4-29). Of those, 71 percent were in Stockton, 7 percent were in Manteca, 3 percent were in Tracy, and 8 percent were in Lodi. An additional 11 percent of unsheltered homeless persons were counted in the unincorporated county (387 persons). Comparing the 2024 PIT with the 2022 PIT is challenging, as the 2022 PIT count was not conducted in the unincorporated area. However, at the time, Central Valley Low Income Housing Corporation estimated that there were approximately 87 unsheltered people in the unincorporated county in 2022 based on changes from the 2019 data.

Table 4-29 Point-In-Time Count, Sheltered and Unsheltered Homeless — Mountain House and San Joaquin County, 2024
Location 2024 PIT
Unsheltered
2024 PIT
Sheltered
Percent of Unsheltered
Homeless
Stockton 2,451 545 71%
Manteca 235 70 7%
Tracy 102 98 3%
Lodi 262 154 8%
Lathrop 10 0 0%
Ripon 21 0 1%
Escalon 1 0 0%
Unincorporated County 387 365 11%
Scattered Sites 0 31 0%
Total 3,469 1,263 100%
Source: San Joaquin Continuum of Care, San Joaquin County 2024 Homelessness Point-in-Time Count & Report.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 424 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mountain House Housing Element Page 4-27
Local governments and private charities, both with limited resources, have been overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problem. Most emergency shelters in the county, whether they serve individuals or families, operate at or near capacity year-round. During maximum times of need, there are many more people experiencing homelessness than available emergency shelter spaces/beds.

Shelters are primarily located in Stockton, Lodi, Tracy, and Manteca. Some of the major shelter providers are the Stockton Shelters for the Homeless, the Gospel Center’s Rescue Mission in Stockton, the New Hope Family Shelter in Manteca, and the Salvation Army (Hope Harbor Shelter) in Lodi. There are over a dozen other shelter providers whose operations are smaller in scale. Efforts are also being made to find additional shelter space.

Table 4-30 Overnight and Emergency Facilities
Facility/Provider Description
Gospel Center
Rescue Mission
(GCRM)
GCRM operates an emergency shelter for up to 100 homeless men, women, and children.

GCRM also operates a Recuperative Care Program (RCP) that provides 24-hour shelter beds for people who are too well to be in the hospital but too sick to recuperate on the streets. The RCP has up to 50 beds.

Haven of Peace
The Haven of Peace is a two-week shelter for women and their children with the capacity to house 35 individuals, including both adults and children. The shelter offers management, a variety of classes to residents such as life skills, parenting, budgeting, and computer classes.

Residents are referred to other agencies for assistance with domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health, and other issues. There is a possibility of extending the stay to up to six months if residents work with their case manager and are reaching goals toward achieving selfsufficiency.

Hope Family Shelter The Hope Family Shelter can house 8 families. Food, clothing, utilities, and counseling are provided.

Lodi House Lodi House is a shelter for women and their children. The facility houses approximately 7 adults and their children.

McHenry House
The McHenry House, located in Tracy, provides shelter and meals for single women, women with children, and couples. Up to 18 people are housed for a maximum stay of 15 days. The shelter typically serves 7 families at a time.

Hope Harbor
Shelter
Hope Harbor is the largest shelter in Lodi, which can accommodate women with children, men, and single-family units. It is also the only shelter in the area that can house single fathers with children. Clients may stay 56 nights per calendar year with an option of a 28-day extension should they enter into case management.

Stockton Shelter for
the Homeless (SSH)
SSH provides temporary shelter for single adults and families. The shelter can house up to 357 people in its two facilities and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) homes.

The shelter assists clients in obtaining permanent housing.

Women’s Center—
Youth and Family
Services, Safe
House
Safe House offers up to 21 days of shelter and supportive services for runaway, throwaway, and homeless youth ages 12–17. This facility can assist up to 10 youths at a given time plus their children.

Women’s Center of
San Joaquin County,
Dawn House
Dawn House is a shelter for abused women and their children. This facility houses approximately 42 adults and children. The length of stay is normally 30 to 60 days.

Source: San Joaquin Human Services Agency; FindHelp.org, accessed August 2026

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 425 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Analysis of At-Risk Housing
Inventory of Affordable Units
As required by California Government Code Section 65583, the housing element must analyze the extent to which below-market-rate units are at risk of converting to market-rate housing. If there are at-risk units, the element should include programs to encourage preservation of these units or to replace any that are converted to market rate. The units under consideration are any units that were constructed using federal assistance programs, state or local mortgage revenue bonds, redevelopment tax increments, in-lieu fees or an inclusionary housing ordinance, or density bonuses. Housing is considered “at risk” if it is eligible to be converted to marketrate housing due to (1) the termination of a rental subsidy contract, (2) mortgage prepayment, or (3) the expiration of affordability restrictions.

According to California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC), as of June 2026, the City of Mountain House does not currently have any state- or federally-funded affordable housing developments within its city limits.

CHPC's Preservation Database tracks affordable rental developments with active federal, state, or local subsidies and affordability restrictions, including HUD project-based Section 8, USDA Rural Development, LIHTC, HCD multifamily programs, and tax-exempt bond-financed properties. Mountain House also has no locally deedrestricted affordable units created through inclusionary zoning, density bonus agreements, or other local mechanisms. As a result, there are no affordable units within the city that are at risk of converting to marketrate or other non-low-income uses during the planning period.

Financial Resources
This section provides information on the regional, State, and federal financial resources that are available to support the City of Mountain House’s housing programs. Because of the high cost of new construction, more than one source of public funds is often required to construct an affordable housing development. Existing residential development in the City of Mountain House has largely relied on private investment. Therefore, this section will provide an overview of the potential funding sources available for affordable housing development.

Housing Authority of San Joaquin County
The Housing Authority of San Joaquin County (HACSJ) has several programs to assist households in San Joaquin County in need of assistance with housing costs, including the Housing Choice Vouchers(HCVs) Program, public housing, and migrant farmworker housing. HACSJ owns and manages over 1,000 public housing units throughout San Joaquin County, with two developments in Stockton, one development in Tracy, and one development in Thornton. HACSJ provides housing and other services to migrant families at three seasonal locations (one in Lodi and two in French Camp) and one year-round location in Thornton. Lastly, HACSJ manages 5,174 housing choice vouchers, including 13 households that participate in Homeownership Voucher options. The HCV program offers tenant-based vouchers for use in the private rental market, project-based vouchers tied to specific developments, and homeownership vouchers that allow qualifying participants to apply their subsidy toward monthly homeownership expenses.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 426 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mountain House Housing Element Page 4-29
According to 2025 HUD data, there were 29 HCVs in the City of Mountain House. Note that due to the census tract boundaries, some voucher holders could be outside the city limits.

Funding Programs
The programs in Table 4-31 are available to assist the City in meeting its affordable housing goals.

Table 4-31 Funding Programs
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities Federal Programs
Community
Development Block
Grant Program (CDBG)
Federal program administered in California by
HCD through an annual Notice of Funding
Availability, competitively awarded in alignment
with the state's HUD Consolidated Plan. Because
Mountain House is not a HUD entitlement
jurisdiction, the City may access CDBG funds
through the state-administered program.

Single-family housing rehabilitation,
homebuyer assistance,
infrastructure in support of
housing, multifamily housing
rehabilitation.

HOME Investment
Partnerships Program
(HOME)
Federal program administered in California by
HCD through an annual Notice of Funding
Availability. Mountain House may access HOME
funds through the state-administered program.

New affordable rental housing;
rehabilitation of existing affordable
rental housing; homeownership
programs; owner-occupied housing
rehabilitation; tenant-based rental
assistance.

Continuum of Care
(CoC) Program
The San Joaquin Continuum of Care accesses
state and federal CoC funding through HUD.

Funds are passed through to service providers at
the county level.

Rental subsidies, rapid rehousing,
emergency shelter, and
homelessness prevention.

State Programs
Permanent Local
Housing Allocation
(PLHA)
Ongoing formula-based funding provided
through SB 2 (Building Homes and Jobs Act).

Annual allocations fluctuate based on state
revenues.

Affordable rental housing for
households below 80% AMI;
affordable rental and ownership
housing (including ADUs) for
households up to 120% AMI; capital
costs for navigation centers,
emergency shelters, and permanent
and transitional housing for people
experiencing homelessness.

Affordable Housing
and Sustainable
Communities Program
(AHSC)
State program funded by the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund (cap-and-trade). Recent
program revisions encourage greater
participation from rural communities.

Grants for infill affordable housing
and infrastructure that reduces
vehicle trips and greenhouse gas
emissions.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 427 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities Infill Infrastructure
Grant Program (IIG)
Funding from Proposition 1 (Veterans and
Affordable Housing Bond Act). Funding will
sunset when bond proceeds are fully disbursed.

HCD generally issues one NOFA per year.

Gap funding for infrastructure
improvements necessary for
specific residential or mixed-use
infill projects.

Multifamily Housing
Program (MHP)
State program that provides low-interest, longterm financing for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent
and transitional rental housing for lower-income
households.

New construction, rehabilitation,
and preservation of affordable
rental housing; supportive housing.

Veterans Housing and
Homelessness
Prevention Program
(VHHP)
State program that provides capital funding for
affordable multifamily housing serving veterans
and their families.

New construction, acquisition, and
rehabilitation of multifamily
housing serving veterans, including
supportive housing.

Homekey State program providing grants to local public
entities to acquire and rehabilitate a variety of
building types (motels, hotels, vacant
apartments, and other properties) and convert
them to permanent or interim housing.

Acquisition and rehabilitation for
interim or permanent housing for
individuals experiencing or at risk of
homelessness.

Local Housing Trust
Fund (LHTF) Program
State matching grant program that supports the
creation and expansion of local housing trust
funds dedicated to the creation, rehabilitation,
or preservation of affordable housing.

Predevelopment, acquisition,
construction, rehabilitation, and
preservation of affordable owneroccupied and rental housing.

CalHFA Homebuyer's
Down Payment
Assistance Program
Below-market loans to first-time homebuyers of
up to 3% of the sales price. Operates through
participating lenders.

Down payment assistance for firsttime homebuyers.

CalHFA Dream For All
Shared Appreciation
Loan Program
State-funded shared appreciation loan program
administered by CalHFA that provides first-time,
first-generation homebuyers with up to 20
percent of the home purchase price (capped at
$150,000) as down payment and closing cost
assistance. The loan is repaid with a share of the
home's appreciation when the property is sold,
refinanced, or transferred. The 2025-26 State
Budget provided $300 million for the program,
with CalHFA expected to make $150 to $200
million available annually through a randomized
selection process.

Down payment and closing cost
assistance for first-time, firstgeneration homebuyers.

State HOME
Investment
Partnerships Program
State-administered HOME funding provided as
grants to local governments and nonprofit
agencies.

Homebuyer assistance;
rehabilitation; new construction;
rental assistance.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 428 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mountain House Housing Element Page 4-31
Program Name Description of Program Eligible Activities CalHome Program Grants awarded to jurisdictions and nonprofit organizations for owner-occupied housing
rehabilitation and first-time homebuyer
assistance.

Homebuyer assistance; owneroccupied rehabilitation.

Low-Income Housing
Tax Credits (LIHTC)
Federal and state tax credits administered by
the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee
(TCAC) that help owners of rental units develop
affordable housing.

New construction; acquisition and
rehabilitation of affordable rental
housing.

HUD Emergency
Solutions Grants
(State-Administered)
Competitive grants that help local governments
and nonprofits finance emergency shelters,
transitional housing, and supportive services.

New construction; rehabilitation;
homelessness assistance; public
services.

Tax-Exempt Housing
Revenue Bonds
Supports low-income housing development by
issuing tax-exempt bonds that require
developers to lease a fixed percentage of units
to low-income households at specified rents.

Allocated by the California Debt Limit Allocation
Committee (CDLAC).

New construction; rehabilitation;
acquisition.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 429 of 618

4. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 430 of 618 Mountain House Housing Element Page 5-1

5. HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS
California law (Government Code Section 65583 (a)(3)) requires that the housing element contain an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and nonvacant (i.e., underutilized) sites having potential for redevelopment. State law also requires an analysis of the relationship of zoning, public facilities, and services to these sites.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is the State-required process to ensure cities and counties are planning for enough housing to accommodate all economic segments of the community. The process includes the following:

1. Regional Determination: The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) gives each region a regional determination of housing need, which includes a total number of units split into four income categories. Mountain House is in the region covered by San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), and HCD gave SJCOG a regional determination of 52,719 units for the 6th Cycle RHNA (2023-2031). This is the total number of units that the cities and counties in the SJCOG region must collectively plan to accommodate.

2. RHNA Methodology: SJCOG is responsible for developing a RHNA methodology to allocate the regional determination to each city and county in itsregion. This methodology must specifically state objectives including, but not limited to, promoting infill, equity, and environmental protection; ensuring jobs-housing balance; and affirmatively furthering fair housing.

The City of Mountain House’s RHNA was determined through an RHNA transfer between unincorporated San Joaquin County and the city after incorporation on July 1, 2024. Table 5-1 provides the City’s allocation broken down by income category. Of the 5,113 housing units, 1,309 units are allocated to very low-income households (of which 50 percent is allocated to the extremely low-income category), 821 units to low-income households, 886 units to moderate-income households, and 2,097 units to above-moderate households. The total RHNA for Mountain House makes up approximately 9.7 percent of the countywide allocation of 52,719 new units.

3. Housing Element Updates: Each city and county must then adopt a housing element that demonstrates how the jurisdiction can accommodate its assigned RHNA through its zoning. HCD reviews each jurisdiction’s housing element for compliance with state law.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 431 of 618

5. HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS

Table 5-1 Mountain House RHNA
RHNA Income Category Unit Allocation Percentage
Very Low 1,309 26%
Low 821 16%
Moderate 886 17%
Above Moderate 2,097 41%
Total 5,113 100%
Source: San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), Final RHNA Methodology (2022), Regional Housing Needs Allocation Transfer (2025)
*It is assumed that 50 percent of the very low-income category is allocated to the extremely low-income category.

Meeting the RHNA
HCD allows jurisdictions to count four types of credits toward meeting their RHNA:

Actual Production. Jurisdictions can count the number of approved and built units during the RHNA projection period of 2023-2031 (July 1, 2024, in the City’s case) toward their RHNA.

Rehabilitation of Units. Under state law, cities can count up to 25 percent of their RHNA for the rehabilitation of qualified substandard units that would otherwise be demolished.

Preservation of Affordable Units. Assembly Bill (AB) 438 (2002) authorizes jurisdictions to count part of the affordable units that would otherwise revert to market rents but are preserved through committed assistance from the jurisdiction.

Available Land for Development. Cities and counties may also count potential housing production on suitable vacant and underutilized sites within the community.

Housing Production
The 6th Cycle Housing Element projection period began on June 30, 2023, and generally allows jurisdictions to count housing units built or approved on or after that date toward their 6th Cycle RHNA. However, the City of Mountain House did not incorporate until July 1, 2024. Prior to incorporation, Mountain House was part of unincorporated San Joaquin County, and housing activity within the community was reported as part of the County’s RHNA progress. Therefore, using units constructed or approved in Mountain House between June 30, 2023, and June 30, 2024, toward the City’s RHNA could result in those units being counted toward both the County’s and the City’s RHNA obligations.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 432 of 618

5. HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS
Mountain House Housing Element Page 5-3
Accordingly, July 1, 2024, is used as the baseline for reporting the City’s housing production following incorporation. This does not mean that the housing constructed in Mountain House during the prior year is excluded from regional housing production; rather, those units were attributable to San Joaquin County because the area was under the County’s jurisdiction when the units were approved or constructed. The City’s housing production is therefore reported beginning on the date it became a separate jurisdiction responsible for its own land use and housing implementation.

Units Constructed and Approved and Pending Projects
Projects that have been approved, permitted, or constructed since the beginning of the RHNA projection period may be credited toward meeting the RHNA based on the affordability and unit count of the development. For approved or pending projects, the Housing Element can demonstrate that the project is expected to be built within the planning period. For projects that have been constructed, affordability is based on the actual or projected sale prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms establishing affordability in the planning period of the units within the project. However, because the City did not incorporate until July 1, 2024, this analysis assumes that as a starting point for the analysis.

Table 5-2 provides an inventory of the building permits issued since July 1, 2024, and Table 5-3 provides a list of the approved and pending projects.

Table 5-2 Building Permits Issued - July 1, 2024 to Present Year Issued Unit Type1 Total Units Affordability
2024
Single-Family Dwelling 104 Market Rate
Duet1 23 Market Rate
2025
Single-Family Dwelling 509 Market Rate
Duet 52 Market Rate
2026
Single-Family Dwelling 171 Market Rate
Duet 7 Market Rate
Total 866
Source: City of Mountain House Community Development Department, July 2026. 1 A duet is defined as an attached single-family home where each side is sold separately.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 433 of 618

5. HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 434 of 618

5. HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS
Mountain House Housing Element Page 5-5

Table 5-3 Approved and Pending Projects
Project Name Total
Units
Total
ADUs * Acreage GP/Zoning Year Approved Affordability Project Status* Adler/Sutton (Lennar) 106 33 17.83 R-M 2024 Market Rate Tentative Map approved in 2024. Design Consistency Review Committee (DCRC) approval received in October 2025. Plot plans were pulled in June 2026. Streets are paved and utilities are installed. Residential construction is estimated to begin in September 2026, starting with model homes.

Linden (Lennar) 143 0 22.59 R-M 2024 Market Rate
Tentative Map approved in 2024. DCRC approval received in October 2025. Streets are paved and utilities are installed.

The next step will be pulling plot plans. Residential construction is estimated to begin in September 2026, starting with model homes.

Mahony (Lennar) 81 21 20.29 R-L 2024 Market Rate Tentative Map approved in 2024. DCRC approval received in November 2025. Street and utilities improvements will be installed next. Residential construction is anticipated to begin spring 2027.

Nbhd H, Unit No. 14
(The New Home
Company)
199 7 17.39 R-MH 2024 Market Rate Tentative Map approved in 2024. DCRC approved April 2025. Plot plans were pulled in 2026. Under construction as of April 2026.

Altamira - B11 (KB Home) 115 12 17.3 R-M 2024 Market Rate Tentative Map approved in 2024. DCRC approved July 2025. Plot plans pulled in 2026. Under construction as of June 2026.

Additional A3 Lots 5 0 0.7 R-M 2024 Market Rate Tentative Map approved in 2024. No development is proposed at this time.

Additional B4 Lots 61 6 31.4 R-M 2024 Market Rate Tentative Map approved in 2024. No development is proposed at this time.

I1 – Tract 4198 119 N/A 34.98 R-L In Review Market Rate Final Map has not been recorded. Improvement plans have been submitted and are being reviewed by the City, as of June 2026. DCRC approval has not been received. Civil 4th submittal on April 29, 2026, and joint trench and street lights 2nd submittal on May 14, 2026. Pending Final Map approval/recording, DCRC review and approval, Improvement Plans approval, streets and utilities construction, model homes application review and approval, then residential construction.

Lakehaven – Tract 4199
(Rurka Home) 77 5 21.78 R-L In Review Market Rate Final Map has not been recorded. Received DCRC approval in 2026. Joint trench and streetlights plans are approved, Civil plans approved. Pending Final map submittal and approval.

I3 – Tract 4200 82 N/A 17.44 R-L In Review Market Rate
Final Map has not been recorded. Second submittal on February 3, 2026. DCRC approval has not been received. Civil plans and joint trench and streetlights plans are approved. Pending Final Map approval/recording, DCRC review and approval, Improvement Plans approval, streets and utilities construction, model homes application review and approval, then residential construction.

I4 – Tract 4201 66 N/A 10.45 R-M In Review Market Rate
Final Map has not been recorded. Second submittal February 3, 2026. DCRC approval has not been received. Pending Final Map approval/recording, DCRC review and approval, Improvement Plans approval, streets and utilities construction, model homes application review and approval, then residential construction. Civil plans and joint trench and streetlights plans approved.

I5 – Tract 4202 79 N/A 12.78 R-M In Review Market Rate
Final Map has not been recorded. Improvement plans have been submitted and are being reviewed by the City. DCRC approval has not been received. Pending Final Map approval/recording, DCRC review and approval, Improvement Plans approval, streets and utilities construction, model homes application review and approval, then residential construction.

Civil plans and joint trench and streetlights plans approved.

I6 – Tract 4192 98 N/A 21.48 R-L In Review Market Rate
Final Map has not been recorded. Improvement plans have been submitted and are being reviewed by the City. DCRC approval has not been received. Pending Final Map approval/recording, DCRC review and approval, Improvement Plans approval, streets and utilities construction, model homes application review and approval, then residential construction.

Joint trench and streetlights plans are under review, as well as civil plans and photometrics.

I7 – Tract 4191 160 N/A 30.82 R-M In Review Market Rate Final Map has not been recorded. Improvement plans have been submitted and are being reviewed by the City. DCRC approval has not been received. Pending Final Map approval/recording, DCRC review and approval, Improvement Plans approval, streets and utilities construction, model homes application review and approval, then residential construction.

Joint trench and street lights plans are under review, as well as civil plans and photometrics.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 435 of 618

5. HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS

Project Name Total
Units
Total
ADUs * Acreage GP/Zoning Year Approved Affordability Project Status* I8 – Tract 4193 101 N/A 20.09 R-M In Review Market Rate Final Map has not been recorded. Improvement plans have been submitted and are being reviewed by the City. DCRC approval has not been received. Pending Final Map approval/recording, DCRC review and approval, Improvement Plans approval, streets and utilities construction, model homes application review and approval, then residential construction.

Joint trench and streetlights plans are under review, as well as civil plans and photometrics.

Campelli – Tract 4194
(Rurka Homes) 61 4 10.56 R-M 2025 Market Rate
Final Map was recorded. Received DCRC approval and has begun pulling plot plans. Pending Final Map approval/recording, DCRC review and approval, Improvement Plans approval, streets and utilities construction, model homes application review and approval, then residential construction. Civil plans have been approved. JT & SL plans have been approved. Currently in construction.

I10 – Tract 4197 79 N/A 22.17 R-L In Review Market Rate Final Map has not been recorded. Improvement plans were submitted in July 2025 are being reviewed by the City. DCRC approval has not been received. Pending Final Map approval/recording, DCRC review and approval, Improvement Plans approval, streets and utilities construction, model homes application review and approval, then residential construction.

Civil plans submitted in July 2025.

I11 – Tract 4196 87 N/A 20.13 R-L In Review Market Rate Final Map has not been recorded. Improvement plans have been submitted and are being reviewed by the City. DCRC approval has not been received. Pending Final Map approval/recording, DCRC review and approval, Improvement Plans approval, streets and utilities construction, model homes application review and approval, then residential construction.

Civil plans were submitted in July 2025.

I12 – Tract 4195 115 N/A 19.98 R-M In Review Market Rate Final Map has not been recorded. Improvement plans have been submitted and are being reviewed by the City. DCRC approval has not been received. Pending Final Map approval/recording, DCRC review and approval, Improvement Plans approval, streets and utilities construction, model homes application review and approval, then residential construction.

Civil plans were submitted in July 2025.

Tract 3936 104 N/A 9.89 R-MH 2026 Market Rate
Tentative Map approved August 12, 2026. Civil plans submitted 8/11/26 and in review by City. Pending Final Map approval/recording, DCRC review and approval, Improvement Plans approval, streets and utilities construction, model homes application review and approval, then residential construction.

TOTAL UNITS 1,938 88 380.05
Source: City of Mountain House, July 2026.
*Note, ADU affordability is based on analysis on page 5-7

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 436 of 618

5. HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS
Mountain House Housing Element Page 5-7
Accessory Dwelling Unit Potential
California Government Code Section 65583.1(a) states that a town, city, or county may identify sites for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) based on the number of ADUs developed in the prior housing element planning period, whether the units are permitted by right, the need for ADUs in the community, the resources or incentives available for their development, and any other relevant factors. Based on recent changes in state law that reduce the time to review and approve ADU applications, require ADUs that meet requirements to be allowed by right, eliminate discretionary review for most ADUs, and remove other restrictions on ADUs, it is anticipated that the production of ADUs will increase in the 6th cycle housing element planning period.

As part of the Mountain House Master Plan and Specific Plans I, II, and III, residential projects are required to provide ADUs on a minimum percentage of parcels, which is at least 6.5 percent in the Specific Plan I and II areas and at least 10 percent in the Specific Plan III area. The Master Plan and Specific Plans also require that ADUs be distributed throughout the community rather than concentrated within a single neighborhood to promote broader housing opportunities. Since the new residential development incorporates ADUs into the residential design and there is a significant number of approved or pending projects, and most development will occur within the Specific Plan III area, the City records that 9.29 percent of all new residential units will have ADUs, which will help meet the RHNA. However, the City has opted for a more conservative approach and is basing ADU projections for the planning period based on the number of ADUs associated with approved and pending projects rather than calculating projected ADUs based on the remaining capacity in the various Specific Plans (Table 5-3). In the 2 years since incorporation, 88 ADUs have been approved in conjunction with residential development, for an average of 44 ADUs per year. The City will use this estimate to project ADUs for the remainder of the planning period.

Using the estimated 44 ADUs per year, this results in 220 ADUs projected over the remaining five years of the planning period (2027–2031). When combined with the 88 approved or pending ADUs, the City estimates a total of 308 ADUs will be developed during the remainder of the planning period. Table 5-4 below provides additional information on the ADU assumptions relative to the City’s Specific Plans.

Though ADUs are often naturally more affordable due to their smaller size and lack of additional land cost compared to development of standalone single-family houses, when considering affordability, the City opted to take a conservative approach and distribute these 308 ADUs among the four income categories. While Mountain House is not in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) region, ABAG’s 2021 regional analysis of existing ADU rents is a useful starting point for affordability due to its proximity to the Bay Area. The ABAG analysis assumed allocation of 30 percent of ADUs to very low-income households, 30 percent to low-income households, 30 percent to moderate-income households, and 10 percent to above-moderate-income households.

To further determine the affordability of ADU costs in Mountain House, the City completed a survey of rental listings in the City of Mountain House on Zillow.com in May 2026. The average monthly rents were $1,399 for a studio, $1,600 for a one-bedroom unit, and $2,663 for a two-bedroom unit.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 437 of 618

5. HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS

The City then relied on the 2026 Area Median Income (AMI) for San Joaquin County to determine which income categories could afford these rental rates. The following list provides the maximum affordable monthly rent for a one-, two-, and three-person low-income household:
 A low-income household of three could afford a monthly rent of $1,946.  A low-income household of two could afford a monthly rent of $1,730.  A low-income household of one could afford a monthly rent of $1,513.

The survey showed that low-income households can most likely afford the rental rates in Mountain House. Based on this data and the ABAG affordability study while still adopting a conservative approach, the City allocated 30 percent of ADUs to very low-income households, 30 percent to low-income households, 30 percent to moderateincome households, and 10 percent to above-moderate-income households. Of the 308 ADUs to meet the RHNA during the planning period (220 projected and 88 already approved), it is estimated that 185 will be affordable to lower-income households (extremely low-, very low-, and low-), 92 to moderate-income households, and 31 to above-moderate-income households. To encourage affordability of new ADUs, through Program HE-2.3, the City will seek funding to incentivize ADU affordability.

Table 5-4 Projected ADUs
ADUs Approved since
Incorporation (2 years)
Per-year
Average
Projected ADUs for the
remainder of the Planning
Period*
Number of ADUs 88 44 220
Source: City of Mountain House - Planning (Building Permit Activity Reports). * This estimate was calculated by applying 44 ADUs per year average to the remaining five years of the planning period (2027-2031).

Vacant Sites Inventory
To demonstrate the City’s capacity to potentially meet its RHNA, an adequate sites inventory was prepared. The inventory must identify adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards, together with public services and facilities to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing types for households of all income levels. Analyzing the relationship of suitable sites to zoning is a means for determining a realistic number of dwelling units that could be constructed on those sites in the current planning period.

The residential land inventory is required “to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for all income levels” (Government Code Section 65583.2(a)). The phrase “land suitable for residential development” in Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) includes all of the following:
 Vacant sites zoned for residential use.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 438 of 618

5. HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS
Mountain House Housing Element Page 5-9
 Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allow residential development.  Underutilized or nonvacant residentially zoned sites that are capable of being redeveloped.  Sites zoned for nonresidential use that can be redeveloped for and, as necessary, rezoned for residential use.

This section provides an inventory of the vacant land that is suitable and available within Mountain House for residential development and the remaining capacity available for development in the Mountain House Specific Plan areas. In addition to this assessment, this section considers the availability of sites to accommodate a variety of housing types suitable for households with a range of income levels and housing needs.

Realistic Capacity
To provide an accurate capacity assumption, the City reviewed the net densities achieved by residential projects with the maximum allowable densities for their properties. Table 5-5 shows a sample of recently built projects and their density per acre compared to the maximum density of the General Plan Land Use designation in which they were built. The sample projects developed at an average of 99.12 percent of the maximum density, with one project exceeding 100 percent. To avoid going over the project limits, the city assumed a realistic capacity of 85 percent for sites used to meet the moderate- and above-moderate income RHNA and a realistic capacity of 90 percent for R-H sites meet the lower-income RHNA. For M-X sites, the City has a residential requirement of 75 percent (see Program HE-1.2), and this number is therefore assumed to be the realistic capacity for these sites.

Table 5-5 Sample Projects
Project
Name
Total
Units
General Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation Acreage
Max.

Allowable
Density
(du/acre)
Project
Density
(du/acre)
Realistic
Capacity
Aviara
(2022) 304 R/H (High Density Residential)
R-H (High Density
Residential) 15 20 20.26 101.3%
Vida
(2022) 172 R/H (High Density Residential)
R-H (High Density
Residential) 9 20 19.11 95.6%
Total 476 - - 24 - 19.83 99.2%
Source: City of Mountain House (2026)

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 439 of 618

5. HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS

Specific Plans
The Mountain House Master Plan was implemented through three phased Specific Plans that guide the overall development of the community (Figure 5-1). The Master Plan, originally adopted in 2005 and revised in 2024, envisions a fully built-out community of approximately 16,000 dwelling units across 12 neighborhoods, along with employment centers, schools, parks, and commercial uses. Given that the city has roughly 9,242 housing units, it is estimated that 7,235 units remain until buildout under the existing Master Plan and Specific Plans.  Specific Plan I was adopted on November 10,
1994, and established the first phase of
development within Mountain House. The
plan covers approximately 1,348 acres
and includes three of the community’s 12
planned neighborhoods, as well as
commercial, business park, industrial,
school, and public facility uses. Specific
Plan I established the initial development
framework for Mountain House and
introduced the neighborhood-centered
planning concept that organizes
residential areas around schools, parks,
and neighborhood services.
 Specific Plan II was adopted on February
8, 2005, and expanded the community
through development of several
additional neighborhoods, the Town
Center area, community commercial uses,
parks, schools, and supporting
infrastructure. The plan includes
Neighborhoods C, D, H, I, J, K, and L and
serves as the central organizing area for
the community, including the mixed-use
Town Center envisioned as the civic and
commercial core of Mountain House.
 Specific Plan III was adopted on November 22, 2005, and provides the framework for the remaining phases of residential growth and associated community infrastructure. The plan focuses on additional residential neighborhoods, neighborhood centers, open space, parks, and supporting commercial and public uses needed to complete the community buildout envisioned in the Master Plan. Specific Plan III also includes updated development standards, housing programs, and implementation measures intended to support long-term community growth.

Figure 5-1 Mountain House Specific
Source: City of Mountain House General Plan Background Report, 2026

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 440 of 618

5. HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS
Mountain House Housing Element Page 5-11
Available Sites
Table 5-6 and Figure 5-2 show the available sites to meet the RHNA. While sites to meet the lower-income RHNA are listed individually, sites meeting the moderate- and above moderate-income RHNA are summarized below and a full listing of all vacant sites assumed to meet the RHNA is in Appendix A.

Table 5-6 Vacant Land Inventory
Site
# APN Acreage Zoning General Plan
Maximum
Density
Realistic
Capacity Vacant Water Sewer**
Residential Sites to Meet the Lower-Income RHNA
1 26202004 5.37 R-H R/H 40 193 Yes Y Y
2 25804019 4.01 R-H R/H 40 144 Yes Y N
3 25804024 3.73 R-H R/H 40 134 Yes Y N
4 20906062* 16.93 R-H R/H 40 334* Yes Y Y
5 20904024 2.71 R-H R/H 40 97 Yes Y N
Total 32.75 - - - 904 - - -
Mixed-Use Sites to Meet the Lower-Income RHNA
6 25455019 10.21 M-X M/X 40 306 Yes Y N
7 25455017 7.05 M-X M/X 40 218 Yes Y N
8 25455018 12.32 M-X M/X 40 370 Yes Y N
9 25455016 4.78 M-X M/X 40 143 Yes Y N
10 25804015 4.47 M-X M/X 40 134 Yes Y N
11 25804020 4.62 M-X M/X 40 139 Yes Y N
12 25804021 6.55 M-X M/X 40 196 Yes Y N
13 20906061* 16.08 M-X M/X 40 * Yes Y Y
Total 66.08 - - - 1,500 - - -
Moderate Sites to Meet the RHNA
RH-M 50.77 R-MH R/MH 15 548 Yes - -
RM 139.38 R-M R/M 7.5 883 Yes - -
Total 190.15 1,431
Above-Moderate Sites to Meet the RHNA
RL 189.54 R-L R/L 6 957 Yes - -
R-VL 3.12 - R/VL 2 5 Yes - -
RM 15.34 R-M R/M 7.5 101 Yes
Total 192.66 1,063
Source: City of Mountain House, 2026
* Sites 4 and 13 are part of a proposed development project that has not been approved or pulled building permits. To more accurately account for units toward the City's RHNA, the City elected to use the project's proposed unit count rather than the site's calculated realistic capacity.
** Sewer capacity is currently sufficient however Program HE-1.4 has been included to ensure that development is consistent with existing Master Plan and Specific Plan requirements for sewer connections and improvements to be part of approved development.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 441 of 618

5. HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS

Future Residential Capacity
The City anticipates the future annexation ofsix vacant parcels which will provide additional residential capacity.

These sites are listed in Table 5-7 and mapped in Figure 5-2. Collectively, the parcels comprise approximately

4.91 acres and are currently designated Residential Very Low (R-VL) under the County’s General Plan and zoning regulations. However, upon annexation, these sites would be designated as Residential High (R/H) as part of the City’s General Plan Land Use Map and zoning regulations and would allow for up to 40 units per acre. At this density, these parcels would provide the City additional residential capacity for at least 177 units eligible to use to meet the lower income RHNA. The six parcels are surrounded by the Mountain House city limits and are all under common ownership. The sites do not have any potential constraints to development, and no other conditions that could impact housing development, including shape, contamination, easements, conditions, or compatibility. While these sites are included in the analysis, the city is not relying on these sites to meet the RHNA but are included in the sites analysis to provide future surplus once annexed.

Table 5-7 Surplus Capacity when Annexed
Site
# APN Acreage Zoning General Plan
Maximum
Density
Realistic
Capacity Vacancy Water Sewer
Residential Sites to Meet the Lower-Income RHNA
S-1 209-45-005 3.00 n/a R/H 40 108 Yes Y Y
S-2 209-45-006 0.34 n/a R/H 40 12 Yes Y Y
S-3 209-45-007 0.27 n/a R/H 40 10 Yes Y Y
S-4 209-45-008 0.33 n/a R/H 40 12 Yes Y Y
S-5 209-45-009 0.33 n/a R/H 40 12 Yes Y Y
S-6 209-45-010 0.64 n/a R/H 40 23 Yes Y Y
Total 4.91 177
Source: City of Mountain House, 2026

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 442 of 618

5. HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS
Mountain House Housing Element Page 5-13
Figure 5-2 Available Vacant Sites

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 443 of 618

5. HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS
Mountain House Housing Element Page 5-15
Meeting the RHNA
Table 5-8A and 5-8B provide a summary of Mountain House’s ability to meet the 2023-2031 RHNA. Table 5-8B shows the city’s residential capacity after considering building permits issued and approved and/or pending projects, totaling 3,145 units, but still showing a need in very low-, low-, and moderate-income categories. Table 5-8B provides a summary of the vacant residential and mixed-use sites capacity along with capacity from proposed ADUs over the remainder of the planning period. After considering the units from Tables 5-8A and 5- 8B, the city has a surplus of 458 units in the lower income category, 637 units in the moderate-income category and 1,801 units in the above moderate-income category. Additionally, to ensure the City maintains sufficient capacity to meet the RHNA, should the parcels identified in Table 5-7 annex into the city within the planning period, the city would have an additional 177 units available to accommodate a portion of the lower income RHNA.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 444 of 618

5. HOUSING SITES ANALYSIS

Table 5-8A Summary of Building Permits issued and Approved/Pending Project Capacity to Meet the RHNA Income Category RHNA
Building Permits
Issued
Since 7/1/24
(Table 5-2)
Approved/
Pending Projects
(Table 5-3)
Approved/
Pending ADUs
(Based on SF unit
development in Table 5 -3)
Total
Capacity
Remaining
RHNA
Very Low 1,309 – – 53 53 2,077
Low 821
Moderate 886 – – 26 26 860
Above Moderate 2,097 866 1,938 9 2,813 0
Total 5,113 866 1,938 88 2,892 2,937
Source: City of Mountain House.

Table 5-8B Summary of Site Capacity and Projected ADUs to Meet the RHNA Income Category Remaining
RHNA
Vacant
Residential
(Table 5-6)
Vacant MX
(Table 5-6)
Projected
ADUs
(Table 5-4)
Total
Capacity
(Vacant and
Proposed
ADUs)
Surplus
Potential
Annexation
Capacity
(Table 5-7)
Surplus
with
Annexation1
Very Low
2,077 904 1,500 132 2,536 458 177 635
Low
Moderate 860 1,431 – 66 1,497 637 0 637
Above Moderate 0 1,063 – 22 1,085 1,801 0 1,801
Total 2,937 3,398 1,500 220 5,118 2,896 177 3,073
Source: City of Mountain House.
1 Should annexation occur within the planning period; the City will have additional capacity to accommodate the RHNA.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 445 of 618

5. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 5-17
Large Site Analysis
Parcels larger than 10 acres, considered a large site, require the housing element to provide analysis demonstrating that large sites are adequate to accommodate a portion of the lower income RHNA.

The City has identified four large sites to meet a portion of the lower income RHNA, including one site in the RH zone and three sites in the M-X zone. Both zones allow residential uses between 15 and 40 dwelling units per acre. Of the four sites, two sites (Sites 4 and 13) are a part of a project pending approval. The other two sites (sites 6 and 8) are zoned M-X and are proposed to meet a portion of the lower income RHNA, providing capacity for 676 units. As a master-planned community, the city’s typical development process is to approve projects on large sites and then subdivide the property into smaller parcels that are available for single family and multifamily development. Unique to Mountain House, the landowners of these parcels are also developers, reducing a significant financial barrier to these parcels’ development for residential use.

To further demonstrate that large sites have developed with multifamily uses in Mountain House, the City looked at project examples. The Vida apartment development, which consisted of 172 units on a 9-acre parcel, for a project density of 19.11 dwelling units per acre. The following timeline outlines the steps needed to process the development:

Table 5-9: Vida Project Application Review Timeline
Milestone Time Elapsed
Application submitted: December 7, 2021 _
Meeting with applicant: April 29, 2022 143 days
Application approved (at the staff level): July 22, 2022 84 days Design consistency review approval: December 11, 2023 507 days Total Time Elapsed 2 years and 4 days
While Table 5-9 shows the total time elapsed from project submittal to design consistency review approval to be two years and four days, it should be noted that this project processing occurred prior to the city’s incorporation and does not reflect the improved processes of more recent projects. In addition, unlike many other jurisdictions in the State, residential development projects are required to provide several improvements, such as streets and utilities, as part of development. This timing is consistent with other jurisdictions with similar residential development projects, some stating that development of large-lot specific plan parcels into subdivisions can range from two to five years.1 It should be further noted that design consistency approval happens concurrently with the Plan Check review and must be completed prior to building permit issuance.

Additionally, the current proposed project on sites 4 and 13 will consist of 334 residential lots across 32.9 acres.

The R-H site includes a proposed development of 128 triplex lots and 80 duet lots and the M-X site is proposed 1 City of Roseville, 2021 Housing Element, pg. X-147 (2021). Housing Element PDF.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 446 of 618

5. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

to have 126 units along with commercial uses across 16.08 acres. Further showing that multifamily develops on large sites.

The City has reviewed these sites for environmental concerns and considerations as well as development and land-use restrictions. None of the large sites identified have any barriers to development that would preclude residential development. These sites are vacant, have access to water infrastructure, and will have access to sewer infrastructure upon development, as described in the City of Mountain House Master Plan and Specific Plans I, II, and III. To facilitate the subdivision of large sites, Program HE-1.3 is added to facilitate the development of large sites.

Site and Environmental Constraints
None of the sites listed in Table 5-6, or sites listed for future capacity, have potential constraints to development.

Additionally, there are no other conditions that could impact housing development such as shape, contamination, easements, conditions, or compatibility. Figure 5-2 identifies the location of those sites listed in Table 5-6.

Availability of Infrastructure
Public water is readily available for most vacant land identified in the site inventory, although most sites do not currently have access to sewer service. In areas that do not already have water and sewer infrastructure, development is typically phased so that the necessary facilities are constructed concurrently with, or prior to, a new development. In the Mountain House planning framework dictated by the Master Plan and Specific Plans I, II, and III, infrastructure is implemented incrementally through Specific Plans, development agreements, financing mechanisms, and subdivision approvals. A new development is generally required to construct and/or fund the necessary backbone and local infrastructure improvements, including water conveyance, treatment, storage, wastewater collection, and treatment facilities, consistent with adopted infrastructure master plans, development agreements, and applicable service provider requirements.

The City operates and maintains municipal water service for the Mountain House community. The City receives water through agreement with the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District (BBID), which supplies water to portions of Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Joaquin Counties. BBID receives a portion of its water supply through the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation's Central Valley Project. In turn, BBID has historic water rights which have been made available to Mountain House to be used domestically. Based on recent water supply trends and available capacity, BBID is expected to have sufficient water resources to meet both existing and projected water demands within Mountain House, including the demand associated with accommodating the City's RHNA.

The City provides wastewater collection and treatment services for the Mountain House community. According to the 2025 Municipal Service Review, the City's 2024 average annual wastewater flow was approximately 1.7 million gallons per day (MGD), while the wastewater treatment plant has a current treatment capacity of approximately 4.0 MGD. The City's wastewater treatment system is planned to accommodate up to 5.4 MGD at buildout. Based on current flows and available treatment capacity, wastewater infrastructure is not expected to constrain future residential development. Program HE-1.4 commits to prioritizing water and sewer service

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 447 of 618

5. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 5-19
allocations for housing developments affordable to lower-income households, consistent with California Government Code Section 65589.7.

The City’s water and sewer infrastructure systems are designed to expand incrementally with development, and sufficient existing and planned capacity is available to accommodate the housing growth projected under the RHNA. Therefore, although certain areas are not currently served by water and wastewater infrastructure, this does not necessarily constitute a constraint to development, as infrastructure improvements are scheduled to be phased and constructed in conjunction with the new development. To ensure that infrastructure does not become a constraint to development, Program HE-1.4 commits to requiring that the new development provide or fund the necessary water and wastewater infrastructure improvements needed to serve the proposed development, in line with current procedures.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 448 of 618 Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-1

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requires that all housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021, contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Final Rule of July 16, 2015.

California Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(ii) requires local jurisdictions to analyze racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. This section is organized by fair housing topics. Strategies to address the identified issues are included throughout the section. Through discussions with housing service providers, fair housing advocates, and this AFH, Mountain House identified factors that contribute to fair housing issues. These contributing factors are in Table 6-5, Factors Contributing to Fair Housing Issues, with associated actions to meaningfully and affirmatively further fair housing related to these factors. Additional programs to affirmatively further fair housing are included in Section 8 of this Housing Element, Goals, Policies, and Programs.

This section also includes an analysis of the Housing Element’s site inventory compared with fair housing factors.

The location of housing in relation to resources and opportunities is integral to addressing disparities in housing needs and opportunity and to fostering inclusive communities where all residents have access to opportunity.

This is particularly important for lower-income households. AB 686 added a new requirement for housing elements to analyze the distribution of projected units by income category and access to high-resource areas and other fair housing indicators compared to citywide patterns to understand how the projected locations of units will affirmatively further fair housing.

Local History
Mountain House is located on the western edge of San Joaquin County and is the county's most recently incorporated city. The community was originally planned under the Mountain House Master Plan, which the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors adopted in 1994 for an unincorporated area of the county. Residential development began in 2001, and Mountain House remained unincorporated until July 1, 2024, when it incorporated as the City of Mountain House.

Originally home to the Northern Valley Yokuts, Mountain House gained notability as a rest stop during the Gold Rush area for miners headed from San Francisco to the Sierra Nevada foothills via the Altamont Pass.2 Over time, small settlements such as Wicklund and Bethany emerged to support growing commerce, trade, and agricultural activity. However, recurring flooding and the development of the Central Pacific Railroad contributed to periods of economic growth and decline. By the early 1900s, the town of Bethany had largely disappeared, and after its last remaining structure was demolished in 1940, the Mountain House area transitioned primarily to agricultural use for much of the twentieth century.3

2 City of Mountain House. (n.d.). Our City | Mountain House, CA. https://www.mountainhouseca.gov/101/Our-City. 3 Mountain House Community Services District. (n.d.). How Mountain House Was Formed. History of Mountain House. http://yamatamhcsdorg-primary.hgsitebuilder.com/about.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 449 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Local Outreach
Community stakeholders have identified multiple barriers to adequate fair and affordable housing in the City of Mountain House. Multiple stakeholders provided input as part of the Housing Element outreach process, including representatives from the City of Mountain House Parks and Recreation Department, the Housing Authority of San Joaquin County, Lammersville Unified School District, Mountain House developers, community members, and the City Council.

There was consensus that the high cost of housing is the City's primary housing challenge. Stakeholders noted that home prices, which typically range from $800,000 to $1,000,000, and high rental costs limit housing opportunities for lower- and moderate-income households. They also identified a shortage of subsidized and workforce housing, resulting in many City employees, teachers, healthcare workers, and other essential workers commuting from more affordable communities. Community workshop participants similarly identified housing affordability and transportation as the City's greatest housing challenges and expressed continued demand for affordable homeownership opportunities.

Stakeholders also identified the lack of housing diversity as a barrier to meeting the needs of all residents. They noted that the City's housing stock is dominated by large, market-rate single-family homes, with limited options for seniors, persons with disabilities, smaller households, and lower-income residents. Community workshop participants identified senior housing and residential mixed-use development as the community's highest housing priorities, reflecting a desire for a broader range of housing choices as the community matures.

Although stakeholders indicated that homelessness is currently limited in Mountain House, they identified early signs of housing instability among some young adults, foster youth, and families in temporary living situations.

Participants also raised concerns regarding the City's ability to accommodate future housing growth, including the availability of developable land, school capacity, supporting infrastructure, and whether higher-density development would result in greater housing affordability. During a City Council study session, staff presented preliminary findings indicating that the City has sufficient land capacity to accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) across all income levels while continuing outreach and preparation of the Housing Element.

Description of Census Tracts
The City of Mountain House spans three census tracts: 52.21, 52.22, and 52.23. Census Tract 52.21 encompasses the western and northwestern portions of the city and is located entirely within the city limits. Census Tract

52.22 encompasses the central portion of the city and is also located entirely within the city limits. Census Tract

52.23 encompasses the northern and southern portions of the city but extends beyond the city limits(see Figure 4-1).

Tax Credit Allocation Committee Opportunity Area Designation Since 2017, the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and HCD have developed annual maps of access to resources such as high-paying job opportunities; top-rated schools; safe and clean neighborhoods; and other positive economic, social, and environmental indicators to provide evidence-based research for policy

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 450 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-3
recommendations. This effort has been dubbed “opportunity mapping” and is available to all jurisdictions to assess access to opportunities within their community.

The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps can help to identify areas in the community that provide strong access to opportunity for residents or, conversely, provide low access to opportunity. The information from the opportunity mapping can help to highlight the need for housing element policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low-resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty (HS&P) and encourage better access for lower-income households and communities of color to housing in high-resource areas.

TCAC/HCD categorized census tracts and rural block groups into highest-, high-, moderate-, or low-resource areas using a series of nine indicators. Where the tract or block group indicator falls above the regional median (urban areas) or county median (rural areas), the tract or block group is assigned one point. Additionally, geographies in the highest five percent of environmental burden scores (according to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 assessment) had one point subtracted from the final score. Areas designated “highest resource” have scores of 8 or 9. It is expected that residents in these census tracts have access to the best outcomes in terms of health, economic opportunities, and education attainment. Areas with scores of 6 or 7 are designated “high resource,” areas with scores of 4 or 5 are designated “moderate resource,” and areas with scores of 3 or below are designated “low resource.” Low-resource areas indicate a potential lack of access to opportunities.

Any tract or rural block group for which two or more of the indicators in the index are missing was not assigned a designation. The analysis also excluded areas with very low population density (fewer than 25 people per square mile), areas where people residing in institutional facilities make up at least 75 percent of the population, and areas where at least half of the population ages 16 and over are employed by the military. Census tract and block group boundaries do not align exactly with city boundaries, so some areas discussed may cover both incorporated and unincorporated communities.

As seen in Figure 6-1, TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, 2026, Mountain House is designated as a highest-resource area except a portion of the city that has insufficient data. This designation arises when an area has unreliable data, an area where people residing in institutional facilities make up at least 75 percent of the population, areas with a population density below 25 people per square mile and a total population below 750, or areas where at least half of the working-age population is employed by the armed forces. The portion designated “insufficient data” is likely the result of the area, which is currently undeveloped, having a population density below 25 people per square mile and a total population below 750. This area covers Central Community Park and a smaller commercial development in the northeastern portion. The Vida residential development project was recently constructed in this area, so future iterations of the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area mapping are expected to include an analysis of this area once the residential development is fully occupied.

The TCAC designations assigned to Mountain House do not reflect trends seen in other portions of San Joaquin County. Unincorporated areas between Modesto and Manteca tended to be designated high-resource and highest-resource areas, as did the more mountainous areas in Calaveras and Amador Counties and the parts of Sacramento County that are adjacent to San Joaquin County. However, significant portions of San Joaquin County were designated low-resource areas, particularly areas within Stockton and Lathrop.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 451 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Figure 6-1 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, 2026

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 452 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-5
Areas of Concentrated Poverty and Affluence
Areas of High Segregation and Poverty
Areas designated by TCAC as HS&P are census tracts with an overrepresentation of people of color compared to the county as a whole and where at least 30.0 percent of the population in these areas is below the federal poverty line ($33,000 annually for a family of four in 2026). There are no areas of HS&P within Mountain House or in the areas immediately surrounding the city with this designation, including areas within the neighboring Alameda County.

Countywide, areas of HS&P are concentrated in and immediately adjacent to the City of Stockton as well as in the City of Lodi. Many of these areas are predominantly made up of older, smaller housing units that are likely more affordable to lower-income households due to this combination of age and size. Within the City of Stockton, lower-income households tend to be concentrated in the southern areas of the city, and this demographic concentration extends beyond the city limits into the unincorporated areas that immediately surround it. Additionally, the City of Stockton has historically been very diverse due to its regional commercial importance and subsequent draw of population from diverse communities, and this diversity extends into the unincorporated areas immediately adjacent to the city.

Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Where the HS&P areas reflect concentrations of poverty, HCD has developed an alternative metric focused on areas of Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs). An RCAA is defined as a tract in which the percentage of a population tract that identifies as White is 1.25 times higher than the percentage that identifies as White in the entire Council of Governments (COG) region (also called the Location Quotient), and where the median income is at least 1.5 times greater than the COG Area Median Income.

As shown in Figure 6-2, Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence, 2022, one area within Mountain House is designated an RCAA. This area covers the central portion of Mountain House. While the 2022 RCAA data indicate that this area was predominantly White (55 percent), more recent demographic data (Claritas, 2026) shows that Mountain House is predominantly Asian (approximately 61 percent). Because the RCAA dataset predates the City's incorporation and relies on earlier demographic information, it may not reflect more recent changes in the city's racial and ethnic composition. The median household income level of this census tract is $171,141, which is almost the same as the rest of Mountain House ($177,163) when factoring in the difference in data reporting years.4 Given this information, the presence of an RCAA within Mountain House is likely attributable to the use of demographic data that predates the city's incorporation and more recent population changes rather than to current patterns of exclusion or segregation. As a result, the RCAA designation may not accurately reflect existing demographic conditions within the city. However, it is important to note that due to factors such as a higher percentage of owner-occupied units in the city, creating additional housing opportunities at all income levels is 4 U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2019–2024 (5-year estimates), https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2024.S1901?q=median+income&g=160XX00US0649582

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 453 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

important to provide housing choices for existing and future residents. Program HE-2.1 will support the city’s efforts to increase the number of affordable housing units in the city.

Several RCAAs are in San Joaquin County, both in incorporated and unincorporated areas. A large area south of Mountain House, which includes the southern edge of the City of Tracy and the unincorporated community of Chrisman, is an RCAA. Most of this area is very sparsely populated, but it does include the higher-income Tracy Hills neighborhood, which is likely the primary driver of its RCAA status. Newer large, single-family housing development in Tracy has tended to be on the southwestern side of the city, which may influence demographics in this tract to show as higher income as these housing types tend to be more expensive. In the unincorporated area south of Tracy, recent development has tended to be on existing lots of record, which are often larger, rather than being subdivided through the creation of new parcel and tentative maps. Zoning in the unincorporated areas of this tract is agricultural, which has a larger minimum lot size than residential zones and can contribute to the cost of housing in this area, encouraging a concentration of higher-income households.

There are a few areas in the unincorporated portion of this tract that are likely to have a concentration of higherincome households, including the Durham Ferry Road, Bird Road, and South Chrisman Road areas on the east side of the tract.

Another RCAA includes some sparsely populated unincorporated areas as well as the north side of the City of Ripon, an area with predominantly large, single-family homes and some agricultural uses. Most of the population of this census tract is in Ripon, which likely contributes heavily to the demographic profile of this tract, as Ripon is predominantly a high-resource area per the TCAC/HCD opportunity area designation and a high-income area.

Within the unincorporated area, land uses are predominantly agricultural, and any residential development is sparse and on large lots. The Tracy and Ripon areas both have strong public school systems, according to standardized test scores reported by the Department of Education’s School Dashboard, which may increase demand for housing in this area among higher-income households. However, it should be noted, that test scores in Mountain House schools are comparable if not higher-scoring, than those in the Tracy and Ripon areas.5 Two census tracts along the edges of Lodi are considered RCAAs: one is on the north side adjacent to Woodbridge, and the other is on the western edge of the city. The western Lodi RCAA tract also includes some unincorporated areas of the county that include a mix of agricultural and very low-density residential uses. The relatively low population density of the unincorporated segments of this tract and the large lot size required for development in the agriculturally zoned unincorporated areas of the county may encourage higher-income households. Some small areas entirely within the City of Stockton are also considered RCAAs, including the area immediately north of the Country Club community and a small area on the north side of the city. These areas are most likely to attract market-rate housing activity in the city due to proximity to employment opportunities and demand for the amenities of the area, such as a golf course, lakes, and proximity to two neighborhood schools.

The RCAA on the south side of Tracy is one of several large RCAAs clustered around the eastern edge of Alameda County and the east side of Contra Costa County. Many of these census tracts are larger and are made of predominantly open space or agricultural areas with small areas of single-family housing, many of which are relatively new or large. To the south and west of San Joaquin County is another collection of RCAA census tracts 5 SchoolDigger. (2025). Best school districts in California—CA district rankings. SchoolDigger.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 454 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-7
surrounding Oakdale in Stanislaus County. Similarly, these are areas with developments of large single-family homes surrounded by large areas of agriculture and recreational uses.

To help address concentrated areas of poverty as well as affluence, the City will take action to encourage and facilitate housing mobility through the inclusion of several programs in the Housing Element:
 Program HE-2.2: The City commits to implementing and evaluating its Affordable Housing Fee Program to support the development, preservation, and availability of affordable housing in Mountain House.  Program HE-2.3: The City will support the implementation of minimum ADU provisions in the City’s adopted Specific Plans to encourage ADUs in new residential developments and areas of the City.  Program HE-3.1: The City will continue to implement its reasonable accommodation procedures to ensure individuals with disabilities have equal access to housing through modifications or exceptions to land use, zoning, and development regulations, when necessary.  Program HE-3.6: The City will engage landlords and property owners to expand the number of properties accepting Housing Choice Vouchers.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 455 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Figure 6-2 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence, 2022

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 456 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-9
Income and Poverty
As shown in Figure 6-3, Median Household Income by Block Group, as of the 2018–2022 American Community Survey (ACS), the entire city has a household income higher than $120,000, with two tracts in the city having a median household income over $175,000. Additionally, the central census tract has a median household income of $171,141. In all, income is dispersed relatively equally throughout Mountain House, with only $21,000 separating the highest and lowest earning census tracts.

Areas of the unincorporated county with the highest incomes are concentrated on the south side of the county.

This includes the large RCAA census tract in the Tracy Hills area that includes the community of Chrisman and adjacent tracts to the north that include the northern part of Mountain House. Each of these tracts has a median household income between $120,000 and $175,000.

The unincorporated communities of Linden, Peters, Farmington, Dogtown, and a small part of Woodbridge have median household incomes between $90,100 and $120,000, as do the areas around these unincorporated communities. Each area includes communities with single-family houses of varying sizes, typically clustered into a small central community area surrounded by large areas of very low-density residential and agricultural uses.

Large sections of the unincorporated county immediately north of Stockton and west of Lodi also fall within this income bracket. Land uses in this area are primarily very low-density residential and agricultural. The areas south of Manteca and surrounding Ripon are in census tracts that also fall into this income bracket, as do the communities of Banta and Stoneridge, and have similar development patterns with a mix of very low-density residential and agricultural land uses.

Regional income patterns follow those of TCAC opportunity areas and RCAAs. Census tracts closer to the Bay Area, in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, tend to have median household incomes of $120,000 or greater, including some tracts near Livermore and the unincorporated communities of Sunol, Blackhawk, and Alamo, each of which has median household incomes of $175,000 or more. To the north, several unincorporated areas just over the border in Sacramento County have median household incomes of between $99,100 and $120,000, increasing to median household incomes of between $120,000 and $175,000 in areas slightly closer to Sacramento. Most census tracts bordering San Joaquin County to the east are very low-density areas, and the majority have median household incomes of between $55,000 and $99,100. More rural areas farther east of the Sierras tend to have median household incomes of less than $55,000.

Poverty is low in Mountain House, with all census tracts in the city experiencing single-digit levels of poverty.

According to 2018–2022 ACS data, the northwestern census tract experiences 1.7 percent of the population living below the poverty level, while the central census tract experiences 0 percent of the population living below the poverty level. While the southern census tract experiences 7.3 percent of the population living below the poverty level, this census tract has areas that are outside of the city limits.

While incomes in many unincorporated areas of the county are not very high, few unincorporated areas in San Joaquin County have high concentrations of residents living in households with incomes below the federal poverty line (Figure 6-4, Percentage of Population with Incomes Below Poverty Level), which was $33,000 for

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 457 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

a family of four in 2026. This income level is comparable to an extremely low-income household of four in San Joaquin County.

The City has included the following programs in the Housing Element that will assist lower-, and especially extremely low-income households, to access affordable housing, especially in higher-resource areas.  Program HE-1.3: The City will encourage site planning and subdivision patterns that support a variety of housing types, including housing affordable to lower-income households, during the processing of large sites.
 Program HE-2.1: The City shall support the development of housing affordable to lower-income households, including acutely low- and extremely low-income households.  Program HE-2.2: The City will evaluate its Affordable Housing Fee Program to support the development, preservation, and availability of affordable housing for lower-income households.  Program HE-2.5: The City shall pursue available state, federal, regional, and county funding opportunities that support the development, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable housing, with a particular emphasis on housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households.  Program HE-2.6: The City shall facilitate the development, preservation, and occupancy of housing affordable to extremely low-income households (0–30 percent of Area Median Income), including individuals and families experiencing homelessness, persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities), farmworkers, seniors, and other households with special housing needs.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 458 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-11
Figure 6-3 Median Household Income by Block Group

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 459 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Figure 6-4 Percentage of Population Living Below the Poverty Line

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 460 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-13
Race and Ethnicity
Figure 6-5, Predominant Communities, shows that Mountain House is a multiethnic community, with the northwestern and southern portions of the city being predominantly Asian and the central to northeastern portion of the city being predominantly White as of the 2018–2022 ACS. This is furthershown in Figure 6-6, NonWhite Populations. As discussed in the Income and Areas of Affluence sections, all census tracts in Mountain House have at least a median household income of $171,000 or higher. Nearly 60 percent of the housing in Mountain House consists of at least four-bedroom homes, which could attract larger families, including intergenerational households.

Areas that were previously identified as having the lowest incomes in the county, those on the northwest side near Terminous and Thornton, are also predominantly Hispanic areas. This is also true of the east side of Lodi and its adjacent unincorporated areas. Many unincorporated areas directly adjacent to Stockton are also predominantly Hispanic, such as Lincoln Village, August, Garden Acres, Kennedy, Taft Mosswood, French Camp, Glenwood, Noble Acres, and Waterloo. Some areas on the north side of Stockton have a predominantly Asian population, as does much of the Mountain House area and some areas in and around the north side of Lathrop.

To encourage housing mobility for lower- and moderate-income households, the City has included several programs in the Housing Element:
 Program HE-2.2: The City commits to implementing and evaluating its Affordable Housing Fee Program to support the development, preservation, and availability of affordable housing in Mountain House.  Program HE-2.3: The City will support the implementation of minimum ADU provisions in the City’s adopted Specific Plans to encourage ADUs in new residential developments and areas of the City.  Program HE-3.1: The City will continue to implement its reasonable accommodation procedures to ensure individuals with disabilities have equal access to housing through modifications or exceptions to land use, zoning, and development regulations, when necessary.  Program HE-3.6: The City will engage landlords and property owners to expand the number of properties accepting Housing Choice Vouchers.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 461 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Figure 6-5 Predominant Communities

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 462 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-15
Figure 6-6 Non-White Population

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 463 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Estimated Displacement Risk
The Urban Displacement Project, a joint research and action initiative of UC Berkeley and the University of Toronto, analyzes income patterns and housing availability to determine the gentrification displacement risk at the census-tract level. In their analysis of estimated displacement risk, Mountain House is considered an area of low displacement risk.

Regionally, areas at risk of displacement in adjacent counties are typically in and around cities, such as central Modesto and its surrounding unincorporated areas. Unincorporated areas are typically considered areas of low displacement risk. However, it is important to note that this classification does not mean that displacement of individual households does not occur in these areas or that strategies to prevent displacement are not needed, but that lower-income households that may be experiencing housing access challenges typically do not leave the area when they move or are not replaced by higher-income households when they do leave the area.

The City has included actions in several programs in the Housing Element to prevent the displacement of lowerand moderate-income households.  Program HE-2.1: This program, by supporting the development of housing affordable to lower-income households, reduces the pressures associated with displacement risk for lower- and moderate-income households.
 Program HE-2.6: The City will facilitate the development, preservation, and occupancy of housing affordable to extremely low-income households, therefore reducing the displacement risk for the existing households at this income level.
 Program HE-3.7: This program offers rental assistance and other housing assistance resources to lowerincome households, which may be at greater risk of housing instability or displacement.  Program HE-6.1: This program focuses on providing information and referrals regarding housing rehabilitation, home repair, accessibility improvements, and housing assistance programs, therefore reducing the risk of displacement resulting from deteriorating housing conditions.  Program HE-6.2: This program refers residents and property owners to available energy efficient improvement and utility cost reduction programs, which could alleviate the pressures of rising utility costs and assist to reduce displacement risk.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 464 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-17
Site Analysis: Opportunity, Segregation, and Displacement As shown in Table 6-1, the RHNA inventory sites and approved projects are distributed across the city's three census tracts. Census Tract 52.23 contains the largest share of the City's total RHNA capacity, including the highest number of units across all income categories. In the above-moderate-income category, each of the three census tracts accommodates more than 10 percent of the City's RHNA allocation, although Census Tract 52.23 contains the largest share. The distribution is more concentrated in the moderate-income category, with approximately 80 percent of the units in Census Tract 52.23. For the lower-income category, all units are in Census Tracts 52.22 and 52.23, accounting for approximately 43 percent and 57 percent of the lower-income RHNA allocation, respectively.

The distribution of RHNA sites generally reflects the Mountain House Master Plan and the availability of developable land. All areas of Mountain House are considered “Highest” opportunity areas and residential development within these areas will provide additional opportunities for existing and future Mountain House residents to reside within the city. Census Tract 52.21 contains a smaller share of the RHNA inventory because it is smaller in area and is mostly developed with established single-family neighborhoods. In contrast, Census Tract 52.23 includes substantial undeveloped land in the northern and southern portions of the city that is planned for future development. Given the planned development of Mountain House, new residential development in these areas will create opportunities for future residents to be among the first residents in these new communities. In addition, Census Tract 52.22, which includes the City's designated RCAA, an area that has both a high household median income and predominantly White population, accommodates approximately 43 percent of the City's lower-income RHNA allocation. Locating lower-income housing opportunities within this area of opportunity will help expand housing choice and promote equitable access to community amenities and resources for current and future residents.

Development throughout Mountain House’s census tracts will provide additional housing opportunities in an area of the state deemed “Highest” resource. While lower-income households will benefit from additional housing options and opportunities that may not have existed before, the development of moderate- and above moderate-income households could provide entry-level homebuying opportunities, which could allow residents to build long-term housing equity in the community.

Table 6-1 Identified RHNA by Census Tract
Tract Lower Percent of
Lower Moderate Percent of Moderate
AboveModerate
Percent of
AboveModerate

52.21 0 0% 144 8% 534 24%

52.22 1031 43% 245 13% 249 11%

52.23 1371 57% 1455 79% 1419 64%
Source: City of Mountain House, 2026. Due to rounding, numbers may not total 100 percent.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 465 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Education
Schools in Mountain House are in the Lammersville Joint Unified School District, which consists of seven K-8 elementary schools (Altamont, Bethany, Julius Cordes, Evelyn Costa, Peter Hansen, Sebastian Questa, and Wicklund) and one high school, Mountain House High School. Outside of Mountain House, Lammersville Joint Unified School District includes Lammersville Elementary School in the rural Tracy area, while Mountain House Elementary School, despite its name, is in unincorporated Alameda County. Additionally, there is one private charter school, Zaytech Academy, near the town center.

Given that the community is relatively new, there are no discernable academic achievement, composition, or facility quality differences among the school campuses. In fact, the entirety of Mountain House has the highest TCAC composite score for education indicators, such as math and reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and student poverty indicators. In 2025, Lammersville Joint Unified School District had an enrollment of 7,949 students. Of these students, 11 percent were considered socioeconomically disadvantaged, which is defined as students eligible for free or reduced priced meals or those who have parents/guardians who did not receive a high school diploma. Furthermore, nearly 10 percent of students were defined as “English learners.” These students are learning to communicate effectively in English, requiring instruction in English as a second language in addition to their academic courses. Only 0.1 percent of students in the district were defined as foster youth.6

Academically, the district performs well, particularly in English Language Arts and Mathematics, where students scored 70 and 59.6 points above the college readiness standard. The rate of chronic absenteeism, defined as students who were absent to 10 percent or more of the instructional days of which they were enrolled, was 7.2 percent for K-8 students. This is notably lower than the statewide rate of chronic absenteeism, which in 2024– 2025 was 19 percent of K-8 students7
. Students in the district graduated (received a high school diploma within four or five years of entering ninth grade) at a rate of 98.8 percent, a number which has increased year over year since 2019.

Each established neighborhood in Mountain House was designed to have a public elementary school, with the high school centrally located in the community. Students generally attend the school in the neighborhood where they live. Though Mountain House High School recently completed an expansion that includes 15 new classrooms, in addition to administrative offices, participants at the Community Workshop and respondents to the online community survey noted that an additional high school should be built to support existing and projected student demand.

San Joaquin Delta College, which has a main campus in Stockton, has a satellite campus in Mountain House that serves residents and the broader community alike. Mountain House High School students can take advantage of Early College Pathway courses at the satellite campus. At the August 12, 2026, City Council meeting, the 6 California School Dashboard (CA Dept of Education). (n.d.). Lammersville Joint Unified - District Performance Review. https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/39767600000000/2025. 7 Guinan, B. and Hill, L. (2026 March). “Chronic Absenteeism in California”. Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/publication/chronic-absenteeism-in-california/

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 466 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-19
President of the San Joaquin Delta Community College District provided an update on the construction of a permanent building to serve the Mountain House community.

Proximity to Jobs
Based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s database of location attributes, called the Smart Locations Database, Mountain House is within a 45-minute drive of 46,000 or fewer jobs as of 2021 (Figure 6-7).

Areas in San Joaquin County with higher proximity to jobs were areas close to Stockton. Block groups closer to Stockton tended to be within 45 minutes of between 46,001 and 115,000 jobs. Outside of San Joaquin County, most of the City of Livermore was within 45 minutes of between 46,001 and 115,000 jobs.

Job proximity plays an important role in housing affordability. The Housing and Transportation Index calculates the percentage of a typical household’s income that is used by typical housing and transportation costs.

Countywide, the Center for Neighborhood Technologies estimates that a typical household’s cost for housing and transportation represents approximately 50 percent of their income. The threshold of affordability as evaluated by the Center for Neighborhood Technologiesis a combined 45 percent of a household's income spent on housing and transportation.

Mountain House’s neighborhoods tend to have high percentages of housing and transportation costs as a percentage of household income, ranging from 69 percent to 77 percent. This area has a moderate rate of housing cost burden, which indicates that the long distance a resident would likely need to drive to access employment could present a cost burden, even in areas with a high median household income.

Most rural unincorporated communities in San Joaquin County have index scores above 50. This may be related to the long distances that rural households need to drive to access job opportunities as well as everyday goods and services, like food or healthcare. This high cost in rural areas is typical for communities throughout the Central Valley and in the Sierras. The combined cost of housing and transit decreases closer to incorporated cities in Sacramento County and the Bay Area, particularly areas with close transit access.

However, these areas also tend to have higher housing costs.

To help create more jobs in areas close to where people live, the City’s General Plan includes several goals and guiding principles.

To help create more jobs in areas close to where people live, the City’s General Plan includes several programs.  Policy ED-3.2: Prioritize Feasible Formats and a Balanced Tenant Mix. Supports jobs close to residents by encouraging neighborhood-serving businesses such as personal services, childcare, fitness, food and beverage, and other commercial uses within the Town Center, including walkable mixed-use areas.  Policy ED-3.4: Improve Town Center Access, Circulation, and Public Realm. Supports convenient access to local jobs by improving multimodal connections and the pedestrian environment within the Town Center, making commercial areas more accessible to nearby residents.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 467 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

 Policy ED-4.3: Support a Mix of Feasible Commercial and Employment Uses in Priority Nodes.

Supports creating jobs within the community by encouraging small-scale employment uses—including small offices, medical/professional services, flex/showroom, and light industrial/production—in targeted commercial areas.
 Policy ED-4.6: Coordinate Node Strategies with Regional Mobility Investments. Supports locating employment in accessible areas by coordinating commercial and employment development with major mobility investments, including the future Valley Link station and related access improvements.  Policy ED-5.4: Coordinate with Regional Transportation Partners. Supports jobs near where people live by leveraging the planned Valley Link station through station-area planning, supportive land uses, last-mile connectivity, and targeted business attraction.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 468 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-21
Figure 6-7: Jobs within a 45-minute drive

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 469 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Environmental and Related Health Outcomes
A disadvantaged community or environmental justice community is identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency as “areas that are disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation” and may have a concentration of low-income 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 released the fourth version of CalEnviroScreen, a tool that uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic indicators to map and compare community environmental scores. In the CalEnviroScreen tool, communities that have a cumulative score in the 75th percentile or above (25 percent of highest-scoring census tracts) have been designated “disadvantaged communities” under Senate Bill (SB) 535.

Cumulative scores are calculated using the individual scores from two groups of indicators: Pollution Burden and Population Characteristics. Pollution Burden scores exposure to negative environmental hazards, such as ozone and PM2.5 concentrations, drinking water contaminants, lead risk from housing, traffic impacts, and more, which may negatively impact health outcomes among residents. Population Characteristics scores the rate of negative health conditions and access to opportunities, such as asthma, cardiovascular disease, linguistic isolation, poverty, unemployment, and housing cost burden. For each indicator, as with the cumulative impact, a low score reflects positive conditions.

As shown in Figure 6-8, CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Map, the entirety of Mountain House is considered an area with average environmental factors. Residents within this area experience slightly higher rates of asthma than areas with more positive environmental factors. In addition, exposure to pesticides, drinking water issues, and groundwater threats remain among the primary factors in this rating. However, it should be noted that Mountain House is in a census tract that has significant agricultural activity, which may not accurately reflect environmental conditions within city limits. For example, the draft fifth version of CalEnviroScreen, which distinguishes the city from these agricultural areas, shows the city having scores of 4.5, 13, and 38 percent, which show generally more positive environmental outcomes. There are no known differences between communities or neighborhoods related to a need for infrastructure improvements or major sources of pollution, and there are no areas in the city where residential development should be avoided due to environmental conditions.

Regionally, the Delta areas north of Mountain House and extending to the northern edge of the county in Thornton are all considered disadvantaged communities under SB 535, as are large sections central and south Stockton as well as surrounding unincorporated areas like French Camp, Taft Mosswood, Kennedy, August, Country Club, Lincoln Village, and parts of Garden Acres. Most of the Lathrop area is also considered disadvantaged, as are unincorporated areas east of Manteca and on the east side of Lodi. Areas of San Joaquin County with the most positive rankings included part of the Woodbridge community, the Dogtown area, and part of the Clements community. Incorporated areas with more positive CalEnviroScreen scores include much of south and west Tracy, the neighborhoods of Stockton near University of the Pacific and Brookside Country Club, northwest Stockton, and west Lodi.

Many agricultural areas in the Central Valley have less positive CalEnviroScreen scores, likely due to lowerincome areas and possible exposure to environmental contaminants related to agriculture, such as pesticides,

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 470 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-23
water contamination, and solid waste from livestock. Rural areas of the Sierras, to the east, tend to have more positive CalEnviroScreen scores due to lower levels of agricultural pollution and traffic. In the Bay Area and Sacramento regions, less positive CalEnviroScreen scores tend to be in urban areas rather than lower-density or suburban areas, and these are more often related to a mix of poverty factors, traffic pollution, lead from housing, and impaired water quality.

To support more positive environmental conditions, the Housing Element includes the following programs.  Program HE-2.1: This program, by supporting affordable housing development, provides future residents with access to housing in areas with positive environmental conditions.  Program HE-6.1: This program supports improved environmental conditions through housing rehabilitation, allowing residents to remain in their homes and communities while promoting healthier living environments.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 471 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Figure 6-8 CalEnviroScreen 4.0

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 472 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-25
Transportation Mobility
Mountain House is served by relatively limited transportation systems. The city is not directly served by transit; however, residents can use a San Joaquin Regional Transit District (RTD) shuttle to access the Tracy Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) station, which provides rail service between Stockton and San Jose on a weekday basis.

Furthermore, residents can access transportation and mobility programs through other transit services in the area.

The largest transportation provider in the county is the San Joaquin RTD. This agency offers a wide range of transit systems that provide intercity, interregional, and rural service. Multiple other bus, rail, and rideshare agencies in the county contribute to creating broad connectivity. The extent of many of these agencies, and the largest service of the San Joaquin RTD, is fixed-route bus transportation within the cities in the county. However, there is not a current route with service in Mountain House.

Other transit services are offered to connect rural areas in the county. San Joaquin RTD runs Van Go!, an ondemand rideshare service, throughout the county. For a fee, passengers may call or reserve a ride with Van Go! for curb-to-curb transportation. This service is available from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. every day. San Joaquin RTD also offers an Americans with Disabilities Act rideshare service where passengers may call or reserve a ride. This service may be used via a system comparable to fixed routes. This service is offered from 5:20 am to 10:12 pm on weekdays and from 7:00 am to 7:44 pm on weekends. Curb-to-curb programs also operate in the cities of Manteca, Escalon, and Tracy. Additionally, private ride-sharing providers offer services throughout the county.

Although most transportation systems available are within cities, additional resources expand the service. With these varied services, San Joaquin RTD offers transportation throughout the county.

Additionally, a carpool/vanpool service called Dibs is available to residents of Mountain House. The program, offered by the San Joaquin Council of Government’s Transportation Demand Management Program, promotes travel options to improve air quality and reduce traffic congestion in San Joaquin and Merced counties. For employers, the program allows them to offer incentives to employees to promote the use of transit, carpool, vanpool, or other “smart travel” options.

Although Mountain House is a newer community in comparison to more established cities in the county, the City continues to conduct road pavement repairs and sidewalk improvements. Recent projects include pavement repairs in Wicklund Village and the arterial roads of Central Parkway, Bethany Road, and Arturo Boulevard and a citywide sidewalk improvement project. Upcoming projects include adding bike lanes and traffic calming measures on Great Valley Parkway, Arturo Boulevard, and Main Street; traffic safety improvements such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons and median refuge areas; neighborhood traffic calming; and traffic signal synchronization. There are no differences in access between neighborhoods related to transportation options and community facilities.

Mountain House has limited transportation systems that offer local, intercity, countywide, and interregional transit services. Most of the County’s services are offered and focused in major cities such as Stockton, which have local and intercity fixed routes. Existing service in Mountain House is limited to a shuttle connecting the city to the Tracy ACE station and on-demand call and reservation services that provide connection for

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 473 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

unincorporated areas. Van Go! and Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility programs offer curb-to-curb rides to anywhere in the county, which includes Mountain House. These extended programs help to connect more rural communities with more robust systems.

Sites Analysis: Environment, Jobs, Education, and Transportation All census tracts in Mountain House scored “highest resource” in the TCAC rating, which, among other factors, evaluates economic and educational opportunities. CalEnviroScreen, which measures environmental factors, rates the sites as having average environmental health scores. It should be noted that the area of analysis for CalEnviroScreen encompasses areas outside of city limits, with agricultural activities likely skewing the results.

This is consistent with available information from draft CalEnviroScreen 5.0 data, which shows all areas of the city with positive environmental scores. Furthermore, areas of the city are not noted as having a high “environmental burden,” according to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps. Lastly, the census tract with the highest total percentage of RHNA and lower-income RHNA coincides with the area experiencing the highest housing and transportation index cost in the city (76–77 percent). Additional housing in this area will provide some relief from housing costs, however, additional transportation and economic opportunities in the city would also alleviate these higher costs. Broadly, it is estimated that the development of lower-income housing in this area will give children and adults in lower-income households, both from within the City of Mountain House and surrounding communities, the opportunity to access better educational, environmental, and economic outcomes.

All areas of Mountain House are rated “highest resource”, therefore residential development in Mountain House will allow future residents to live in areas with positive environmental and educational outcomes. This is particularly true in the 52.23 census tract, where most of the future residential development is concentrated.

All areas of Mountain House experience higher rates of combined housing and transportation costs, so new residential development could alleviate housing costs. However, residential development is not likely to have a significant impact on the proximity to jobs, since there is not a significant jobs sector within or immediately surrounding the city.

Table 6-2 Identified RHNA by Census Tract
Tract Lower Percent of
Lower Moderate Percent of Moderate
AboveModerate Percent of AboveModerate

52.21 0 0% 144 8% 534 24%

52.22 1031 43% 245 13% 249 11%

52.23 1371 57% 1455 79% 1419 64%
Source: City of Mountain House, 2026. Due to rounding, numbers may not total 100 percent.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 474 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-27
Special Housing Needs
Population with Disability
Within Mountain House, 4.8 percent of residents report having a disability, and the most reported disability is cognitive difficulty (see Figure 6-9 Percentage of Population with a Disability). Neighborhoods within Mountain House have relatively similar rates, with the northwestern census tract experiencing 7.6 percent of residents with a disability. The central census tract experienced 5.5 percent of the population with a disability, while the southern tract (which also covers areas outside of city limits) experienced 4.7 percent of the population with a disability.

Countywide, 12.5 percent of residents of all ages report having a disability, and the most commonly reported disability is ambulatory difficulty (see Figure 6-9, Percentage of Population with a Disability). Few areas of San Joaquin County have disability rates greater than 20 percent. Census tracts in the unincorporated county where more than 20 percent of the population report having a disability include the unnamed areas east and south of Garden Acres (28.8 and 23.5 percent), the area north of Mountain House and west of Stockton (24.7 percent), and Morada (22.6 and 20.0 percent). These areas may have more senior residents, as over one-third of seniors aged 65 or above in San Joaquin County (38.8 percent) report at least one disability as of the 2016–2020 ACS.

One possible explanation for the lower rate of persons with a disability could be attributed to the age composition of Mountain House residents. Residents in Mountain House tend to be younger, with higher rates of children between the ages of 5 and 17 than the county (23.9 percent versus 18.5 percent). In addition, there are higher rates of people aged 35 to 44 and 45 to 54 in Mountain House compared to the county and nearly half the rate of seniors (people aged 65 or more) than the County average.

To support the development of housing for community members with disabilities, the City has included relevant actions in the following programs in the Housing Element.  Program HE-2.1: This program supports the development of affordable housing, including housing for special-needs populations, such as persons with disabilities.  Program HE-2.6: This program provides regulatory incentives for projects containing affordable housing units and housing types serving special-needs populations.  Program HE-3.1: This program implements the reasonable accommodation procedures, ensuring that individuals with disabilities have equal access to housing through modifications or exceptions to land use, zoning, and development regulations.
 Program HE-3.5: This program supports housing opportunities for persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, through engaging with housing developers and service providers regarding opportunities to increase housing options for persons with disabilities and special-needs populations.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 475 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Figure 6-9 Percentage of Population with a Disability

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 476 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-29
Family Status and Female-Headed Households
According to the 2020–2024 ACS, 5.1 percent of households in Mountain House were headed by a single female householder, with 2.7 percent of households in the unincorporated county headed by a single female householder living with children under 18 (see Figure 6-10, Percentage of Population in Female-Headed Households). Both rates are lower than the countywide rates of 15.4 percent and 7.72 percent of households, respectively. Single-parent householders with children may struggle to access affordable housing with only one income and may receive unequal treatment in the rental housing market. On average, women employed fulltime earn only 83.7 percent of what men are paid, a gap that is greater among Black and Hispanic women.8

Based on 2018–2022 ACS data, within Mountain House, the central to northeastern census tract has the highest incidence of single female households with children at 8.43 percent. The other tracts in the city have rates at

3.14 percent and 0 percent. Although there is some variation among census tracts, the single-digit percentages indicate a relatively limited presence of female-headed households with children throughout the city.

Within San Joaquin County, the highest concentrations of children in households with a single female householder are typically within incorporated areas, particularly central Stockton and Manteca. Most areas have rates of children in this household type of under 20 percent, and very few unincorporated areas have rates over 30 percent. The census tract that includes part of the unincorporated community of Kennedy has a rate of children in female-headed households of 43.4 percent, but this tract includes part of Stockton.

To support the development of housing that could be affordable to a lower-income, single-parent household, the City has included the following Housing Element programs.  Program HE-2.1: This program supports the development of housing affordable to lower-income households, including single-parent households.
 Program HE-2.6: The City facilitates the development, preservation, and occupancy of housing affordable to extremely low-income households and special-needs households, such as single-parent households. 8 Chun-Hoon, W. (2023, March 14). "5 Fast Facts About the Wage Gap." US Department of Labor. https://blog.dol.gov/2023/03/14/5- fast-facts-the-gender-wage-gap#:~:text=Stats.,for%20Black%20and%20Hispanic%20women.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 477 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Figure 6-10 Percentage of Population in Female-Headed Households

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 478 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-31
Sites Analysis: Special Housing Needs
As shown in Table 6-3, none of the census tracts containing RHNA inventory sites have populations in which more than 10 percent of residents have a disability. As a result, development of RHNA sites across all income categories is not expected to exacerbate existing concentrations of residents with disabilities. Instead, the development of lower-income housing in these areas may expand housing opportunities for lower-income individuals with disabilities in neighborhoods that currently have relatively low concentrations of residents with disabilities.

Similarly, all census tracts containing RHNA inventory sites have relatively low rates of children living in femaleheaded households, with each tract below the 10 percent threshold. Development of lower-income housing in these areas is therefore expected to create additional housing opportunities for persons with a disability and female-headed households without contributing to the concentration of this population in any particular neighborhood. This is particularly true in the 52.23 census tract, where a significant portion of the future lowerand moderate-income housing growth is anticipated. Overall, the distribution of RHNA sites is expected to expand housing opportunities for residents with special housing needs while avoiding the creation or intensification of existing concentrations of these populations.

Table 6-3 Identified RHNA by Census Tract
Tract Lower Percent of
Lower Moderate Percent of Moderate
Above
Moderate
Percent of
Above
Moderate

52.21 0 0% 144 8% 534 24%

52.22 1031 43% 245 13% 249 11%

52.23 1371 57% 1455 79% 1419 64%
Source: City of Mountain House, 2026. Due to rounding, numbers may not total 100 percent.

Farmworkers
According to the 2022 USDA Census of Agriculture, 16,068 farmworkers were employed countywide on 1,534 farm operations. The 2020–2024 ACS estimates that 530 residents of Mountain House, or 4.5 percent of the city’s population, work in “agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining.” However, this may not incorporate any migrant workers, as this group has historically been undercounted by the Census and ACS, due in part to missing addresses in the Census rolls and the use of "low-visibility" housing units, such as groups of households at a single address, or using garages or basements as residences.9 As such, there may be more farmworker residents in Mountain House than were reported. 9 Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees, 2016, October, "California Counts! Reducing Census 2020 Undercount." https://www.gcir.org/resources/california-counts-reducing-2020-census-undercount.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 479 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

However, relying on City staff’s local knowledge of the community, it is unlikely that many, if any, farmworkers reside in the community of Mountain House. The ACS data on agricultural employment should be interpreted with caution, as it may include residents employed in a range of agriculture-related occupations and does not necessarily indicate that these individuals are farmworkers or require farmworker-specific housing.

Furthermore, City staff has indicated that there are no known farmworker-specific housing facilities or units in Mountain House; therefore, the ACS estimate should not be interpreted as an estimate of the City’s farmworker population.

Housing for farmworkers can also be secured directly by farmworkers through the open rental market that is not specific to farmworkers. Housing provided in this manner can be difficult to quantify without a survey, as there is no central listing of these units. In San Joaquin County, most farmworker housing units that are registered employee housing units are located within Stockton, with some units available in Holt and Lodi, based on the San Joaquin County Housing Element. There are no farmworker-specific housing units in Mountain House.

To facilitate the development of additional housing that can accommodate farmworkers’ needs, the City has included the following Housing Element programs.
 Program HE-2.1: This program supports the development of housing affordable to lower-income households, including farmworkers.
 Program HE-2.6: The City facilitates the development, preservation, and occupancy of housing affordable to extremely low-income households and special-needs households, including farmworkers.

Overcrowding and Overpayment
Households Experiencing Overcrowding
Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold. The U.S. Census Bureau considers a household overcrowded when there is more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms, hallways, and kitchens, while a severely overcrowded household has more than 1.5 occupants per room. A typical home might have a total of five rooms that qualify for habitation under this definition (three bedrooms, living room, and dining room). If more than five people were living in the home, it would be considered overcrowded. Overcrowding is strongly related to household size, particularly for large households, and the availability of suitably sized housing. A small percentage of overcrowded units is not uncommon and often includes families with children who share rooms or multigenerational households.

However, high rates of overcrowding may indicate a fair housing issue resulting from situations such as two families or households occupying one unit to reduce housing costs (sometimes referred to as “doubling up”).

Situations such as this may indicate a shortage of appropriately sized and affordable housing units as overcrowding is often related to the cost and availability of housing and can occur when demand in a jurisdiction or region is high.

In Mountain House, the rate of overcrowding at any level is 9 percent, with 7.2 percent of households experiencing overcrowding of 1.0 to 1.5 occupants per room and 1.8 percent of households experiencing severe

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 480 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-33
overcrowding of more than 1.5 occupants per room. Countywide, the rate of overcrowding at any level is 7.6 percent, with 4.8 percent of households experiencing overcrowding of 1.0 to 1.5 occupants per room and 2.8 percent of households experiencing severe overcrowding of more than 1.5 occupants per room.

However, overcrowding is not experienced equally across Mountain House. The central to northeastern census tract experienced the highest rate of overcrowding, with 18.5 percent of all housing units experiencing overcrowding of between 1 and 1.5 persons per room and 1.98 percent of households experiencing severe overcrowding of more than 1.5 persons per room. In addition, the southern census tract experiences 8.7 percent overcrowding; however, this area also incorporates neighborhoods located outside of the city limits. Conversely, only 2 percent of all housing units in the northwestern census tract are overcrowded, with no severe overcrowding present in this area of the community. This is shown in Figure 6-11, Households Experiencing Overcrowding.

Most of the county's highest rates of overcrowding are within incorporated cities, including several central neighborhoods in Stockton, the northeast side of Lodi, and a small area of north Tracy. Unincorporated communities and areas with the highest rates of overcrowding include:
 French Camp (19.5 percent of households)
 Mountain House (18.6 percent in the central to northeastern tract, 8.7 percent in the southern tract, and 2 percent in the northwestern tract)
 Kennedy (17.6 percent in one tract, 15.3 percent in another tract, and 3.0 percent in the southern tract covering the community)
 Garden Acres (15.6 percent in one tract and 9.7 percent in another) To mitigate overcrowded conditions and assist larger households with accessing appropriately sized housing, the City has included the following programs.
 Program HE-2.1: The City will encourage residential projects to provide a range of housing unit sizes, including larger units, to accommodate households with diverse needs.  Program HE-2.3: The City will continue to promote ADUs as a housing option for multigenerational households, allowing families to remain together on the same lot while reducing overcrowding.

The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30.0 percent of its income on housing costs. A household is considered “cost burdened” if it spends more than 30.0 percent of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50.0 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost burdened.”

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 481 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Figure 6-11 Households Experiencing Overcrowding

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 482 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-35
Cost Burden
Renters Cost Burden
All census tracts in Mountain House have rates of overpayment that exceed 20 percent of renter households according to the 2018–2022 ACS (see Figure 6-12, Renter Overpayment). The northwestern census tract experienced renter overpayment at 34 percent, while the central to northeastern census tract experienced renter overpayment at 22.76 percent. The census tract that covers the northern and southern portions of the city experienced renter overpayment at a rate of 78 percent; however, it should be noted that this census tract covers a large geographic area that expands beyond city limits. Nonetheless, renters are experiencing elevated rates of overpayment in the city. This is important to note, given that Mountain House is considered a highincome community, this does not necessarily translate into housing that is more affordable for residents and could be indicative of high rental rates in the area.

Areas of the county with high rates of renter overpayment are typically in areas with lower median household incomes, such as some unincorporated areas immediately adjacent to Stockton. Many of these areas have renter cost burden rates of greater than 50 percent of households in part or all of the community. These higher rates of renter overpayment are most typically found within cities, particularly Stockton, Manteca, and Lodi. This may be related to lower wages in these areas and higher rental rates. In one census tract in southern Manteca, 100 percent of renter households experience cost burden. This area also has a median household income of $126,410. This area is a small neighborhood predominantly made up of larger single-family homes, so this rate may be related to a low number of rental households and high rental cost, which is likely also the case in Mountain House.

Rents charged in Mountain House ranged from $1,700 for a one-bedroom apartment to $3,510 for a fourbedroom apartment, according to a March 2026 review of available rentals on Zillow. To have sufficient income to afford housing at the median rent for a two-bedroom apartment without experiencing cost burden, a household must earn at least $107,000.

Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs)
The Housing Choice Voucher program is an essential tool for facilitating housing mobility for renters who would otherwise experience cost burden. The program extends rental subsidies to extremely low- and very low-income households, including families, seniors, and the disabled. The program offers a voucher that pays the difference between the current fair-market rent as established by HUD and what a tenant can afford to pay (i.e., 30 percent of the household income).

HCV usage in Mountain House is minimal. According to 2025 HUD data, there were 14 HCVs in use in the central to northeastern census tract in 2025, while 15 HCVs were in use in the southern census tract (which also includes areas adjacent but outside of city limits). This small number of units is likely the result of a lack of affordable housing in Mountain House, where there are no deed-restricted units and minimal units that are affordable by design. Additionally, Mountain House has a lower percentage of renter-occupied units than the rest of the county (26.6 percent versus 40.7 percent), so there are fewer units eligible for HCV use.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 483 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

As of August 2023, 4,102 households in San Joaquin County received rental assistance funds, 69 of which were in unincorporated areas. At the same point in time, the HCV waiting list had 4,980 households on it. In 2021, HCV usage in San Joaquin County centered around Stockton, Manteca, and parts of Lodi, including unincorporated communities adjacent to the cities. In the unincorporated communities of Kennedy, Morada, and Country Club, more than 5 percent of renters in all or part of the community used HCVs, including 20.9 percent of renters in the census tract containing west Kennedy and the adjacent neighborhood of Stockton.

To help prevent and address housing cost burden in renter households, the City has included the following Housing Element programs.
 Program HE-2.1: Through supporting the creation of additional affordable housing, the City will help to address housing cost burden in renter households.
 Program HE-2.6: This program will support organizations that provide housing stability programs for extremely low-income households.
 Program HE-3.7: The City will support housing stability through coordination with external agencies that maintain active housing stability programs.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 484 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-37
Figure 6-12 Renter Overpayment

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 485 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Homeowner Cost Burden
Cost burden among homeowners ranges from 30 to 42 percent, with the central to northeastern census tract having the highest share of cost burden among homeowners. However, there has been no documented patterns of eviction or foreclosures in Mountain House, nor are there known instances of “doubling up” of families according to code enforcement.

Regionally, large areas to the north, east, and south of Stockton have rates of owner overpayment between 40 and 60 percent. Much of the remainder of the unincorporated county's census tracts had moderate rates of homeowner cost burden, particularly in areas immediately surrounding the City of Stockton.

As discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment, a household of four with an income at the 2025 countywide median of $104,600 would be able to purchase a home with a price of approximately $422,878 before they would begin to experience cost burden due to mortgage payments. This calculation assumes a 90 percent loan at a 6.75 percent annual interest rate and 30-year term and assumes taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners’ insurance account for 21 percent of total monthly payments. According to Zillow, in 2026, the median sales price for homes in Mountain House was $756,000 for a 4-bedroom home, and the median home value for all homes in Mountain House was $946,900, indicating that a household of four with the countywide median income could likely not purchase a house in the area without then experiencing housing cost burden.

To assist homeowner households with the cost of living and to prevent housing cost burden, the City has included the following Housing Element programs.
 Program HE-2.6: This program will support organizations that provide housing stability programs for extremely low-income households.
 Program HE-3.7: The City will support housing stability through coordination with external agencies that maintain active housing stability programs.

Sites Analysis: Overcrowding and Overpayment
As shown in Table 6-4, two of the city's three census tracts have overcrowding rates exceeding five percent, with Census Tract 52.22 experiencing the highest rate at 18.5 percent. This tract includes capacity for 1,031 lowerincome units, as well as 245 moderate-income units and 249 above-moderate-income units. Development of housing across these income categories is expected to expand the housing supply and provide additional housing opportunities that may help alleviate overcrowding. None of the city's census tracts experience severe overcrowding, as all have severe overcrowding rates below five percent.

Renter cost burden also varies across the city. Census Tract 52.23 has the highest share of renter households paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs (78 percent). This tract also contains the largest concentration of lower-income RHNA capacity, with 1,371 lower-income units identified, which is expected to increase the supply of affordable housing and help address renter cost burden. The remaining census tracts experience lower rates of renter cost burden at 34 percent in Census Tract 52.21 and 22.7 percent in Census Tract 52.22.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 486 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-39
Rates of homeowner cost burden are more consistent across the city, ranging from approximately 30 to 42 percent. Census Tract 52.22, which has the highest rate of homeowner cost burden, includes capacity for 249 above-moderate-income units and 245 moderate-income units (approximately 12 percent of the City's moderate-income RHNA capacity). Development of these units is expected to expand homeownership opportunities and help address housing cost burden among existing and future homeowners.

In summary, all residential development will help alleviate the overcrowding and cost burden Mountain House residents experience. This is particularly true in tract 52.23, where the highest rate of renter households paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs coincides with the tract where most of the lowerincome RHNA is identified. Similarly, in tract 52.2, nearly 500 units of moderate- and above moderate-income households are planned, which could help reduce the number of owner households experiencing cost burden.

Table 6-4 Identified RHNA by Census Tract
Tract Lower Percent of
Lower Moderate Percent of Moderate
Above
Moderate
Percent of
Above
Moderate

52.21 0 0% 144 8% 534 24%

52.22 1031 43% 245 13% 249 11%

52.23 1371 57% 1455 79% 1419 64%
Source: City of Mountain House, 2026. Due to rounding, numbers may not total 100 percent.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 487 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Figure 6-13 Housing Cost Burden Among Homeowners

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 488 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-41
Homelessness and Evictions
Homelessness is a fair housing concern, and it is often difficult to collect informative data that accurately reflects the magnitude of the population at risk, resulting in undercounting. A Point-in-Time count in 2024 found 1,263 individuals in shelters and 3,469 individuals without shelter throughout San Joaquin County. However, in the City of Mountain House, only 1 individual wasreported as homeless without shelter, information that is gathered from local knowledge and not captured by the 2024 PIT Count. The City does not have a sheltered homeless count as there are no shelters within the city limits.

According to a 2020 report on evictions in San Joaquin County prepared by Faith in the Valley, the Judicial Council of California reported 2,926 eviction filings for the 2018–2019 fiscal year. According to the 2015–2019 ACS, there were an estimated 95,813 renter households in the county during this period, indicating that around 3 percent of renter households may have experienced eviction. Princeton University's Eviction Lab calculated that for every 100 renter households in California, an average of 2.2 evictions were filed in 201810, indicating that San Joaquin County's rate may be above the statewide average. However, this report predates the incorporation of Mountain House as a separate jurisdiction and therefore does not have information specific to the city.

To support homeless services and help to create more opportunities for community members experiencing or at risk of homelessness, the City has included the following Housing Element programs.  Program HE-2.1: This program supports the development of housing affordable to lower-income households, including individuals experiencing homelessness.  Program HE-2.6: The City facilitates the development, preservation, and occupancy of housing affordable to extremely low-income households and special-needs households, including individuals experiencing homelessness.
 Program HE-3.2: The City will work directly with external agencies, connecting residents experiencing or at risk of homelessness, with available housing, shelter, and supportive services.

Housing Conditions
As discussed in Section 4 (Housing Needs Assessment), housing conditions can be an important factor in quality of life. Substandard conditions present a barrier to fair housing as occupants are susceptible to health and safety risks associated with poor housing conditions, at risk of displacement if conditions make the unit uninhabitable, or when property owners must vacate the property to conduct repairs. As housing units age, they deteriorate without ongoing maintenance, which can present a fair housing issue for occupants, reduce property values, and discourage private reinvestment in neighborhoods dominated by substandard conditions. Typically, homes over 30 years old are more likely to need repairs or rehabilitation than newer units. 10 Eviction Lab. 2023. Princeton University.
https://evictionlab.org/map/?m=modeled&c=p&b=efr&s=all&r=states&y=2018&z=3.78&lat=39.50&lon=-105.25&lang=en&l=06_- 119.27_37.27.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 489 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

According to Claritas (2026) and ACS data (2019–2024), a majority of Mountain House’s housing stock (92 percent) was built after 2000. In comparison, only 31 percent of the entire housing stock of San Joaquin County was built after 2000, indicating that residents in Mountain House are, on average, less likely to need maintenance on their homes.

According to code enforcement data, there are no concentrations of code enforcement complaints in certain areas. Most code enforcement cases are related to Master Restriction violations related to breaches of neighborhood covenants, HOA rules, or master plan zoning limits, which do not apply to the Development Code.

The lack of documented code enforcement cases indicates that housing conditions in the city are generally in good condition.

To support improvements in any substandard housing conditions in the city, the City has included the following Housing Element programs.
 Program HE-2.6: The City will facilitate the development, preservation, and occupancy of housing affordable to extremely low-income households, including pursuing funding for preservation of existing housing.
 Program HE-6.1: This program focuses on providing information and referrals regarding housing rehabilitation, home repair, accessibility improvements, and housing assistance programs, therefore reducing the risk of displacement resulting from deteriorating housing conditions.  Program HE-6.2: This program refers residents and property owners to available energy efficient improvement and utility cost reduction programs, which could alleviate the pressures of rising utility costs and assist to reduce displacement risk.

Disaster-Driven Displacement
The City of Mountain House is not within any Federal Emergency Management Agency zones of high flood risk.

Additionally, the city is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone, except a small area on the southwestern edge of the city, although the city is located adjacent to areas with moderate and high fire severity. This includes a portion of the community of Chrisman, which is in a moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone. These conditions are shown in Figure 6-14 Flood Hazard Areas in San Joaquin County and Figure 6-15 Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Additionally, in other chapters of the General Plan, the City has included the following policies and programs to manage the risk of flooding or dam inundation.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 490 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-43
Figure 6-14 Flood Hazard Areas in San Joaquin County
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2026

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 491 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

Figure 6-15 Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Source: CalFire 2024, CalFire 2025

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 492 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-45
Fair Housing Enforcement
Prior to incorporation, residents in Mountain House could request fair housing assistance through the San Joaquin Fair Housing Association, a fair housing nonprofit that provides tenant-landlord mediation, outreach and education, and referral services in addition to facilitating fair housing complaint submittal. However, in March 2026, the San Joaquin Fair Housing Association closed. As part of the Housing Element, the City has included Program HE-5.1 to seek out a fair housing provider to assist Mountain House residents.

Discrimination
Between 2013 and 2022, HUD reports there were three fair housing cases from residents in Mountain House.

Of these three cases, 1 was on a familial status basis, and 2 were on a race basis. These cases predate Mountain House’s incorporation and, given the closure of San Joaquin Fair Housing Association in March 2026, no further information is available on these cases. Currently, fair housing complaints in Mountain House can be submitted to the California Civil Rights Department. As part of the Housing Element, the City will seek out a fair housing provider that can provide fair housing services to Mountain House residents.

At the countywide level, of the cases filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing between 2015 and 2020, the most common basis for complaints was disability related (43.5 percent of complaints in the county), followed by race (21.7 percent of complaints). Denial of reasonable accommodation was the most commonly listed discriminatory practice, followed by evictions, denial of rental/lease/sale, and denial of equal terms and conditions. However, Department of Fair Employment and Housing cases were not divided geographically within the county, so it is not possible to determine how many of these occurred in the unincorporated county.

To promote equal housing, the City has included Program HE-5.1, through which it will seek out a fair housing provider to provide fair housing education and outreach, mediate landlord-tenant disputes, promote fair housing practices, and reduce the effects of housing discrimination within the city.

Compliance with Fair Housing Laws
In addition to assessing demographic characteristics as indicators of fair housing, jurisdictions must identify how they currently comply with fair housing laws or identify programs to move into compliance. Mountain House enforces fair housing principles and complies with fair housing laws and regulations through a twofold process:
review of local policies and codes for compliance with state law and referral of fair housing complaints to appropriate agencies. The following identifies how the City complies with fair housing laws.  Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915). The County has included Program HE-4.3 to amend the density bonus ordinance to allow up to a 50.0 percent increase in project density depending on the proportion of units that are designated affordable and up to 80.0 percent for projects that are completely affordable, in compliance with state law.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 493 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING

 No Net Loss (Government Code Section 65863). The City has identified a surplus of sites, including a potential annexation, available to meet the RHNA allocation. In total, the City’s surplus unit capacity is 2,896, composed of 458 lower-income units, 637 moderate-income units, and 1,801 above-moderate-income units.  Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5). The City does not condition the approval of housing development projects for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households or emergency shelters unless specific written findings are made.
 AB 2339. The City currently allows Small Emergency Shelters by right, without limitations, in C-O, C-G, AU, and M-X zoning districts, and with an improvement plan in the I-L zone. Large Emergency Shelters are permitted with an improvement plan in the C-O and C-G zones.  SB 35 (Government Code Section 65913.4). The City will comply with SB 35 by establishing a written policy or procedure, as well as other guidance as appropriate, to streamline the approval process and standards for eligible projects within one year of Housing Element adoption (Program HE-4.1).  SB 330 (Government Code Section 65589.5). The City complies with SB 330 by relying on regulations set forth in the law for processing preliminary applications for housing development projects, conducting no more than five hearings for housing projects that comply with the objective general plan and development standards, and making a decision on a residential project within 90 days after certification of an environmental impact report or 60 days after adoption of a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental report for an affordable housing project. The City has included Program HE-4.1 to formalize this process by establishing a written procedure to be made available on the City’s website and at public counters.
 California Fair Employment and Housing Act and Federal Fair Housing Act. The City is actively seeking a fair housing provider to assist Mountain House residents with fair housing education and outreach, mediation of landlord-tenant disputes, promotion of fair housing practices, and the reduction of housing discrimination.

The City has included Program HE-5.1 to commit to acquiring a fair housing provider for residents.  Review Processes (Government Code Section 65008). The City reviews affordable development projects in the same manner as market-rate developments, except in cases where affordable housing projects are eligible for preferential treatment, including but not limited to those on residential sites subject to AB 1397.  Assembly Bill 686 (Government Code Section 8899.50). The City has completed this AFH and identified programs to address identified fair housing issues in Table 6-5, Factors Contributing to Fair Housing Issues.  Equal Access (Government Code Section 11135 et seq.). Through Program HE-5.2, the City will seek translation services for all public meetings and continue to offer accessibility accommodations to ensure equal access to all programs and activities operated, administered, or funded with financial assistance from the state, regardless of membership or perceived membership in a protected class.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 494 of 618

6. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
Mountain House Housing Element Page 6-47
Contributing Factors
In discussions with stakeholders and fair housing advocates and through this assessment of fair housing issues, the City identified Factors Contributing to Fair Housing Issues, as shown in Table 6-5. While a variety of strategies are identified in this element to address the fair housing issues, the most pressing issues are listed below. Contributing factors are shown next to each issue and the related actions that are being taken to address these. Primary contributing factors and meaningful actions related to those factors are shown in bold.

Table 6-5 Factors Contributing to Fair Housing Issues
AFH-Identified
Fair Housing
Issue
Contributing Factor Priority Meaningful Actions
Lack of housing
affordable at all
income levels
Predominantly single-family
residential development
High Support the development of housing at all
income levels, including housing for lowerincome households  Program HE-2.1
 Program HE-2.6
 Program HE-3.1
Lack of housing to
support the
growing local
workforce
Existing and new housing
stock tend to be for higherearning households
High Encourage a variety of unit types within
projects, including studio and one-bedroom
unit options
 Program HE-2.1
 Program HE-2.3
 Program HE-2.6
Need for a variety
of housing types,
including senior
housing
Existing residential
development to date has
been primarily single-family
residences
Mediu
m
Coordinate with developers who specialize in
senior housing and active adult communities
to better understand what is needed
 Program HE-2.1
 Program HE-2.6
 Program HE-3.1
Lack of commuting
and transportation
options
Return-to-work orders have
increased the strain on local
roads and commuter
options
Mediu
m
Continue to coordinate with regional
transportation agencies, such as San Joaquin
RTD and ACE, to increase transit options in
Mountain House
 Program HE-5.3

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 495 of 618

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 496 of 618 Mountain House Housing Element Page 7-1

7. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
State housing law requires that the City review both governmental and nongovernmental constraints for the maintenance and production of housing for all income levels. Since local governmental actions can restrict development and increase the cost of housing, state law requiresthat the housing element “address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing (Government Code Section 65583(c)(3)).” Potential Governmental Constraints
Federal, state, and local government policies and regulations can positively or negatively impact the availability and affordability of housing. Local governments have little or no influence on the national economy or the federal monetary policies that influence it, yet these two factors have some of the most significant impacts on the overall cost of housing. The local housing market, however, can be encouraged and assisted locally. Part of the Housing Element’s purpose is to require local governments to evaluate their past performance in this regard.

By reviewing local conditions and regulations that may impact the housing market, the local government can prepare for future growth through actions that protect the public’s health and safety without unduly adding to the cost of housing production. The analysis in this section does not include federal or state policies or regulations that cannot be impacted by local government actions.

This section reviews Mountain House’s primary policies and regulations that affect residential development and housing affordability through land use controls, development processing procedures and fees, impact fees, onand off-site improvement requirements, and building and housing codes and enforcement. This section discusses these standards and assesses whether any serve as a constraint to affordable housing development.

As part of the governmental constraints analysis, the Housing Element analyzes potential and actual constraints on the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing.

General Plan
Prior to incorporation, Mountain House was developed as a master-planned community under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. Municipal services were provided by the Mountain House Community Services District, which was established by the County in 1996 to serve the growing community. The District operated under the County's Board of Supervisors until 2008, when it became independent.

The City is currently in the process of preparing its first city-specific General Plan. The City currently relies on the San Joaquin County General Plan as its General Plan. The city-specific General Plan builds upon the established Mountain House Master Plan policy framework. The City anticipates the adoption of the General Plan by the end of 2026.

Table 7-1 lists the General Plan land use designations.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 497 of 618

7. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS

Table 7-1 Land Use Designations Allowing Residential Developments Land Use
Designation
Allowable
Density Description
Very Low
Density
Residential
R-VL 1.00-2.00
du/acre
Intended to provide for the development of relatively large-lot, single-family detached homes.

Low Density
Residential R-L 2.01 – 7.00 du/acre
Intended to provide for a variety of single-family dwelling unit types for single-family homes.

Medium
Density
Residential
R-M 7.01 – 9.50
du/acre
Intended to provide for a variety of residential dwelling unit types, which could include both detached and attached homes.

Examples of these developments might include small-lot, detached, single-family residential units, “patio” homes, and duets.

MediumHigh Density
Residential
R-MH 9.51-12.50
du/acre
Intended to provide for detached and attached residential dwelling units, including duets, triplexes, “patio” homes and townhomes, and other attached residential uses.

High Density
Residential R-H 12.51 to 40.00 du/acre
Intended to provide opportunities for a variety of attached housing in close proximity to shopping, entertainment,
employment, higher education and recreation uses. Housing types may include condominiums, townhomes, garden
apartments, and other attached residential uses. The allowable development density is 12.51 to 40.00 units per acre.

Mixed Use M-X

12.51 to 40.0
du/acre
Maximum FAR is

2.0 Intended to provide an integration of land use types, including office, retail, recreation, public, and residential uses, under a coherent plan; provide a central location for community activities, such as parades, exhibits, shows and other civic functions that serve to give identity and interest to the lifestyle of a community; and otherwise create a focal point of activity within the community. The M/X designation allows for more urban densities, innovative design, and a more efficient land and infrastructure utilization than would be permitted under other traditional designations.

Source: Mountain House General Plan, estimated to be adopted December 2026 The City’s Development Title (Title 9 of the City’s Municipal Code) establishes policies that guide all new development, including residential land uses. These policies, along with zoning regulations, control the amount and distribution of land allocated for different land uses in Mountain House. Table 7-2 shows the residential zoning districts for Mountain House.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 498 of 618

7. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
Mountain House Housing Element Page 7-3
Table 7-2 Residential Zoning Designations
Zone Description
Very Low
Density
Residential
R-VL
Intended as a transition from rural to urban areas allowing for detached, singlefamily dwellings on large lots located in areas with existing large lot development, within communities around sensitive natural resources, or on the urban fringes.

This zone is intended to implement the Very Low-Density Residential land-use category of the General Plan.

Low Density
Residential R-L
Intended to provide for neighborhoods consisting of detached, single-family residences, located within or immediately adjacent to population centers which are served by a public water supply, sanitary sewer system, and similar facilities and services. This zone is intended to implement the Low-Density Residential land-use category of the General Plan.

Medium
Density
Residential
R-M
Intended to accommodate detached single-family dwelling units, mobile homes, and attached units including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in neighborhoods most appropriately situated as buffers between less and more intensively developed residential areas or as transitions from residential to commercial areas. The zone is intended to implement the Medium Density Residential landuse category of the General Plan.

Medium-High
Density
Residential
R-MH
Intended to allow for attached housing units such as townhouses and garden apartments in central portions of urban communities, along major transportation routes, and around major commercial areas. This zone is intended to implement the Medium-High Density Residential land-use category of the General Plan.

High Density
Residential R-H
Intended to encompass housing such as apartments, condominiums, and other multifamily housing units, located near central business districts, major commercial areas, and major transportation routes, where hotels and motels may also be appropriate. This zone is intended to implement the High-Density Residential land-use category of the General Plan.

Source: City of Mountain House Development Title, 2026.

Development Standards
Tables 7-3 and 7-4 provide the development standards within the city, including maximum density; minimum lot size; maximum building coverage and building height; and front, side, and rear yard setbacks. The minimum lot area requirements are expressed in square footage, except where indicated, and represent the smallest lot size that can be approved in a new subdivision in the applicable zone. Table 7-3 presents the general lot and structure standards applicable to residential zoning districts in Specific Plan I and II planning areas. Table 7-4 presents the lot and structure standards for the Specific Plan III planning area, which reflect modified requirements for that portion of the city.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 499 of 618

7. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS

Table 7-3 General Lot and Structure Standards, City of Mountain House Standard
Zoning District

R-VL R-L R-M
(≥3,600 sf)
R-M
(<3,600 sf) R-MH R-H
Density Range (du/ac) 1–2 3.75–4.75 5.7–7 5.7–7 12–14 18–20 Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.) 15,000 5,000 3,000 2,000 — — Minimum Lot Width (feet) 75 50 40 35 — —
Maximum Building Height
(Stories) 2 2 2 2 3 3
Maximum Building
Coverage (Percent) 35
50; 60 for
one-story
homes
55; 65 for
one-story
homes
75 65 65
Minimum Building
Separation (feet) 30 10 10 10 10 20
Front Yard Setback (feet)¹ 25
20; 15 for
one-story
homes)
15 10 10 15; 10
(arterial)
Side Yard Setback (feet)¹ 15 5 5 5 5 10
Rear Yard Setback (feet)1 25
20; 15 for
one-story
homes
15 10 10 10
Source: City of Mountain House Development Title, Title 9, 2026. ¹ Unless otherwise specified, setbacks shall be measured from the planned ultimate right-of-way width of the roadway, as shown on the Master Plan or on any applicable specific plan.

Table 7-4 Lot and Structure Standards, Specific Plan III Area Standard
Xml gl eBgqrpgar
P+TJ P+J P+K
P+K
&qk _jjjmr' P+KF P+F
Lot Size (sq. ft.) 15,000 5,000 3,600 2,000 - -
Lot Width (FT) 75 45 35 30 25 -
Corner Lot Width (FT) 75 50 40 35 30 -
Lot Depth: Width Ratio - - - - - -
Setbacks - - - - - -

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 500 of 618

7. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
Mountain House Housing Element Page 7-5
Standard
Xml gl eBgqrpgar
P+TJ P+J P+K
P+K
&qk _jjjmr' P+KF P+F
Front (FT) 25 20 12 10 15 15
Rear (FT) 25 20 15 10 10 10
Side (FT) 15 5 5 4 5 5
Corner Side (FT) side plus 5 side plus 5 side plus 5 side plus 5 side plus 5 side plus 5 Building Separation (FT) 30 10 10 8 10 20
Max. Building Coverage 35% 40% 50% N/A 65% 65%
Max. Building Height (Stories) 2 2 2 2 3 3
Source: City of Mountain House Specific Plan I, II, and III. City of Mountain House Development Title, Title 9, 2026. Refer to Tables 9-3-3.1 and 9-3-3.2 for additional standards.

Density Bonus
Density bonuses allow development to occur at higher densities with additional square footage or residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned. State law requires cities and counties to approve density bonuses for housing development that contain a specified percentage of units affordable to very low- or low-income households or units restricted to occupancy by seniors.

Under current state law (Government Code Section 65915), cities and counties must provide a density increase of up to 80 percent over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the municipal code and the land use element of the general plan (or bonuses of equivalent financial value) when builders agree to construct housing developments with 100 percent of units affordable to low- or very low-income households.

The City adopted the density bonus provisions in Chapter 4 (Residential Zones: Density Bonus) of the Development Title and has included Program HE-4.3 to review and revise the ordinance as needed to ensure continued compliance with state law.

ATTACHMENT A
Item 9.1
Mountain House                                               Page 501 of 618

7. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS