Attachment B - Stockton Rising Report — City Council and Concurrent Authorities, June 21, 2022

STOCKTON RISING

A BASELINE AND PROGRESS REPORT ON EARLY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM GRANT

ATTACHMENT B
2 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments
Prepared by the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation
Principal Investigator: V. Kelly Turner, Ph.D.

Researchers: Jason Karpman, Erin Coutts, Dinan Guan, Elena Hernandez, Bo Liu, and Kelly Trumbull Editors: Colleen Callahan and Michelle Einstein
Prepared for
California Strategic Growth Council (Contract Number: SGC20107) The City of Stockton (Contract Number: 419000709) Report Period
Stockton Rising award date (December 2020) through the end of month six of implementation (June 2021) Acknowledgments
We thank the California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) for dedicating resources to a third-party evaluation of Transformative Climate Communities Program (TCC) investments in Stockton. In particular, we’d like to specifically thank Lynn von Koch-Liebert, Saharnaz Mirzazad, Jennifer Kim, Sarah Newsham, Gerard Rivero, and Sophie Young for their commitment to our work, and for their attention to our many informational requests.

Along with SGC, we’d also like to thank our partners at the California Department of Conservation — namely, Brendan Pipkin, Sydney Mathis, Nicole Cartwright, and Jacob Byrne — for reviewing the accuracy of TCC background information provided in this report.

In addition to our state partners, we’d also like to thank the Stockton Rising collaborative for entrusting the evaluation of their initiative to the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation and its staff. In particular, Grant Kirkpatrick, Vanessa Munoz, and Oluchi Njoku, who have been instrumental in facilitating introductions between the evaluation team and local stakeholders. And a big thank you to all of the Stockton Rising project partners for sharing so much primary data with the evaluation team, as well as reviewing the content within this report for accuracy.

We would also like to acknowledge former staff at the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation who have substantively contributed to the center’s approach to evaluating TCC investments across sites: J.R. DeShazo, Silvia R. González, Lolly Lim, and Britta McOmber. Similarly, we extend our thanks to our former colleagues at the UC Berkeley Center for Resource Efficient Communities who consulted in the original TCC evaluation plan: William Eisenstein and Zoe Elizabeth.

Moreover, we would like to thank Bruce Mirken, Alvaro Sanchez, and Emi Wang at the Greenlining Institute for their thoughtful input on how to structure the content contained in this report.

We also we a great deal of gratitude to Nick Cuccia and Lauren Dunlap for their copy editing and design support.

Finally and importantly, as a land grant institution, the authors also acknowledge the Gabrielino and Tongva peoples as the traditional land caretakers of Tovaangar (Los Angeles basin, Southern Channel Islands), and recognize that their displacement has enabled the flourishing of UCLA.

Disclaimer
The UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation appreciates the contributions of the aforementioned agencies. This report, however, does not necessarily reflect their views nor does it serve as an endorsement of findings. Any errors are those of the authors.

For More Information
www.innovation.luskin.ucla.edu
Cover image: Mural in Stockton that also serves as the Stockton Rising logo (Photo credit: risestockton.org) © June 2022 by the Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles. All rights reserved.

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 3 Table of ContentsTable of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ��4 Stockton Today �� 5 Stockton Rising�� 5 Projects �� 6 Transformative Plans �� 7 Project Area �� 8 Anticipated Benefits �� 9 Early Accomplishments ��10 BACKGROUND ��13 The Vision Behind TCC ��13 Evaluating the Impacts of TCC ��16 A Brief History of Stockton: The Legacy of Environmental Injustice ��20 Stockton Rising: Looking Back and Forward ��22 STOCKTON RISING: STORIES FROM THE COMMUNITY �� 25 Solar installations bring financial relief to low-income homeowners ��26 Stockton youth learn how to advocate for environmental justice ��28 PROFILES: TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS ��30 Community Engagement Plan��31 Displacement Avoidance Plan ��33 Workforce Development Plan ��35 PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS ��37 Active Transportation ��38 Healthy Food Access��42 Rooftop Solar �� 44 Urban Forestry ��46 APPENDICES �� 59 Appendix 1: Supplemental Maps ��59 Appendix 2 Summary of Methods for Estimating Project Benefits ��61 Appendix 3: Rise Stockton Coalition Members ��62 Appendix 4: Stockton Rising Collaborative Stakeholder Structure (CSS) ��63 Appendix 5: Stockton Rising TCC Census Tracts ��64 Appendix 6: Stockton Rising Control Census Tracts��65 Appendix 7: Indicator Data ��66

ATTACHMENT B
4 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant

THE TRANSFORMATIVE CLIMATE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM
(TCC)
is an innovative inve
stment in community-scale climate
action, with potentially broad implications. Launched in 2017 by the California State Legislature, TCC funds the implementation of neighborhood-level transformative plans that include multiple coordinated projects to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The program is also designed to provide an array of local economic, environmental, and health benefits to disadvantaged communities, while minimizing the risk of displacement. TCC empowers the communities most impacted by pollution to choose their own goals, strategies, and projects to enact transformational change — all with data-driven milestones and measurable outcomes.

The California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) serves as the lead ad- ministrator of TCC. During the first round of the program, and through a competitive process, SGC awarded multimillion-dollar grants to the City of Fresno ($66.5 million), the Watts Neighborhood of Los Angeles ($33.25 million), and the City of Ontario ($33.25 million). During the second round, SGC awarded the City of Sacramento ($23 million) and Pacoima, the Northeast San Fernando Valley neighborhood of Los An- geles ($23 million). And during the third and most recent round, SGC awarded the City of Oakland ($28.2 million), the City of Riverside ($9.1 million), and the City of Stockton ($10.8 million).

The UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation (LCI) serves as the lead eval- uator for all three Round 1 sites, one Round 2 site (Northeast San Fernando Valley), and one Round 3 site (Stockton). LCI researchers are working with the these communities to document their progress and evaluate the impacts of TCC investments.

This progress report is the first in a series of three that will provide an overview of the key accomplishments and estimated benefits of TCC funded activities in Stockton, collectively referred to as Stockton Rising.
1 This specific report documents progress through the end of FY 2020-21, which overlaps with about six months of post-award planning (June to December of 2020), and six months of grant implementation (January to June of 2021). The majority of implementation has oc- curred during the COVID-19 pandemic, so project partners’ responses to the pandemic are also highlighted throughout the report. 1 For annual reports that LCI has produced for other TCC sites, visit:
https://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/climate/climate-investments/ Stockton Stockton Rising
1,350

b
oxes of local,
organic produce
delivered (15 to 20
pounds each)
29 meetings of
Stockton Rising’s
various grant
governance bodies
15 online cooking
classes taught
to students from
grades K-8
12 bike racks added
8 rooftop solar
contracts signed for
properties occupied
by low-income
households
3 online gardening
classes taught
to students from
grades K-8
June 2021
Key Accomplishments To Date
June 2020
Award Announced
December 2020
Grant Execution September 2023
Grant Completion


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3,072

line
ar feet of
pedestrian
pathways added
33 street lights added

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 5 Stockton Today
Located in the heart of California’s Central Valley, and con- nected to the San Francisco Bay by the San Joaquin River, St
ockton is a port city and an agricultural hub. As such, the city has been a node for the siting of heavy industry and major transportation infrastructure. The city is divided by a network of passenger and freight carrying railways, two highways (State Route 4 and 99), and a freeway (Interstate 5). As a result the, city is home to neighborhoods with some of the worst pollution burdens in the state.

Demographically, Stockton is one of the most diverse
cities in the state. According to 2020 census data, Stock- ton’s 310,000 residents are 42% Hispanic, 24% Asian, 19% non-Hispanic whit
e, and 13% black. Unfortunately, this
diverse community suffers from higher levels of poverty and unemployment than the rest of the state. Such in-
equities are the byproduct of freeway building, redlining pr
actices, and other legacies of structural racism that have dispossessed communities of color from their support
networks and concentrated them in neighborhoods with
few resources but high in health hazards. The city’s 2012 bankruptcy also lead to years of disinvestment, which has contributed to Stockton’s slow economic recovery follow- ing the Great Recession.

Stockton Rising
In 2016, a coalition of community-based organizations in Stockton partnered with the Greenlining Institute (GLI) to address the environmental, health, and economic inequi- ties facing Stockton. The coalition focused its sights on the cit
y’s most disadvantaged neighborhoods, namely those in
Downtown and South Stockton. GLI played a critical role in helping the coalition think through opportunities to lever- age California Climate Investment dollars toward reversing the harmful le
gacies of the past.

In 2017 , GLI and community partners invited the City of Stockton to join them in applying for TCC Round 1 Planning Grant. One year later they were awarded $170,000. These funds helped support the formation of an even broader co- alition of community-based and external partners, known as R
ise Stockton, and the development of the Sustainable
Neighborhood Plan (SNP). In producing this plan, the
Rise Stockton coalition engaged over 2,000 residents and translated their input into seven community priorities:
energy, water, health, parks, safety, transportation, waste, and water. For each of these priorities, the SNP identifies projects that will provide meaningful community benefits.

Building upon the momentum from their planning grant,
the City of Stockton and partners from the Rise Stockton coalition successfully applied for a TCC Round 3 Implemen- tation Grant. They were awarded a total of $10.8 million in 2020
. These funds will support the realization of previous
planning efforts by investing in a suite of projects and plans, collectively referred to as Stockton Rising, that deliv- er the following benefits to residents of South Stockton, all at no cost: ener
gy- and water-efficiency installations, roof-
top solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, locally grown food, incr
eased tree coverage, improved active transportation
infrastructure, and multiple job training opportunities that prepare residents for careers in a decarbonized economy.

Aerial view of Downtown Stockton. Photo credit: ClimatePlan.org

ATTACHMENT B
6 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Projects
Stockton Rising includes a total of seven projects. For the purpose of legibility to a broad audience, this report consolidates these seven projects into five distinct project types , as summarized below. Figure 1 maps the location of project types within the TCC project area (only projects with known locations at the outset of grant implementa- tion are mapped).

TCC Funded Projects
Active Transportation — Funds the
transformation of a ten-block auto-domi-
nated thoroughfare along Miner Avenue in
D
owntown Stockton into a marquee “com-
plete street” (a street that serves the mobility needs of all us
ers, regardless of travel mode). More specifically,
the project will deliver the following outputs: 117 new trees, 485 shrubs, 34 streetlights, 15 benches, 14 bike racks, upgraded utility connections, new paint striping, and traffic signal upgrades. The improvements from the
project are expected to encourage a modeshift from
cars to more active modes, thereby resulting in re-
duced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and environmental
b
enefits such as reduced GHGs and local air pollutants.

These environmental benefits will also be augmented
by the project’s urban greening component’s.

Energy and Water Efficiency —
Funds energy and water efficiency mea-
sures for 812 residents while also employing
lo
w-income youth. Energy efficiency mea-
sures will be installed at no cost to residents, and will include: LED
s, refrigerators, water heater blankets, and
smart thermostats. Similarly, water efficiency measures will be installed at no cost to residents, and will include:
kitchen aerators, bathroom aerators, showerheads,
dishwashers, and toilets. Benefiting households will also be educated on best practices to conserve energy and
water. A total of 56 youth will be recruited for seasonal positions to assist with project implementation.

Healthy Food Access— Funds the de-
livery of free boxes of organic produce to
50 familie
s on a weekly basis for 30 months.

The produce will be procured vis-a-vis
community supported agriculture (CSA),
a farming model in which local farmers send boxes of
seasonal produce directly to consumers. The boxes will
be complemented by educational programming on
how to cook the contents of each box. Educational pro-
gramming will be delivered through printed materials,
a phone
-in hotline with a live educator, and recorded
demonstrations (at least 15 in total). In addition to the educational content directly tied to the food boxes,
the project will also include weekly cooking classes
and at least five gardening classes. These classes will be offered online to the community at large with outreach
efforts focused within the TCC project area.

Rooftop Solar — Funds the installation of up to 621
kilowatts of DC rated (kW-DC) solar PV
panels on the roofs of residential buildings
that are occupied by low-income house-
holds. A total of 378 kW-DC will be installed
acr
oss 108 single-family homes and 243 kW-DC will be
installed on four multi-family structures. The instal-
lations will be used as job training opportunities for
r
esidents interested in a career in the solar sector. Once installed, the rooftop solar systems will enhance local generation of renewable energy and lower energy costs
for property owners.

Urban Forestry — Funds the planting of 1,750
trees throughout the project area. All of
the trees will belong to species that are as
drought tolerant as possible, minimizing
watering needs. As the trees mature, they
will reduce GHGs by sequestering carbon.

Moreover, the trees will help absorb local air pollutants such as PM 2.5 and NOx, as well as stormwater runoff.

The community will be engaged in implementation
through 10 community tree planting events. Addition-
ally 25 individuals will be hired and trained for part-time, s
easonal positions to assist with tree planting activities.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXE CUTIVE SUMMARY 

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 7  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  Transformative Plans
TCC is unique from other state-funded GHG reduction
programs because it requires grantees to develop three
transformative plans to maximize the benefits of the
previously described project and to minimize unintended harms. Specifically, grantees were required to develop a community engagement plan (CEP), workforce develop-
ment plan (WDP), and displacement avoidance plan (DAP).

Re
spectively, these three plans are designed to ensure
that TCC investments reflect the community’s vision and goals, bring economic opportunities to disadvantaged and low-income communities, and minimize the risk of gentri- fication and displacement of existing residents and busi- nesses. In the case of Stockton Rising, these three plans have b
een adapted in the following ways:

Community
Engagement Plan
» C oordination and alignment of projects and plans
to ensure they are in sync with the community’s
vision for climate justice. This will be accomplished
through the a collaborative stakeholder structure
(CSS) that governs TCC implementation, and includes
participation from the following:
•
9 TCC funded project partners
•
8 r
esident representatives
•
4 stak
eholders organizations
•
A nondefine
d number of Community Coalition
members (project area residents and workers)
» R
esident capacity building around climate action.

Specifically, project partners will recruit and train
residents for the following roles:
•
10 communit
y liaisons who function as local
ambassadors for the Stockton Rising initiative
•
30 youth le
aders who act as local experts on
environment justice and climate resiliency
» Educational campaigns
that spotlight opportunities
to benefit from, participate in, and learn from climate action efforts, including the following events:
•
Blo
ck party with presentations by project partners
•
Summit that highlights e
arly outcomes from TCC
» C
ommunications with project area residents across
multiple channels, such as:
•
So
cial media posts about project updates
•
Phot
oVoice walking tours that narratively
document how TCC is changing the community
Displacement
Avoidance Plan
» T echnical assistance from a third-party contractor
who will assist Stockton Rising partners in developing
a DAP [Stockton Rising partners did not have the
capacity to develop a DAP at the time of applying for
a TCC implementation grant, so it will be developed
during the grant implementation period]
» Organizational capacit
y building amongst project
partners to better study and document site-specific
displacement pressures

Workforce
Development Plan
» S olar installation training with GRID Alternatives.

A total of 16 trainees will gain paid, on-the-job
experience in the solar sector.
» Bus me
chanic training with the San Joaquin
Regional Transit District (RTD). A total of 4 trainees
will learn how to repair electric buses in a paid, three- year long apprenticeship program. Graduates will be
then be hired by RTD as full-time employees.
» G
ardening/landscaping training for a total of 40
incarcerated individuals. Participants will earn credits that expedite their release from prison.
» Y
outh employment opportunities in the building
and construction trades, with the following tracks:
•
56 paid p
ositions installing water and energy
efficiency measures at residential properties
•
36 paid pr
e-apprenticeships through California’s
Multi-Craft Core Curriculum (MC3) program
•
10 paid ext
ernships at different host organizations

ATTACHMENT B
8 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXE CUTIVE SUMMARY  Figure 1. Map of Stockton Rising Project with Known Locations of Projects* *See the previous two pages for information about what each icon represents. This map does not include projects or plans that are sitewide (e.g., community engagement, energy and water efficiency upgrades, solar installations at single-family properties, tree plantings, etc.). Figure credit: UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation Project Area
The Stockton Rising project area was configured to bring investment to some of the state’s most disadvantaged
neighborhoods. All census tracts within the project bound- ary area are defined as disadvantaged according to CalEn- viroscreen 3.0 (around 75% of the project area ranks within the t
op 5% of the state).

The project area boundary was also drawn to connect
key assets within those census tracts. Key assets include:

Stockton’s commercial downtown; the Little Manila historic district; two Amtrak stations that provide direct rail service from Stockton to Sacramento, Oakland, Bakersfield, and
San Jose; 11 public parks; six elementary schools; one high school; and one community center.

Figure 1 shows where TCC funded projects and lever-
aged projects will be located within the project area. See App
endix 1 for a more detailed map that includes assets
located within the project area.

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 9 Harder to quantify, but nevertheless important, is the
leadership and collaboration capacity that will be created in Stockton over the course of the TCC implementation
process. This capacity could lay the foundation for many other funding and action-oriented opportunities that
leverage the TCC projects and plans to bring additional environmental, health, and economic benefits to Stock-
ton. In addition, lessons learned and best practices from St
ockton’s TCC grant could inform local climate action and investments at much broader scales.
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  Anticipated Benefits
Stockton Rising is slated to bring a number of benefits to residents of the TCC project area. The infographic below highlights a non-exhaustive list of these benefits. This list includes outputs, outcomes, and impacts from TCC funded projects and plans. Project outputs refer to the tangible goods and services that Stockton Rising will deliver by the end of project implementation. These outputs are ex-
pected to result in many positive outcomes and impacts.

Out
comes refer to changes in stakeholder knowledge,
attitudes, skills, behaviors, practices, or decisions, while impacts refer to changes in the environmental or human
conditions that align with the objectives and goals of TCC.

Project Outputs
2 See Appendix 2 for a summary of methods for how these benefits were estimated. Benefits are reported as totals over the operational period of the projects, also referred to as project lifetimes. 3 Pollutants include: diesel particulate matter (PM), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and reactive organic gases (ROGs).

The total does not reflect air local air pollutant reductions from water efficiency measures because the California Air Resources Board did not have an approved methodology for doing so at the time of Stockton Rising’s grant award. 4 All jobs are reported as full-time equivalents (FTEs).

0.5 miles
of bike
lanes

0.75 miles of sidewalk
and construction
improvements
10 residents trained
as Community Liaisons
who serve as local
climate action experts
and share resources
812 homes provided
free energy and water
efficiency upgrades

1,850 new trees that
will provide shade and
capture stormwater

55 youth trained as
environmental justice
advocates
621 kW of solar
power on affordable
multifamily
developments and
single-family homes
6,250 boxes of
free, local, and
organic produce (15 to
20 p
ounds each)
162 paid training
opportunities for jobs
that support climate
action efforts
Project Outcomes and Impacts2
17 ,139 metric tons
(MT) of avoided GHG
emissions (in CO
2e)
23,695 pounds
of avoided local air
pollutants
3 201,096 miles
of averted travel in
passenger vehicles
annually
12,428,668 gallons
in avoided stormwater
runoff
$6,777 ,929 in
energy, water, and
travel cost savings
74 direct jobs
21 indirect jobs, and
48 induced jobs
supported by TCC funds4

ATTACHMENT B
10 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Much has happened following SGC’s announcement of
Stockton Rising’s TCC award in June of 2020. From that an- nouncement through the close of the 2020-’21 fiscal year (June 30
, 2021), project partners have made considerable
progress toward implementing an ambitious, unprece-
dented climate action initiative.

K
ey accomplishments of Ontario Together project part-
ners are described in this section according to the phase in which the
y occurred. Specifically, accomplishments are
divided between: (a) post-award consultation, a period of planning and preparation between the award announce-
ment and grant execution; and (b) grant implementation, which formally b
egan in December 2020, when the City of
Stockton executed its grant agreement with SGC. Giv-
en the timing of grant execution, this first annual report overlaps with only six months of pr
ogram implementation.

Nonetheless, Stockton Rising’s projects and plans are well underway and providing tangible benefits for project area residents.

Post-Award Consultation
(June 2020 – December 2020)
Formalized Partnerships and Governance Structure
During the post-award consultation phase, Stockton Rising partners participated in a comprehensive review of all proj- ects and transformative plans to ensure that they complied with T
CC guidelines, and that requisite partnerships were
in place to successfully carry them out. Key deliverables that came out of this process included: an executed grant agreement with clearly defined work plans and roles for each project partner; an evaluation plan to measure the effects of TCC investment in collaboration with LCI; and the establishment of a collaborative stakeholder structure (CSS) for coordinating grant governance (see Appendix 4 for a full list of members within Stockton’s CSS).

Grant Execution Implementation
(December 2020 – June 2021)
Connected Residents with Healthy Food Options
Within the first six months of project implementation, proj- ect partners have already put 1,350 boxes of free, seasonal or
ganic produce in the hands of residents. The average
food box tends to weigh between 15 and 20 pounds. To
complement the food boxes, project partners hosted two
virtual demonstrations on ways to turn the produce into healthy meals at home. In addition to the cooking demon- strations for recipients of the CSA boxes, project partners als
o taught 15 online cooking classes and three gardening
classes to students K through 8 at Taylor Leadership Acad- emy, a public school in the TCC project area.

Brok
e Ground on Miner Avenue Improvements
Construction activity along Miner Avenue has already
r
esulted in dramatic improvements along the commer-
cial corridor. Through June 2021, construction workers
w
ere able to install the following: 3,650 square feet of new permeable surfaces that will infiltrate stormwater; 33 new street lights, 24 wheel chair ramps, and 12 bike racks.

Kicked Off Solar Installations in Low-Income Settings
Through the end of FY 2020-21, project partners execut- ed contracts for eight solar PV system installations. Of the
se systems, four will occur at single-family properties, benefiting low-income homeowners, thereby providing
Construction workers pouring curbs at a roundabout at the intersection of San Joaquin and Miner, where TCC dollars are being used to make “complete street” improvements. Photo credit: City of Stockton Early Accomplishments
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXE CUTIVE SUMMARY 

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 11 Key Accomplishments
Through June 2021
Partnership Formation
» A n executed grant agreement with clearly defined
work plans, partner roles, deliverables, and report-
ing expectations for each project and plan;
» The de
velopment of an evaluation plan, in col-
laboration with LCI, for tracking the outputs and
out
comes from each project and plan; and
» Establishment of a collab
orative stakeholder
structure (CSS) for coordinating grant gover-
nance, composed of nine project partners and 8
r
esident representatives.

Healthy Food Access
» 1,350 boxes of seasonal organic produced deliv-
ered (15 to 20 pounds each);
» 15 online cooking classes taught to 37 students
from grades K-8;
» 3 online gardening classes taught to 37 students
from grades K-8; and

» 2 online cooking demonstrations for families that
received food boxes.

Complete Street Transformations
» 3,650 square feet of permeable surfaces added;
» 3,072 linear feet of pedestrian pathways added;
» 33 street lights added;
» 24 wheelchair ramps added;
» 12 bike racks added; and
» 4 traffic signals upgraded to include video detec-
tion of users of all modes.

Renewable Energy Access
» 4 contracts executed for solar PV installations on
single-family properties; and
» 4 contracts executed for solar PV installations on
multi-family properties.
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  financial relief in the face of rising energy costs (see page 26 for a case study on two residents in the project area who decided to go solar and their motivations for doing so).

The remaining four systems will be installed at multi-family properties that house low-income individuals and families.

Conducted Outreach in Support of Efficiency Upgrades
Project partners also kicked off implementation of energy and wat
er efficiency installations by spreading the word
about how residents can take advantage of the opportunity.

Specifically, project partners sent out 4,814 mailers; posted 950 informational flyers, and posted 51 announcements on Facebook about the various efficiency measures that resi- dents can access through the Stockton Rising initiative.

L
aunched Job Training for Electric Bus Mechanics
As part of Stockton’s Workforce Development Plan (WDP), a p
ortion of TCC funds are being used to enroll four appren- tices in a three-year-long bus mechanic apprenticeship
pr
ogram at the San Joaquin Regional Transit District (RTD).

Apprentices will learn specifically how to repair electric buses. During the first six months of implementation, proj- ect partners at RTD successfully recruited one of these ap- prentices, who has already logged 569 hours of on-the-job tr
aining. Upon successful completion of the apprenticeship program, each trainee will be offered a regular, full-time position at RTD.

Deepened Engagement Efforts Around Climate Action
Stockton’s Community Engagement Plan (CEP) builds upon
the foundational w
ork that project partners accomplished
during their TCC Planning Grant. During that grant, project partners engaged over 2,000 residents in re-imagining
Downtown and South Stockton as a sustainable and equi-
table neighborhood. As that vision gets realized through St
ockton’s TCC Implementation grant, project partners
are deepening engagement efforts by inviting residents to participate in grant governance, as well as building their capacity to serve as environmental leaders who advocate at broader scales for climate justice.

With respect to grant governance, Stockton’s CCS began
meeting regularly and coordinating alignment across proj- ects and plans. During the reporting period, there were 29 me
etings of the various working groups within Stockton’s
CSS. Specifically, the Steering Committee met five times; the Community Engagement Working Team met 12 times;
and the Workforce Development Working Team met 12
times. For each working group within Stockton’s CSS, there are two seats reserved for resident representatives (set to be filled during the FY 2021-2022).

And with respect to capacity building, a total of 10 young adults were recruited for a climate resilience and leader-

ATTACHMENT B
12 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Water quality training for youth in enrolled in Stockton’s climate resilience and leadership development program, one of the components of Stockton Rising’s CEP. Photo credit: Little Manila ship development program. Through a series of educational workshops, these participants learned how they can advo- cate for policy change to address issues such as soil con- tamination, air pollution, and the various impacts of climate change
. The training program also exposes participants to
professional opportunities to continue their advocacy work over the long term (see page 28 for a case study on how the program has shaped the aspirations of two participants, as well as the program’s lead coordinator).

Responded to COVID-19 Pandemic
In between submitting an application and receiving an
implementation grant, Stockton Rising project partners
had to rethink how to approach their proposed work in
the aftermath of COVID-19. Despite the many challenges
presented by the pandemic, all Stockton Rising projects and plans were able to carry on. The ways in which project partners pivoted in response to the pandemic are high-
lighted throughout this report. Notable pivots include:
» C
ommunity engagement partners switched to virtual
platforms to conduct workshops, events, and meetings.
» Ener
gy and water efficiency partners deployed a satel-
lite program in which homes assessments were con-
ducted virtually and efficiency kits were sent in the mail. » Proje
ct partners delivered boxes of seasonal produce
using COVID-19 safety protocols, and supplemented
food deliveries with virtual programming on how to
prepare the produce from the safety of one’s home.

Key Accomplishments
Through June 2021
Energy and Water Saving Measures
» 4,814 informational mailers sent to resident in
the pr
oject area about opportunities to benefit
fr
om free energy and water efficiency upgrades;
» 950 informational flyers posted around the proj-
ect area; and
» 51 informational announcements posted on Face-
book.

Community Engagement
» 29 total meetings of the various grant gover-
nance bodies within Stockton Rising’s collabora-
tive stakeholder structure; and
» 10 young adults recruited and enrolled in a
climat
e resilience and leadership development
pr
ogram.

Workforce Development
» 1 trainee completed 569 hours of training through
S
an Joaquin Regional Transit District’s electric bus
maint
enance mechanic apprenticeship program.
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXE CUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUM MARY 

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant 13 The Vision Behind TCC
The Transformative Climate Communities Program (TCC) was authorized in 2016 by Assembly Bill 2722 (authored by Assembly member Autumn Burke). The bill’s intent is to fund the development and implementation of neighborhood-level transformative plans that include multiple coordinated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction projects that provide local economic, environmental, and health benefits to disadvantaged communities.
4 The program is part of California’s broader suite of
programs, referred to as California Climate Investments, that use revenues from the state’s Cap-and- Trade Program to fund projects that reduce GHG emissions. TCC is novel because of three signature elements: 1) its place-based and community-driven approach toward transformation; 2) robust, holistic programming via the integration of diverse strategies; and 3) cross-sector partnerships. The authors of this report are not aware of such a comprehensive, community-driven, and place-based climate action program anywhere else in the world.
4 AB 2722, Transformative Climate Communities. 2016. Web. February 2017 . Retrieved from: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/ faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2722
Former Governor Jerry Brown in Fresno signs a package of climate change bills in September of 2016, including Assembly Bill 2722, which was authored by Assembly member Autumn R. Burke (at right) and established the Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Program.

Photo credit: The Fresno Bee


BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND

ATTACHMENT B
14 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant As a place-based program, all grant applicants must iden- tify a project area that will be the focus of the TCC propos- al. Proposals must be borne out of a robust community
engag
ement process that brings together residents and
stakeholders toward the development of a shared vision
of how to invest TCC funds. The program’s emphasis on
comprehensive community engagement helps ensure that
proposals are based on a deep understanding of a commu- nity’s needs and assets, thereby maximizing the benefits that T
CC dollars bring to existing residents in a selected
site.

As a holistic program, TCC integrates a wide variety of GHG reduction strategies, such as sustainable land use, low car- bon transportation, renewable energy generation, urban
gr
eening, and waste diversion. With these strategies in
mind, TCC grantees develop site-specific projects, such as transit-oriented affordable housing, expanded bus service, rooftop solar installations, tree planting, and food waste recovery. These GHG reduction projects are modeled after existing California Climate Investment (CCI) project types, but TCC is novel in that it unifies them into a single, place- based initiative. In addition to integrating various CCI proj- ect types, TCC also requires TCC sites to incorporate cross- cutting transformative plans, ensuring that TCC investment is underpinne
d by meaningful community engagement,
provides direct economic benefits to existing residents and businesses, and enables these stakeholders to remain in their neighborhood. Moreover, grant recipients are ex- pected to use TCC dollars in concert with other sources of funding that could complement T
CC investment.

Last, as a program that emphasizes cross-sector partner- ships, TCC requires applicants to form a coalition of orga- nizations that will support with grant implementation. To assur
e that the community’s vision is realized, all applicants are required to have an oversight committee that consists of project partners (i.e., organizations funded to carry out grant implementation), residents, and other key stake-
holders (e.g., community-based organizations, unions,
faith-bas
ed groups, etc.). The diverse partnerships, robust
governance structure, and aforementioned transforma-
tive plans help ensure transparency and accountability for the inve
stments, all while building community capacity in
neighborhoods with long histories of disinvestment, there- by helping to reverse that trend.

Pro
gram Administration
SGC awards TCC grants and administers the program in
partnership with the Department of Conservation (DOC),
and with the support of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and other state agencies. The administrative
functions of SGC and DOC include: developing program
guidelines, evaluating applications, preparing agreements, monitoring agreement implementation, and reporting.

There are two types of grants administered through TCC:
implementation grants and planning grants. SGC awards
implementation grants to sites that have demonstrated a clear, community-led vision for how they can use TCC dol- lars to achieve program objectives in their communities.

SGC als
o awards planning grants to disadvantaged commu-
nities that may be eligible for future TCC implementation gr
ants and other California Climate Investment programs,
but need financial assistance to prepare for the proposal writing process. The implementation grants are funded
through California’s Cap-and-Trade auction proceeds while the planning grants are funded through a mix of Proposi- tion 84 funds and Cap-and-Trade auction proceeds.

Pro
gram Awards
Since the launch of the program in 2016, there have been three rounds of awards. During Round 1, which was tied to fiscal year (FY) 2016-2017 funding, a total of $133 million was allocated to implementation grants and $1.6 million was allocated to planning grants. For Round 2, which was tied to FY 2018-2019 funding, a total of $46 million was allocat- ed to implementation grants, and a total of $800,000 was allo
cated to planning grants. Last, for Round 3, which was
tied to FY 2019-2020 funding, a total of $48 million was allocated to implementation grants and a total of $600,000 was allocated planning grants. Table 1 provides an overview of the implementation and planning grants that have been distributed through FY 2020-2021.
 BACKGROUND BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND B ACKGROUND 

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant 15 Table 1: Overview of TCC Implementation and Planning Grants Through FY 2020-2021 Site Location Round (Fiscal Year) Grant Type Funding Amount Fresno Round 1 (FY 2016-2017) Implementation $66.5 million Ontario Round 1 (FY 2016-2017) Implementation $33.25 million Los Angeles - Watts Round 1 (FY 2016-2017) Implementation $33.25 million Coachella Valley Round 1 (FY 2016-2017) Planning $170k
East Los Angeles Round 1 (FY 2016-2017) Planning $170k
East Oakland Round 1 (FY 2016-2017) Planning $170k
Gateway Cities Round 1 (FY 2016-2017) Planning $170k
Moreno Valley Round 1 (FY 2016-2017) Planning $94k
Richmond Round 1 (FY 2016-2017) Planning $170k
Riverside Round 1 (FY 2016-2017) Planning $170k
Sacramento - Franklin Round 1 (FY 2016-2017) Planning $170k Stockton Round 1 (FY 2016-2017) Planning $170k
West Oakland Round 1 (FY 2016-2017) Planning $170k
Northeast Los Angeles - Pacoima/Sun Valley Round 2 (FY 2018-2019) Implementation $23 million Sacramento - River District Round 2 (FY 2018-2019) Implementation $23 million Bakersfield Round 2 (FY 2018-2019) Planning $200k
Indio Round 2 (FY 2018-2019) Planning $200k
McFarland Round 2 (FY 2018-2019) Planning $200k
South Los Angeles Round 2 (FY 2018-2019) Planning $200k Tulare County Round 2 (FY 2018-2019) Planning $200k
East Oakland Round 3 (FY 2019-2020) Implementation $28.2 million Riverside - Eastside Round 3 (FY 2019-2020) Implementation $9.1 million South Stockton Round 3 (FY 2019-2020) Implementation $10.8 million Pomona Round 3 (FY 2019-2020) Planning $200k
Porterville Round 3 (FY 2019-2020) Planning $200k
San Diego - Barrio Logan/Logan Heights Round 3 (FY 2019-2020) Planning $200k  BACKGROUND BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND BACKGROUND 

ATTACHMENT B
16 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Evaluating the Impacts of TCC
In 2017 , SGC contracted with the University of California, Los Angeles and the University of California, Berkeley
(UCLA-UCB evaluation team) to draft an evaluation plan
for assessing the progress and outcomes of Round 1 TCC
implementation grants at the neighborhood level. In No- vember 2018, the UCLA-UCB evaluation team published an
e
valuation plan to serve as a guide for evaluating the three TCC Round 1 grants.5
Following the publication of the Round 1 evaluation plan, the UCLA-UCB evaluation team entered a second contract
with SGC to serve as the third-party evaluator in all three Round 1 sites. The UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation (LCI) is now the sole contractor in that role, and will continue as such for the first five years of TCC Round 1 grant implemen- tation (2019 through 2024).

F
or Rounds 2 and 3 of the program, each TCC site selected a third-party evaluator from a list of qualified evaluation technical assistance providers that were preapproved by SGC through an open application process. LCI was selected to serve as the evaluator for the Round 2 grant in Northeast Los Angeles (Pacoima) and the Round 3 grant in Stockton.

LCI’s evaluation plans for Rounds 2 and 3 closely follow the evaluation plan from Round 1, with some site-specific 5 The UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation and UC Berkeley Center for Resource Efficient Communities. 2018. Transformative Climate Communities Evaluation Plan: A Road Map for Assessing Progress and Results of the Round 1 Place-based Initiatives. Retrieved from: http://sgc.ca.gov/programs/ tcc/docs/20190213-TCC_Evaluation_Plan_November_2018.pdf modifications to reflect each site’s unique set of projects, goals, and priorities for data tracking. These modifications were made in close consultation with the project partners in each TCC site.

Conceptual Framework for Evaluating TCC
Logic models greatly informed all of the evaluations plans that LCI produced. Logic models illustrate the interim steps that must occur for a project or plan to realize its intended goals. Within the context of TCC, these steps are defined as follows:
» Inputs:

The investment dollars and leveraged funds that
support TCC
» A
ctivities: The work of TCC grantees and co-applicants
» Outputs:

The products and services that TCC projects
produce and deliver
» Shor
t-term Outcomes: Changes in stakeholders’
knowledge, attitude, and skills
» Int
ermediate Outcomes: Changes in stakeholders’
behaviors, practices, or decisions
» Impac
ts: Changes in environmental or human condi-
tions that align with the objectives of TCC (i.e., GHG
r
eductions; public health and environmental benefits;
and economic opportunities and shared prosperity).

Trees being planted in the TCC project area at Mattie Harrell Park. Photo credit: City of Stockton  BACKGROUND BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND B ACKGROUND 

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant 17 The LCI evaluation team translated the latter four steps in the logic model framework into indicators that could be quantified and tracked for the purposes of program evalu- ation. The Stockton Rising evaluation plan summarizes the final list of indicat
ors that will be tracked over the initia-
tive’s three-year completion period (2021 to 2023), as well as the metho
ds for tracking them.6 Indicator tracking re-
sponsibilities will be partially split among the LCI evaluation te
am and TCC project partners. In general, all output-re- lated indicators will be tracked by the project partners, while most outcome and impac
t related indicators will be
tracked by the LCI evaluation team.

Quantitative Methods for Evaluating TCC
To quantitatively assess the effects of TCC, the LCI evalua- tion team will conduct two different forms of comparison:
(1) befor
e-and-after TCC investment; (2) and a with-and-
without TCC investment. Together, these two modes of
comparis
on will provide the most reliable assessment of
what chang
es can be attributed to TCC investment.

F
or the before-and-after comparison , the LCI evaluation team will measure changes in indicators before and after TCC kickoff, which in the case of Stockton Rising, occurred on December 28, 2020. Whenever possible, the LCI evalu- ation team will construct a five-year pre-kickoff trend line (2016-2020 for St
ockton Rising) and a five-year post-kick-
off trend line (2021-2025 for Stockton Rising).

For the with-
and-without comparison, the LCI evaluation
team will compare trends in TCC sites to trends in a set of control sites that did not receive TCC investment. This will help isolate the effect of TCC from larger social, economic, and environmental forces that may also be acting on indi- cators. To support this effort, the LCI evaluation team has identified contr
ol sites that are similar to TCC sites along a
number of dimensions, including socioeconomic demo-
graphics, climate, and pollution burden (as demonstrated by CalEnvir
oScreen scores).7
In addition to measuring changes within TCC sites and
control sites, the LCI evaluation team is also measuring changes at the county and state level for indicators that speak to social equity (e.g., income, employment, hous- ing costs, etc.). This will allow the LCI evaluation team to asse
ss whether TCC is reducing socio-economic disparities
between TCC sites and the broader regions where they
are located. If, for example, employment slightly increases within TCC sites, but a much greater increase is observed regionally, then the economic gap between TCC sites and nearby communities has not been sufficiently addressed. 6 A digital copy of the Stockton Rising evaluation plan is available upon request (send request to [email protected]). 7 See the TCC Round 1 Evaluation Plan (Appendix 3.2) of the TCC Round 1 Evaluation Plan for a summary of the methods used to identify control sites:
http://sgc.ca.gov/programs/tcc/docs/20190213-TCC_Evaluation_Plan_November_2018.pdf In summary, the LCI evaluation team will analyze quantita- tive data at four geographic scales (where possible):
» TC
C project area: The neighborhood boundary iden-
tified by the TCC grantees in which all TCC investments will be lo
cated. In some cases, a cluster of census tracts
that have mor
e than 10% area overlap with the TCC
pr
oject boundary area will be used for indicator tracking purp
oses instead of the actual project boundary. This is
the c
ase for all indicators that rely on American Commu-
nity Survey (ACS) data, which cannot reliably be appor- tioned to fit the actual TCC project boundary area. Se
e
Appendix 4
for a list of census tracts that will be used as
a pr
oxy for Stockton Rising’s TCC project boundary area.
» TC
C control sites: A cluster of census tracts that match
T
CC census tracts along a number of dimensions (e.g.,
demo
graphics, climate, pollution burden, etc.) but that
did not r
eceive TCC investment. Collecting before and
aft
er data for the control sites will help control for exter- nal forces that may also be acting on indicators of inter- est within TCC sites. See Appendix 5
for a list of census
trac
ts that will be used as control sites for evaluating the impac
ts of TCC investment in Stockton.
» Count
y: The county in which TCC sites are located (San
Joaquin C
ounty for Stockton). County-scale measure-
ments are helpful for understanding the degree to
which TC
C investments are addressing social equity
concerns at a r
egional scale.
» Stat
e: The state in which TCC sites are located (Cali-
fornia). Like county-scale measurements, statewide
measur
ements are helpful for understanding the degree
t
o which TCC investments are addressing social equity
concerns, but at a br
oader scale.

It’
s important to underscore that not all indicators easily lend themselves to analysis at the latter three scales. Many TCC indicators rely on the collection of primary data, and it may be cost-prohibitive or technically infeasible to collect that data for control sites, the county, or the state. This is true for indicators such as trees planted and food boxes delivered, which are reported to the LCI evaluation team directly by project partners. Even when secondary data are readily available at all four scales, it may not be prudent to use limited evaluation resources to analyze the data at all of those scales. This is true for bicyclist and pedestrian col- lision data, which must be cleaned and geocoded before
being analyz
ed. Furthermore, some indicators must be
estimated because they cannot be measured directly (e.g., GHG reductions, indirect jobs, etc.). In cases these cases, the LCI evaluation team is providing estimates for TCC sites  BACKGROUND B ACKGROUNDBACKGROUND B ACKGROUND 

ATTACHMENT B
18 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant only. Developing estimates for other geographic scales
requires making a number of site-specific assumptions that are outside the LCI evaluation team’s scope of work.

It is also important to note that it could take a generation for the transformative impacts of TCC investment to be
quantitatively measured. Urban tree canopy, for example, can take 40 years to grow to maturity. Similarly, a career transition can require close to a decade (or more) of ed- ucation and skill building. Thus, at the end of a relatively shor
t evaluation period (May 2021 through September
2024), changes in impact indicators may be too small to draw any statistically valid conclusions. Nonetheless, the LCI evaluation team will update impact indicators annually for the sake of maintaining a complete time series. See Ap- pendix 6 for the latest indicator data the LCI has collected.

Qualitati
ve Methods for Evaluating TCC
Many of the potential benefits of TCC will likely be missed by the quantitative methods previously described. For ex- ample, improvements in wellbeing, community capacity to tackle ne
w challenges, and communication across diverse
stakeholder groups are difficult to describe in numerical terms. Thus, in order to capture some of the nuanced
effects that TCC may have at the individual and community level, the LCI evaluation team will be analyzing qualitative data collected from surveys, interviews, and focus groups. 8 The LCI evaluation team will prioritize the use of qualitative data collection instruments to examine the aspects of TCC that are particularly novel relative to other grant programs.

Specifically, the LCI evaluation team will collect qualitative data about the rollout of the transformative plans and the collaborative stakeholder structure.

Communicating the Effects of TCC
The LCI evaluation team will release three annual progress reports that document the early effects of TCC investment in Stockton. The first two progress reports will highlight findings from the LCI evaluation team’s quantitative data collection. High-level findings from both qualitative and quantitative research will be summarized in the third
annual progress report, once all qualitative data collection efforts have been completed.

To complement LCI’s observations about the effects of
TCC, each annual progress report also spotlights the per- spectives of TCC project partners and beneficiaries. These p
erspectives are highlighted in the following chapter,
8 See Section 3.3 of the TCC Round 1 Evaluation Plan for a summary of the timing, intent, and target population associated with each of these data collection instruments: http://sgc.ca.gov/programs/tcc/docs/20190213-TCC_Evaluation_Plan_November_2018.pdf (since the publication of the Round 1 evaluation plan, the LCI evaluation team has also committed to interviewing members of each TCC site’s collaborative stakeholder structure on annual basis about implementation successes, challenges, and opportunities to improve the rollout of TCC in real world contexts) entitled Stories from the Community. The individuals pro- filed in this chapter are recruited directly by TCC project par
tners and are interviewed by the LCI evaluation team.

From these interviews, the LCI evaluation team develops two case studies per year about how the effects of TCC are being felt on the ground.

Evaluation Activities in Stockton Through June 2021
During the first year of program implementation, the LCI evaluation team worked with Stockton Rising to opera-
tionalize indicator tracking protocols. Specifically, the LCI e
valuation team developed reporting forms to streamline
tracking activities and trained project partners on how to use those forms. On an annual basis, project partners will complete and submit indicator reporting forms to the
LCI evaluation team. Each submission reflects the project partner’s activities during the previous fiscal year. Many of the key accomplishments described in this document
are pulled directly from the reporting forms submitted by Stockton Rising project partners.

The LCI evaluation team also completed baseline data
collection activities for quantitative indicators , the results of which are summarized in the final chapter of this an- nual report. This data will be updated on an annual basis thr
ough the release of the third Stockton Rising annual
report in 2024.

Figure 2 provides a summary timeline of data collection activities that the LCI evaluation team is coordinating in Stockton. The timing of pending activities is subject to change.
 BACKGROUND BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND B ACKGROUND 

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant 19 June 2024
End of FY
2023-2024
May 2021
Start of evaluation
technical assistance
Indicator Data Collection
Community Engagement Surveys
Workforce Development Surveys
Collaborative Stakeholder Structure Interviews
“Stories From the Community” Interviews
Workforce Development Interviews
Community Engagement Interviews
Displacement Avoidance Interviews
Displacement Avoidance Focus GroupsJune 2021
End of FY
2020-2021
September 2024
End of evaluation
technical assistance
June 2022
End of FY
2021-2022
June 2023
End of FY
2022-2023
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Data collection completed during this period
Data collection is planned during this period
Data collection is not planned during this period
Year 5
Figure 2. Timeline of Data Collection Activities for Stockton Rising* *Each “year” in the figure corresponds to a fiscal year (FY) rather than a calendar year. Figure credit: UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation
 BACKGROUND BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND BACKGROUND 

ATTACHMENT B
20 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant A Brief History of Stockton: The
Legacy of Environmental Injustice
TCC Awards are reserved for California’s most disadvan- taged communities. Understanding how those communi-
ties became so disadvantaged is critical for evaluating the effic
acy of TCC. If the root causes of pollution, poverty, and other harms are overlooked, then they are likely to contin- ue. This section provides a brief history of Stockton, and ho
w environmental injustices from the past still affect the lives of Stockton residents today.

Displacement of Yatchicumne People
The St
ockton area was first occupied by the Yatchicumne,
a branch of the Northern Valley Yokuts Indians. During the California Gold Rush, gold seekers passed through Stock- ton on their way to the fields, transforming Stockton from a small s
ettlement to a busy commercial hub. Its strategic
location along several waterways led it to become the
gateway, supply, and transit center to California’s southern gold mines. During this time, the Indigenous Yokuts were violently displaced.
9 9 City of Stockton. 2019. Sustainable Neighborhood Plan. 10 https://www.visitstockton.org/about-us/stockton-history/ 11 http://downtownstockton.org/stockton_history.php
Emergence as a Hub of Industry and Immigration
Following their displacement, Yokut land was commercial- ized and urbanized. Businesses such as flour mills, wagon fac
tories, and iron works began to grow, especially along
the Stockton Channel. A leading industry was the manu-
facturing of agricultural tools. By the end of the nineteenth centur
y, Stockton was one of the most industrialized cities
in California.10
With industrialization came new immigrant communities.

In the 1850s, thousands of Chinese immigrants came to
Stockton to escape political and economic unrest in China and potentially discover gold.
11 When the Gold Rush ended,
many Chinese settled in Stockton, having found work on
railroads and reclamation projects in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta. By 1880, the city had the third largest Chinese community in California. However, due to dis-
criminatory laws, like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, C
hinese people could not purchase property, and many
Americans resented them. It wasn’t until 1962 that Ameri- can-born Chinese were allowed to buy property.

In the e
arly 1900s, the shipbuilding industry began to
develop, and the Port of Stockton opened as the first
A photo collage of Little Manila in South Stockton before and after it was bisected by a crosstown freeway in the 1970s.

Photo credit: SPD Historical Archives and Elena Mangahas  BACKGROUND BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND B ACKGROUND 

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant 21 inland seaport in California. The modernization of the port brought thousands of African Americans to the shipyards.12 By 1937 , ships from across the globe had traveled through Stockton, and the city continued to grow as its industrial base expanded.
13 Discriminatory Lending and Investment Practices
As Stockton became increasingly urbanized, it became
divided into North and South Stockton by local and federal laws intended to exclude under-resourced communities
of color from civic participation, prosperity, and social mobility.
14 Specifically, the Federal Housing Administration
(FHA), created under the New Deal in 1934, designed color coded maps of neighborhoods in major cities to indicate which were best suited for investment. Through this pro- cess, many communities of color, like South Stockton and Do
wntown, were highlighted as red areas, or areas where
banks should not make investments.

As immigrants and residents of color were systematically denied home loans, the value of the areas they lived in fell.

For members of these communities, building generational wealth through homeownership was unattainable. On the
other hand, white residents in North Stockton were able to own homes and continued to develop further outward.

This urban sprawl has led to increased energy use, pollu- tion from automobile reliance, the fragmentation of natu- ral areas, and diminished community cohesiveness
Displacement, Division, and Detention
In the late 1
960s, the city government, federal govern-
ment, and private developers worked together to demol-
ish “blighted” neighborhoods, including Filipino, Chinese, Japanes
e, Mexican, and African American communities.15
After their displacement, the city built State Route 4, which reinforced the social and economic inequality that already divided North and South Stockton.
16 This freeway ran right
through Little Manila, one of the biggest Filipino com- munities in the U.S., devastating families, businesses, and community cent
ers.
12 Corburn, Jason and Amanda Fukutome. 2019. Advance Peace Stockton: 2018-2019 Progress Report. 13 https://www.visitstockton.org/about-us/stockton-history/ 14 City of Stockton. 2019. Sustainable Neighborhood Plan. 15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 https://rsscoalition.org/history/
18 Christie, Jim. 2012. “How Stockton went broke: A 15-year spending binge.” Reuters. 19 Clark, Andrew. 2008. “Mortgage crisis: Welcome to sub-prime capital, USA.” The Guardian. 20 Christie, Les. 2007 . “California cities fill top 10 foreclosure list.” CNNMoney.com. 21 City of Stockton. 2015. “News Release - Stockton Exiting Bankruptcy.” 22 City of Stockton. 2018. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan.

In the 1970s, Prescient Nixon declared the War on Drugs, dramatically increasing criminalization, imprisonment, and punitive sentencing practices, which disproportionately impacted low-income communities of color. The loss of
family stability and the rise in violence exacerbated poverty and trauma.

The Housing Bubble and Municipal Bankruptcy
At the brink of the Great Recession, Stockton had be-
come a hotbed for new developments of upscale housing,
approve
d by city officials hoping to attract the wealthy Bay
Area commuters.17 In 2006, the price of homes soared to a median value of nearly $400,000 from $110,000 in 2000.18 Once the housing market began to crash, many referred
to Stockton as “ground zero” of the housing crisis.
19 In
2007 , Stockton had the highest foreclosure rate of the top 100 metro areas, with one foreclosure for every 27
households.
20 In 2012, Stockton became the largest city
in the U.S. to declare bankruptcy. While devastating, its bankruptcy ushered in a new era of change that Stockton is advancing towards
A New Era of Local Planning and Policy
In 2015, the city left bankruptcy protection and started on a path to reinvent itself as a sustainable city, fiscally and environmentally.
21 For example, Stockton has developed a
long-term financial plan to advise financial decisions and created its own Office of Performance & Data Analytics to promote transparency and accountability. There have also been efforts to address environmental challenges, includ- ing the Community Emissions Reduction Program, the
Cle
an Truck Program in the Port of Stockton, and the 2040
General Plan, which contains many goals, policies, and
actions that address public health, environmental justice, air quality, and climate change.
22 Despite these recent planning efforts, the legacy of racist land use policy remains apparent in Stockton. An unequal distribution of resources has left Stockton’s communities of colors to combat extreme heat, air and water pollu-
tion, chronic poverty, and homelessness at greater levels  BACKGROUND B ACKGROUNDBACKGROUND B ACKGROUND 

ATTACHMENT B
22 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Community members gather to discuss the issue of food justice in South Stockton. Photo credit: Rise Stockton than those in whiter and wealthier neighborhoods. These persistent inequities ultimately drove community-based
organizations to apply for TCC funding. The history of that is briefly summarized described in the next section.

Stockton Rising:

Looking Back and Forward
Stockton’s TCC Implementation Grant is the result of years of activism, community engagement, coalition building,
targeted technical assistance, and strategic planning. This section provides a brief history of that work.
23 Early Climate Action Planning Efforts
After the adoption of the Global Warming Solution Act of in 2006, also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 32, a local chapter of the Sierra Club voiced concerned that Stockton’s 2035 General Plan plan was not in alignment with the state’s GHG reduction goals. The Sierra Club eventually filed a lawsuit challenging the adequacy of the Environment Impact Re-
port that was produced in support of the City’s draft 2035 G
eneral Plan.

In 2008, a settlement agreement was signed between
23 For additional background, refer to the Greenlining Institute’s case study on Stockton, entitled Seeding an Environmental Justice Coalition, available at: https://greenlining.org/publications/2021/environmental-justice-coalition-to-undo-disinvestment-tcc-case-study/ 24 For the full plan, visit: https://www.stocktonca.gov/files/Climate_Action_Plan_August_2014.pdf the City of Stockton, the Attorney General of California, and the Serra Club. As part of that settlement, the City of Stockton was required to develop a plan to achieve local compliance with AB 32. The result of that settlement agree- ment is the 2014 Climate Action Plan (CAP), which provides a r
oadmap of twenty-six measures to achieve feasible GHG
reductions in Stockton.24
Financing the CAP, however, was a major challenge for the City of Stockton, and remains so today. Stockton was hit particularly hard by the Great Recession. Home to many
low-wage workers, Stockton had some of the highest fore- closure rates in the United States during this time. In 2012, St
ockton filed for bankruptcy.

Against this backdrop, the Greenlining Institute (GLI)
selected Stockton as a site in which to invest its technical assistance services. GLI is an Oakland-based policy advoca- cy organization that works to advance economic opportu- nities and empowerment for people of color. As such, GLI clos
ely tracks the flow of California Climate Investments
and assesses the degree to which they benefit disadvan- taged communities. Recognizing that communities in the
S
an Joaquin Valley were not receiving a proportional share of these funds, GLI decided to act.
 BACKGROUND BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND B ACKGROUND 

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant 23 In 2016, GLI convened a group of community-based orga-
nizations in Stockton to explore ways to bring California C
limate Investment dollars to the city. From that conven- ing, an environmental justice coalition began to form.

With continue
d technical assistance from GLI, community
partners and neighborhood residents hosted workshops
and participated in trainings on the environmental and
health inequities in their communities. From these events, a vision for a TCC Planning Grant was developed. In search of a partner with the capacity to handle the administrative functions of the grant, community partners invited the
Mayor’s Office of the City of Stockton to serve as the Lead Applicant on the group’s proposal.

TCC Funded Planning Work Begins
In 2018, the City of Stockton and seven community-based co-applicants were awarded a TCC Planning Grant of
$170,000. The award helped solidify and expand the part- nerships among the group, leading to the formation of
the R
ise Stockton Coalition. See Appendix 3 for a full list of Rise Stockton Coalition members and the mission of each member organization.

The TCC Planning Grant also supported a robust communi- ty engagement process to identify resident concerns and prioritie
s for more equitable neighborhoods. In total, Rise
Stockton coalition members engaged over 2,000 residents through a variety of engagement modalities, including:
five town halls, 20 small meetings and workshops, eight Climate Leadership Forums that trained empowered resi-
dents to serve as environmental justice advocates in their communit
y, 10 survey and door-to-door canvassing cam-
paigns, and 100 one-on-one conversations. This yearlong engag
ement process ultimately culminated in the Sustain-
able Neighborhoods Plan (SNP), which translated resident input int
o seven community-identified priorities: energy,
health, parks, safety, transportation, waste and water. For each of these priorities, the SNP identifies projects that will provide meaningful community benefits.

Stockton Rising is Born
In 2020, the City of Stockton was awarded a TCC Round 3 Implementation Grant of $10.8 million to build upon the momentum of previous planning efforts. These funds will support a suite of projects and plans, collectively referred to as Stockton Rising, that advance the vision of the SNP.

Specifically, Stockton Rising will deliver the following bene- fits, all at no cost for residents: energy- and water-efficien- cy installations, rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, lo
cally grown food, increased tree coverage, improved
active transportation infrastructure, and multiple job train- ing opportunities that prepare residents for careers in a de
carbonized economy. Table 2 provides a summary of the
funding levels for each Stockton Rising projects and plan.

In the spirit of environmental justice, the TCC Implemen- tation Grant will be concentrated in the Stockton’s most dis
advantaged neighborhoods, namely those in Downtown
and South Stockton. Appendix 1 provides a detailed map of the TCC project area and locations of site-specific projects.

The TCC Implementation Grant will also strengthens the
cross-sector partnerships that were formed during the
Planning Grant. A number of Rise Stockton partners now
have funded roles to implement TCC projects and plans,
and by extension of those roles, also serve as members of a collaborative stakeholder structure that deals with grant governance and oversight (known locally the Stockton Ris- ing Steering Committee), which meets on a quarterly basis.

The over
sight body also includes eight paid, part-time po-
sitions for residents to contribute to the grant governance pr
ocess. See Appendix 4 for a full list of Stockton Rising Steering Committee members.

Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs and Rise Stockton leaders. Photo credit: Rise Stockton  BACKGROUND BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND BACKGROUND 

ATTACHMENT B
24 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Complementary Investments Underway
In addition to TCC, Stockton is the site of several other novel investments aimed at environmental and economic
justice. In 2019, former Stockton Mayor Michael D. Tubbs launched the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demon-
stration (SEED), a universal basic income experiment that le
veraged philanthropic funds to pay 125 low-income
Stockton residents $500 per month for a two year period, with no strings attached.
25 That same year, CARB selected
Stockton to serve as an AB 617 community, and provided
$32 million in funding to the Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District for air pollution monitoring activities and the development of an emissions reduction plan for a 16 square mile area that encompasses the TCC project area. 26 One year later, CARB awarded a Sustainable Transportation Equity Project (STEP) Implementation Grant of $7 .5 million to the San Joaquin Council of Governments to implement
25 For more background on SEED, visit: https://www.stocktondemonstration.org/ 26 For more background on the AB 617 work underway in Stockton, visit: https://www.stocktondemonstration.org/ 27 For more background on the STEP Implementation Grant in Stockton, visit: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/lcti-stockton-mobility-collective a bundle of mobility improvement projects that serve a X mile square area in South Stockton, an area that also over- laps with the TCC project area.
27 While the aforementioned investments—TCC and other-
wise—bode well for the realization of environmental and e
conomic justice goals in Stockton, they also challenge
the task of program evaluation. Disentangling the effect of the TCC Implementation Grant from other public benefit
programs is difficult when they all are co-located. Thus, Stockton Rising is best understood as part of a bundle
of investments, and caution should be practiced when
attributing community-scale transformations to any single investment within that bundle. To practice such caution, the LCI evaluation team will be using qualitative data col- lection instruments to gather stakeholder input about the contributions of T
CC relative to other programs in achiev-
ing community-scale transformations.

Table 2: Summary of Stockton Rising Projects and Plans
Project/Plan Type Project/Plan Name Partners
TCC
Funding
Leveraged
Funding
Community
Engagement Plan N/A
Public Health Advocates*; Little
Manila Rising; Catholic Charities the
Diocese of Stockton
$866,759 $0
Displacement
Avoidance Plan N/A City of Stockton* $0** TBD
Workforce
Development Plan N/A
Rising Sun Center for Opportunity*;
GRID Alternatives; Insight Garden;
San Joaquin Regional Transit District
$541,725 $1,101,752
Active Transportation Miner Avenue Complete
Streets Improvement City of Stockton* $1,500,000 $17 ,808,920 Energy and Water
Efficiency
Climate Careers Energy Rising Sun Center for Opportunity* $1,301,400 $0 Climate Careers Water Rising Sun Center for Opportunity* $1,198,600 $0 Healthy Food Access Edible Education At
Home Edible Schoolyard Project $400,000 $51,533
Rooftop Solar
Stockton Energy for All
Single-Family GRID Alternatives* $1,124,625 $1,134,022
Stockton Energy for All
Multi-Family GRID Alternatives* $944,657 $297 ,150
Urban Forestry Urban Forest Renovation
Project
City of Stockton*; Little Manila
Rising; PUENTES $1,835,000 $0
Total*** $10,834,490 $20,393,378
*Project lead
**SGC has awarded a separate technical assistance grant ($100,000) to support the development of the Displacement Avoidance Plan. ***TCC funding total includes additional funding from SGC for grant administration ($580,000) and indicator tracking ($541,725).  BACKGROUND BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND B ACKGROUND 

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 25 
STOCKTON RISING: STOCKTON RISING:

STORIES FROM THE COMMUNITYSTORIES FROM THE COMMUNITY
AS A COMMUNITY-LED INITIATIVE, Stockton Rising engages a wide variety of stakeholders. Residents, local business owners, workers, and others help implement projects to advance community-defined goals for climate action, economic development, and more. This chapter provides a series of case studies of how these stakeholders have contributed to the rollout of Stockton Rising and/or benefited from the initiative's suite of projects and plans. The case studies are provided in reverse chronological order in order to spotlight more recent additions to this annual report.

It's important to note that these stakeholders represent only a small sample of the many individuals who have shaped—or been shaped by—the implementation of Stockton Rising. Thus, their purpose is to be illustrative, but not exhaustive, of the ways in which Stockton Rising has touched the lives of community stakeholders.

Stockton Rising project partners gather at a community resource fair in the TCC project area on August 18, 2021.

Photo credit: GRID Alternatives

ATTACHMENT B
 STOCKTON RISING:STOCKTON RISING: STORIES FROM THE COMMUNITY ST ORIES FROM THE COMMUNITY ST OCKTON RISING:STOCKTON RISING: STORIES FROM THE COMMUNITY STORIES FROM THE COMMUNITY  26 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Solar installations bring financial relief to Solar installations bring financial relief to low-income homeowners low-income homeowners
Installation of solar PV panels on a single family home in the TCC project area. Photo credit: GRID Alternatives CAROLYN HOPKINS is a longtime Stockton resident who
moved to the city when she was one-year old. Sixty-five years later, she’s now a retired homeowner, living with her son and granddaughter, and trying to make ends meet.

Rising energy costs haven’t been kind to her in that regard, and were ultimately what motivated her to go solar.
“Prior to going solar, my electricity bills were
getting so big that I couldn’t pay them all at once,
and I had to get on a payment plan .”

CAROLYN HOPKINS
Hopkins first heard about Stockton’s solar program for
low-income homeowners through her son, who had an
internship with GRID Alternatives, the organization leading Stockton’s solar installations. At first, Hopkins was skeptical that she wouldn’t have to pay anything for her new solar panels. However, after going over the program details with a representative at GRID Alternatives, Hopkins realized that there was no catch. The cost of the panels and their instal- lation is covered by TCC funds, and are exclusively reserved for homeo
wners that qualify as low-income. In addition to
the TCC grant, GRID Alternatives also receives philanthrop- ic funding, which has allowed the organization to upgrade Hopkins’ ro
of so that it could safely support the panels.

The upfront costs of rooftop solar are often what deter many low-income individuals from investing in solar on
their own. Stockton’s solar program, however, eliminates that issue, enabling homeowners to access measurable
cost savings soon after their solar panels go live. By gener- ating on-site electricity, the panels offset the consumption charg
es that ratepayers are billed. In Hopkins’ case, her
solar panels have produced enough electricity to save her as much as $100 per month.
“My summer utility bill, which includes both
electricity and gas, is where I have seen the
greatest cost savings, they went from over $200
down to around $100.”

CAROLYN HOPKINS
Now that she’s paying lower energy bills, Hopkins plans to use her cost savings to pay off her property taxes. She also is looking forward to taking a vacation with her family.

Time with family is particularly important to Hopkins. For example, when GRID Alternatives awarded her a $200
incentive for a referral she made, Hopkins spent the money on taking her grandchildren out to dinner.

The rooftop solar panels have also enabled Hopkins to
spend more money on maintaining a comfortable living
environment. For example, during the winter, Hopkins
used to rely primarily on space heaters to heat her home room-by-room because central heating was too expensive.

Background:

This case study explores how TCC
funded solar installations have
financially benefited low-income
homeowners in Stockton. The case
study does so through the lens of
two individuals, Carolyn Hopkins
and Mayra Delgado, who are using
the savings from their lower energy
bills to better maintain their homes
and personal wellbeing. For more
on Stockton’s solar projects, see
page 44.

Interviews for this case study were
conducted in March 2022.

ATTACHMENT B
 STOCKTON RISING:STOCKTON RISING: STORIES FROM THE COMMUNITY S TORIES FROM THE COMMUNITY S TOCKTON RISING:STOCKTON RISING: STORIES FROM THE COMMUNITY STORIES FROM THE COMMUNITY  Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 27 The energy cost savings from the solar panels have allowed Hopkins to turn on her central heater during the winter without having to worry so much about her resulting bill. “My home is two stories and it gets really cold
downstairs during the winter. When I didn’t
have the solar panels, I was too afraid to turn the
central heat on. Now I can afford to do that.”

CAROLYN HOPKINS
Hopkins’ switch from electric space heaters to gas pow- ered central heating is a certainly win for her wellbeing, but it’
s important to note that it may not be a clear environ- mental win. This points to the challenge of achieving deep GHG r
eductions in low-income settings, where residents
live in older buildings that are not yet fully electrified, and often lack the funds to invest in electrification themselves.

Thus, while rooftop solar systems are a critical step forward in the path towards decarbonization, they are certainly not the last step. To achieve a zero carbon future, greater investment is needed to help low-income homeowners
like Hopkins upgrade their central heating system to an electric one, which thanks to her solar panels, she could power on-site.

MAYRA DELGADO is another Stockton resident who de-
cided to go solar in order to help make ends meet. Origi- nally, from Mexico, Delgado moved to Stockton about 20
ye
ars ago with her former husband on the recommenda-
tion of her brother, who was already living there. Delgado was attr
acted to Stockton for the lower cost of living rela-
tive to the San Francisco Bay Area, where she had initially lande
d.

For a while, Delgado was able to take full advantage of the lower cost of living. With the modest income she and her husband both earned working at Mervyn’s, a national chain of department stores, they were able to buy a home for
themselves and their three daughters. But when the Great Recession came in 2008, the Delgado family was hit hard:

Mervyn’s went bankrupt, Delgado and her husband lost
their jobs, the interest rate on their home loan soared, and they were forced into foreclosure.

Delgado eventually recovered from the loss. She started working as a teacher’s assistant, rebuilt her savings, and bought another home. But her recovery was interrupted
by the pandemic and subsequent school closures. Now
a single mom, Degaldo was forced to decide between
working full-time or caring for her youngest daughter, a high school student with special needs. Delgado ultimately chose her daughter, and quit her full-time job for a part- time one at Amazon. The loss in income is when she start- ed falling behind on her electricity bills, and like Hopkins, had t
o get on a payment plan.
“In December, my utility bill was $340 or $380, I
had no idea how I was going to pay it...things got
so bad that I owed my utility a total of $600.”

MAYRA DELGADO
In search of a way to save money, Delgado started search- ing on the internet for options, and that’s when it occurred t
o her that going solar could help. She first explored get- ting panels through a for-profit solar company, but it didn’t mak
e financial sense for Deglado because of all the upfront costs. Then she eventually discovered Stockton’s no-cost solar program for low-income homeowners.

Like Hopkins, Delgado was skeptical at first, and it was her interactions with GRID Alternatives that made her feel con- fident that she wasn’t being scammed. She was particularly impr
essed by the follow through from GRID Alternatives
to address issues at her property that made installing solar panels challenging. Like Hopkins, Delgado needed repairs to her roof and tree trimming around her property, all of which GRID Alternatives covered at no cost to Delgado.
“GRID Alternatives was always looking for ways
to save me money, they knew I was a single mom
and wanted to make sure I didn’t have to spend
any of my own money on the solar panels.”

MAYRA DELGADO
After her solar panels were connected to grid, Delgado saw a dramatic decline in her utility bills. This has helped her catch up on the money she owes to her gas and electricity provider. Once those are paid off, Delgado plans to invest her savings back into her home and the health of her fami- ly. In practice, that means repainting her home and main- taining a healthy and diverse diet, all of which have been har
d for Delgado to afford in the face of inflation.
“Before I got the panels, I had to make some
tough choices. I could pay my bills or I could buy
fresh fruits and vegetables. Not having to choose
between the two gives me great peace of mind.”

MAYRA DELGADO

After earning her bachelor’s degree in Chicanx Studies at UCLA, she was awarded a Stockton Urban Revitalization
Fellowship to return to her hometown and work at Little Manila Rising. During her fellowship, Perez helped the Lit- tle Manila Rising promote a book about the life and work of Larr
y Itliong, a Filipino American who co-founded the
United Farmer Workers union. The larger goal of the cam- paign was to improve educational outcomes for students
of color by be
tter integrating the histories of marginalized
communities within school curricula.

Now, Perez holds a regular position at Little Manila Rising as the Leadership & Community Engagement Director.

In that role, she leads the organization’s effort to build capacity among Stockton’s youth to advocate for social
justice. As part of that effort, Perez is funded by TCC to coordinate an environmental justice workshop series in
which 30 young adults from Stockton (ages 17 to 24) facil- itate discussions on topics such as soil contamination, air pollution, he
alth impacts, and civic engagement. The goal
was to develop leadership skills amongst participants, and also equip them to be environmental justice messengers
within their community. Perez hopes to leverage the en- gagement sessions to build a more robust youth employ-
ment program at Little Manila Rising, what she refers to as the “scho
ol to social justice pipeline.”
Background:

This case study explores how TCC
funds for community engagement
have built local capacity to tackle
environmental injustices. The case
study does so through the lens
three Stockton natives: a project
partner who used TCC funds to
launch a youth leadership program;
and two graduates of that program.

For more on Stockton’s Community
Engagement Plan, see page 31.

Interviews for this case study were
conducted in October 2021.

Zoom recording of a Stockton Rising youth engagement session in April 2021 . Photo credit: Little Manila Rising Bianette Perez, coordinator of the Stockton Rising youth engagement sessions.

Photo credit: Urban Waters Learning Network
“At Little Manila Rising, we strongly believe
that youth are important leaders in the
community who will help shift society toward
equitable solutions to climate change.”

BIANETTE PEREZ

ATTACHMENT B
 STOCKTON RISING:STOCKTON RISING: STORIES FROM THE COMMUNITY S TORIES FROM THE COMMUNITY S TOCKTON RISING:STOCKTON RISING: STORIES FROM THE COMMUNITY STORIES FROM THE COMMUNITY  Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 29 KARLAINE FRANCISCO is one of the young adults who
participated in the Little Manila Rising’s environmental justice workshop series. The granddaughter of immigrant farmworkers, Francisco was particularly interested in
learning more about the connection between agricultur-
al pollution and farmworker health, and took the lead on facilitating a s
ession on soil contamination. She credits
her participation in the workshop series as teaching her research and collaboration skills, as well as providing her a sense of community and connection with her hometown as
she transitioned to college as a freshman at UC Berkeley.

Francisco hopes to build upon her experience at Little
Manilla Rising by pursuing a career in environmental law and policy with a focus on health. Her motivation for doing so is to ensure that environmental policies protect and benefit low-income and immigrant communities. Francisco plans to use her time at UC Berkeley to explore different professional vocations for doing just that, whether that be a practicing attorney, an academic, or an educator based in the community.

RAZIEL (“RACHEL”) RAMIL is a recent graduate of UC
Davis, where she studied community and regional de-
velopment, and has returned to Stockton to launch her
c
areer in environmental justice advocacy. She was first
exposed to the topic of environmental justice in one of her college courses. After graduating, Ramil was eager to learn more about the topic, and was drawn to the Little Manila Rising workshop series because it applied the lens of en- vironmental justice to the issues confronting her home- town, such as poor air quality and chronic asthma.

During the w
orkshop series, Ramil facilitated a session
entitled “Make Your Voice Heard!” in which she presented on advocacy strategies for neighborhood improvements.

She also moderated a breakout group in which she and her peers identified the top issues in their community, the key decision makers who exert influence on those issues, and an agenda for meeting with those decision makers.

Now, Ramil is employed at the California Center for Civic Participation, where she is helping curate an environmen- tal justice program called Green Focus. The program ex- poses Sacramento high school students to environmental
p
olicy and career opportunities in the field. In the long run, she hopes to get more involved with policymaking in order to reduce disparities within her community.
“I want to pay it forward, and am integrating
lessons from my training in Stockton to
help students in other parts of the state to
become environmental justice advocates in
their own communities.”

RAZIEL RAMIL
Karlaine Francisco, an environmental justice advocate
trained by Little Manila Rising. Photo credit: Karlaine Francisco “My goal was to better understand what
it means to be an environmental justice
advocate and to share that knowledge with
my community...now I feel qualified to teach
others what I learned.”

KARLAINE FRANCISCO
Raziel Ramil, another environmental justice advocate
trained by Little Manila Rising.

Photo credit: Raziel Ramil

ATTACHMENT B
30 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Stockton staff recruiting for resident Climate Justice Leaders. Photo credit: Rise Stockton THE COUPLING OF TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS alongside GHG reduction projects is one of the cen- tral elements of the TCC that separates it from all other California Climate Investments. For Round 3 of T
CC, applicants were required to develop three transformative plans: a community engagement plan, workforce development plan, and displacement avoidance plan. Together, these three plans are designed to ensure that TCC investments reflect the community’s vision and goals, bring economic opportunities to disadvantaged and low-income communities, and minimize the risk of gentrification and displacement of existing residents and businesses. Applicants were provided a menu of strategies for developing their plans and encouraged to choose those that spoke to the site’s priorities and strengths. The following section provides an overview of how Stockton Rising structured its three transformative plans and what progress has been made toward plan implementation. 
PROFILES:PROFILES:

TRANSFORMATIVE PLANSTRANSFORMATIVE PLANS

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant| 31 Community Engagement PlanCommunity Engagement Plan
STOCKTON RISING’S COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN (CEP)
creates opportunities for South Stockton residents to participate in local climate action planning, policy, and advocacy. The plan does so through a resident-inclusive grant governance model, leadership development programs, and multiple channels of communication with TCC project partners.

Public Health Advocates (PHA) leads the CEP. Since 2014, PHA has engaged Stockton’s African American residents through its Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) Program, which promotes healthy lifestyle choices and physical activity. Through this work, PHA has developed strong ties with the faith-based community, working to install community gardens at churches, establishing mobile farmers markets, and providing nutrition education.

Catholic Charities the Diocese of Stockton (CCDC) and Little Manila Rising (LMR) serve as supporting partners. CCDC will leverage its net- work of four Catholic churches in South Stockton with large Latinx and Filipinx communitie
s towards recruitment, outreach, and engagement
efforts. Similarly, LMR will draw upon more than 20 years of experience engaging with marginalized communities in Stockton to maximize the reach and impact of the CEP.

Key Accomplishments*
» 29 t otal meetings of the various
grant governance bodies within
Stockton Rising’s collaborative
stakeholder structure (12
Community Engagement
Working Team meetings; 12
Workforce Development Working
Team meetings; and 5 Steering
Committee meetings)
» 10 y
oung adults enrolled in LMR’s
climate resilience and leadership
development program
» Kick
ed off outreach around TCC
funded projects (see next chapter
for more information by project)
*From award date (June 2020) through the end of
FY 2020-’21 (June 2021)
Closing celebration for the first cohort of environmental justice advocates recruited and trained by Little Manila Rising.

Photo credit: Little Manila Rising

ATTACHMENT B
32 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Community Engagement Strategies
There are four main strategies in the Stockton Rising CEP:
» Co
ordination and alignment of projects to ensure
they are in sync with the community’s vision for cli-
mate justice. This will be accomplished through the a
collab
orative stakeholder structure (CSS) that governs
TCC implementation, and is composed of the following
subgroups (See Appendix 4 for a summary of specific
members within each subgroup and details on voting
privileges):
•
C
apital Strategies Working Team (CSWT) - meets bi-
monthly and includes representation from two project
area residents and six project partners that work on
projects involving capital improvements;
•
C
ommunity Engagement Working Team (CEWT) -
meets monthly and includes representation from two
project area residents, two community stakeholder
groups, and three project partners that are directly
involved with community engagement activities;
•
W
orkforce Development Working team (WDWT) -
meets bi-monthly and includes representation from
two project area residents, two community stakeholder
groups, and four project partners that are directly
involved with workforce development activities;
•
St
eering Committee - executive level working group
that meets quarterly and includes representation from
two project area residents and the lead facilitators for the CSWT, CEWT, and WDWT.

Responses to COVID-19
» Pr oject partners and Community Liaisons witched to virtual platforms to conduct community engagement events and meetings.
 PROFILES:PROFILES: TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS PROFILES:PROFILES: TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS  • C ommunity Coalition - meets bi-monthly and is open
to all project area resident and workers who wish to
learn about TCC implementation progress and provide
input on pending implementation decisions.
» R
esident capacity building around climate action. To
support this strategy, PHA will recruit and train resi- dents for 10 paid positions as “Community Liaisons”.

The
se liaisons will serve as local experts on Stockton’s
TCC grant and disseminate information and resources
related to the grant within their networks. Simultane-
ously, LMR will train up to 30 youth leaders (10 annually) t
o become climate resiliency experts (see page 28 for
participant stories).
» E
ducational campaigns that broadcast opportunities to
benefit from, participate in, and learn from local climate action efforts. This will be accomplished through two
community wide events: (1) a Block Party with presenta- tions by TCC project partners, as well as other commu-
nity leaders; and (2) a Summit that provides an overview of e
valuation metrics and early findings.
» C
ommunications with project area residents across
multiple channels. In addition to the channels described above, PHA will post regular social media updates about TCC. Additionally, CEWT partners will create audio and
video content (known locally as PhotoVoice Walking
tours) on an annual basis that document resident per-
spectives on the challenges of living in South Stockton and e
arly effects of TCC.

Project Details
Launch date
December 2020
Anticipate completion date
September 2023
TCC grant funds
$866,759
Leveraged funds
$0

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant| 33 Demolition of Razil Social Cub, a culturally significant building in Stockton’s historic Little Manila district, after financing could not be secured for structural repairs. Photo credit: Little Manila Rising Displacement Avoidance PlanDisplacement Avoidance Plan
 PROFILES:PROFILES: TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS TR ANSFORMATIVE PLANS PR OFILES:PROFILES: TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS  Key Accomplishments
Implementation pending
STOCKTON RISING’S DISPLACEMENT AVOIDANCE PLAN (DAP) will be finalized during the first year of the grant term. The Strategic Growth Council (SGC) awarded Stockton a TCC Implementation Grant without a fully developed DAP at the time of the city’s application because there was a clear need for more capacity building around the topic. After years of disinvestment leading to (and resulting from) the city’s bank- ruptcy, the threat of investment-induced displacement has not been a central fo
cus of recent planning or community organizing efforts
in Stockton. Thus, SGC has provided the City of Stockton a separate $100,000 Technical Assistance Grant to support the creation of a DAP during the grant term. Once finalized, Stockton’s DAP will be imple- mented during the grant term entirely through leveraged funds.

The Cit
y of Stockton is serving as the interim project lead for the DAP.

Using funding from the Technical Assistance Grant, the City will hire a consultant with expertise in displacement avoidance to perform the substantive work of developing the DAP. The consultant will work with City staff and the Community Engagement Plan team to engage resi- dents and small businesses to identify displacement risks and develop a plan to addr
ess them.

ATTACHMENT B
34 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant  PROFILES:PROFILES: TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS PROFILES:PROFILES: TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS   PROFILES:PROFILES: TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS PROFILES:PROFILES: TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS  Project Details
Launch date
December 2020
Anticipate completion date
September 2023
TCC grant funds
$0
Leveraged funds
TBD

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant| 35  PROFILES:PROFILES: TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS PROFILES:PROFILES: TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS   PROFILES:PROFILES: TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS PROFILES:PROFILES: TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS  Senior Community Engagement Manager, Justina Caras shares information about youth focused green jobs amongst the Stockton community. Photo credit: Rise Stockton
Workforce Development PlanWorkforce Development Plan
Key Accomplishments*
» 1 tr ainee completed 569 hours
of training through San Joaquin
Regional Transit District’s electric
bus maintenance mechanic
apprenticeship program
* Fr om award date (June 2020) through the end of
FY 2020-’21 (June 2021)
Continues on next page
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT is central to the Stockton Rising vision.

The site’s Workforce Development and Economic Opportunities Plan (WDEOP) includes four paid job training programs: (1) GRID Alternatives’ solar installation basics training program; (2) The San Joaquin Regional Transit District’s electric bus maintenance mechanic apprenticeship program; (3) Insight Garden’s vocational gardening and landscaping program; and (4) Rising Sun Center for Opportunity’s Climate Careers program that prepares Stockton youth for jobs in the building and con- struction trades.
9 Rising Sun Center for Opportunity will serve as the designated lead for the WDEOP, and will employ a workforce coordinator to ensure coordi- nation across the four job training programs, as well as alignment with the St
ockton Rising vision. To support this effort, this coordinator will organize and lead monthly meetings that include TCC partners, stake- holders, and resident representatives.
9 In addition to the four job training programs described here, Little Manila Rising will also hire and train 25 seasonal, part-time workers to assist with tree planting activities. Howev- er, these positions are not considered a formal part of the Stockton’s WDEOP because they do not include training for a specific vocation following the work opportunity.

ATTACHMENT B
36 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Solar Installation Training
GRID Alternatives will recruit and train 16 individuals on how to install rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) systems.

GRID will recruit trainees from the TCC project area as much as possible, but not exclusively. Trainees will then gain on-the-job experience helping GRID Alternatives
meet its TCC-funded goal to install 378 kilowatts (kW) of solar PV capacity on single-family homes in the project area (see next chapter for more details about this work).

Bus Mechanic Training
The San Joaquin Regional Transit District (RTD) will train four individuals in a three-year long electric bus mechanic apprenticeship program. RTD will recruit the apprentices from within its existing workforce. The training will cover the mechanical components of a bus including electrical, brakes, diesel engines, HVAC, transmission and drivetrain, steering and suspension, preventative maintenance and
inspection, electronic diesel diagnostics, electric drive systems, hybrid systems, and welding. Upon completing
the apprenticeship program, apprentices will receive a Cal- ifornia Division of Apprenticeship Standards Bus Mechanic Journe
yman Certificate. Graduates will be employed by
RTD as full-time bus mechanics.

Gardening/Landscaping Training
The Insight Garden Program will tailor a vocational garden- ing and landscaping training program to the needs of 40 inc
arcerated individuals who are about to enter Stockton’s workforce. The program will teach practical skills such as permaculture, landscape design, skill building, organic gar- dening, and conservation. In addition to vocational train- ing, the program will also teach life skills, including topics such as int
erpersonal communication, leadership devel-
opment, community building, and emotional processing.

M
oreover, the program will also include lessons on topics such as environmental justice, food access, and healthy equity. To incentivize enrollment and program completion, participants will be offered earned time credits that reduce the length of their prison sentence.

Climate Careers Program
Rising Sun Center for Opportunity (Rising Sun) will recruit low-income youth (ages 18-24) from the project area for its Climate Careers program, which will expose them to job opportunities in the building and constructions trades. The goal of the program is to create a pipeline for young adults to high-skill careers that pay livings wages.

During the first stage of the program, 45 young adults
will be recruited for seasonal positions that provide paid, hands-on experience installing water and energy efficiency measures in single- and multi-family homes. Their work
on this project will help Rising Sun achieve its TCC-funded goal to provide efficiency upgrades to 812 residents in the project area (see next chapter for more on this work). In addition to paid work experience, the training program
will also offer workshops on professional development and environmental justice, as well as one-on-one interactions with Youth Development Specialists at Rising Sun.

During the second stage of the program, Rising Sun will provide at least 10 training graduates with a paid externship at a partner organizations in Stockton. These partners in- clude, but are not limited to: Hatch Workshop, Changeist, Ne
w Genesis Housing Development, Edge Collaborative,
GRID Alternatives, and Rising Sun.

Along with the externship opportunity, 11 training grad- uates will also be offered paid training in the Multi-Craft C
ore Curriculum (MC3) program, a pre-apprenticeship
program in the construction sector. Rising Sun will serve as the recruitment partner for the program, while California Human Development, a nonprofit organization based in
Santa Rosa, will coordinate all of the program’s activities.  PROFILES:PROFILES: TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS TRANSFORMATIVE PLANS Project Details
Launch date
December 2020
Anticipate completion date
September 2023
TCC grant funds
$541,725
Leveraged funds
$1,101,752

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 37 Chef Liesha Barnett, one the lead partners for Stockton Rising’s TCC-funded food access project. Photo credit: Unbound Stockton TCC APPLICANTS CHOSE FROM A WIDE ARRAY OF PROJECT TYPES in their effort to achieve the three objectives of TCC, namely: (1) reductions in greenhouse gases (GHGs); (2) improvements in pub- lic health and environmental benefits, and (3) expanded economic opportunity and shared prosperity.

The follo
wing section provides an overview of the Stockton Rising projects, aggregated by project type, that will be using TCC dollars to achieve the aims of the program.

PROFILES: PROFILES:

TCC FUNDED PROJECTS TCC FUNDED PROJECTS


ATTACHMENT B
38 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant  PROFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS TCC FUNDED PROJECTS PROFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS TCC FUNDED PROJECTS  Rendering of Miner Ave following TCC investment. Photo credit: Jacobs Engineering Active TransportationActive Transportation
STOCKTON RISING’S ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT will tr ans- form a ten-block auto-dominated thoroughfare in Downtown Stockton, on M
iner Avenue between Center Street and Aurora Street, into a mar- quee “complete street” (a street that serves the mobility needs of all users, r
egardless of travel mode). The project, known as Miner Avenue Complete Street Improvement, will also provide linkage to the Downtown Transit Center and the Robert Cabral Rail Station as well as nearby schools and parks. The improvements from the project are expected to encourage a modeshift from cars to more active modes, thereby resulting in reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and environmental benefits such as reduced GHGs and local air pollutants. These environmental benefits will also be augmented by the project’s urban greening components.

The City of Stockton Public Works Department will lead project implemen- tation. The Public Works Department will also be responsible for the long- t
erm operations and maintenance of the new infrastructure.

Key Accomplishments
» 3 ,650 square feet of
permeable surfaces added
(and impermeable surfaces
removed)
» 3
,072 linear feet of pedestrian
pathways added

» 3
3 streetlights added
» 2
4 wheelchair ramps added
» 1
2 bike racks added
» 4 tr
affic signals upgraded to
include video detection of
users of all modes
* Fr om award date (January 2018) through
the end of FY 2020-’21 (June 2021)

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 39 Project Details
Launch date
December 2020
Anticipated completion date
September 2023
Project lifetime (post-implementation)
40 years
TCC grant funds
$1,500,000
Leveraged funds
$17 ,808,920
Estimated Benefits Over Project Lifetime
GHG emissions reductions
476 MTCO2e
Diesel PM reductions
2 pounds
PM 2.5 reductions
57 pounds
NOx reductions
603 pounds
Reactive organic gas reductions
4 pounds
Avoided stormwater runoff
1,087 ,993 gallons
VMT reduction
201,096
Travel cost savings
$101,533
Direct jobs from TCC dollars
5 FTEs
Indirect jobs from TCC dollars
2 FTEs
Induced jobs from TCC dollars
6 FTEs
Specific project improvements include augmented tree
canopy, more accessible sidewalks, new pedestrian-ori-
ented lighting, bike lanes, and furniture that activates the stre
et for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit. By the end of grant implementation, the project will deliver the following outputs:
» 117 new tr
ees
» 485 shrubs
» 34 stre
etlights
» 14 bik
e racks
» 15 benche s
» 0.
75 miles of improved sidewalks
» 0.
5 miles of new bike lanes
» upgr
aded utility connections
» new paint striping
» traffic signal up
grades
» new t
opsoil for landscaping
 PROFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS T CC FUNDED PROJECTS PR OFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS TCC FUNDED PROJECTS 

ATTACHMENT B
40 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant  PROFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS TCC FUNDED PROJECTS PROFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS TCC FUNDED PROJECTS  Stockton youth recruit households for energy and water efficiency upgrades. Photo credit: Rising Sun Center for Opportunity STOCKTON RISING’S ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY PROJECTS ,- known locally as Climate Careers Energy and Water, will help reduce utility bills for 812 r
esidents in the TCC project area while also employing low-in- come youth. Energy efficiency measures will be installed at no cost to resi- dents of single and multi-family home s, and will include: LEDs, refrigerators, water heater blankets, and smart thermostats. Similarly, water efficiency measures will be installed at no cost to residents, and will include: kitchen aerators, bathroom aerators, showerheads, dishwashers, and toilets. Bene- fiting households will also be educated on best practices to conserve energy and wat
er. A total of 56 youth will be recruited for seasonal positions to carry out project activities.

Rising Sun Center for Opportunity (Rising Sun) will serve as the project lead for Stockton’s water and energy efficiency projects. Rising Sun is also coor- dinating Stockton’s Workforce Development and Economic Opportunities Plan (WDEOP), which include
s complementary job training and placement
opportunities for the 56 young adults who will be employed by the efficiency projects (see previous chapter for more details about the WDEOP).

Key Accomplishments*
» 4 ,814 informational mailers sent
to residents in the project area
about opportunities to benefit
form free efficiency measures
» 950 informational fly
ers posted
around the project area
» 5 informational announcements
p
osted on Facebook
* Fr om award date (January 2018) through the
end of FY 2020-’21 (June 2021)
Energy and Water EfficiencyEnergy and Water Efficiency

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 41 Project Details
Launch date
December 2020
Anticipated completion date
September 2023
Project lifetime (post-implementation)
15 years
TCC grant funds
$2,069,282
Leveraged funds
$1,431,173
Estimated Benefits Over Project Lifetime
GHG emissions reductions
8,219 MTCO2e
PM 2.5 reductions*
1,087 pounds
NOx reductions*
9,442 pounds
Reactive organic gas reductions*
957 pounds
Electricity savings
14,360,620 kWh
Heat savings
905,593 therms
Water use savings
11,927 ,092 gallons
Energy cost savings
$2,824,172
Water cost savings
$50,275
Direct jobs from TCC dollars
16 FTEs
Indirect jobs from TCC dollars
6 FTEs
Induced jobs from TCC dollars
10 FTEs
*Not including reductions from water efficiency measures because the California Air Resources Board did not have an approved methodology for doing so at the time of Stockton Rising’s grant award.

Responses to COVID-19
» D eployed a satellite energy and water efficiency program in which homes assessments were conducted virtually and water and energy efficiency kits were sent in the mail.  PROFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS TCC FUNDED PROJECTS PROFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS TCC FUNDED PROJECTS 

ATTACHMENT B
42 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant  PROFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS TCC FUNDED PROJECTS PROFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS TCC FUNDED PROJECTS  Project partners at the Edible Schoolyard Project about to give away fresh food boxes. Photo credit: The Edible Schoolyard Project Healthy Food AccessHealthy Food Access
STOCKTON RISING’S HEALTHY FOOD ACCESS PROJECT, known locally as Edible Education at Home, will provide 50 families in the project area with free boxes of organic produce on a weekly basis for 30 months. The produce will be procured vis-a-vis community supported agriculture (CSA), a farming model in which local farmers send boxes of seasonal produce directly to consumers. The boxes will be complemented by educational programming on how to cook the contents of each box. Educational pro- gramming will be delivered through printed materials, a phone-in hotline with a live e
ducator, and recorded demonstrations (at least 15 in total).

In addition to the programming that is directly tied to the food boxes, the project will also create educational content for TCC project area residents at large. This includes weekly online cooking classes and at least 5 garden- ing classes. During the first of six months of grant implementation, these class
es were delivered to students K-8. Future classes will be offered to a wider audience, with outreach efforts focused in the TCC project area.

The Edible Schoolyard Project (ESYP) will serve as the project lead. ESYP will partner with Taylor Leadership Academy, a K-8 public school in the TCC project area, to recruit families to participate in the CSA program.

Key Accomplishments
» 3 ,800 educational materials
printed and disseminated

» 1
,350 boxes of seasonal organic
produced delivered (15 to 20
pounds each);
» 40 co
oking workbooks
distributed to families that
received CSA boxes
» 29 indi
viduals served through
an informational hotline
» 1
5 online cooking classes
taught to 37 students from
grades K-8.

» 3 online gar
dening classes
taught to 37 students from
grades K-8.
» 2 engag
ement events for
families that received CSA
boxes, which included
cooking demonstrations
* Fr om award date (January 2018) through the
end of FY 2020-’21 (June 2021)

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 43  PROFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS T CC FUNDED PROJECTS PR OFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS TCC FUNDED PROJECTS  Project Details
10 While this project may lead to GHG reductions through a number of pathways, the California Air Resources Board and the Strategic Growth Council have not approved standardized methodology for estimating those reductions. Potential pathways for GHG reductions include:
reduced food miles traveled, reduced use of energy-intensive agricultural inputs such as artificial fertilizer and pesticides, and composting practices that sequester carbon in the soil.
11 Assumes 6,250 boxes of produced will be delivered over the project lifetime, and a minimum weight of 15 pounds per box.

Anticipated completion date
December 2020
Project lifetime (post-implementation)
September 2023
TCC grant funds
$400,000
Leveraged funds
$51,533
Estimated Benefits Over Project Lifetime
GHG emissions reductions
N/A10
Organic produce delivered
47 tons11
Direct jobs from TCC dollars
2 FTEs
Indirect jobs from TCC dollars
1 FTEs
Induced jobs from TCC dollars
2 FTEs
Responses to COVID-19
» Moved in-school cooking classes to a virtual setting. » Cr
eated a suite of online educational materials, activities, and lesson plans to engage residents at home. » Prac
ticed COVID-19 safety protocols when delivering CSA boxes to project participants.

ATTACHMENT B
44 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant  PROFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS TCC FUNDED PROJECTS PROFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS TCC FUNDED PROJECTS  GRID Alternatives staff and trainees install rooftop solar PV panels in the TCC project area. Photo credit: GRID Alternatives STOCKTON RISING’S SOLAR PROJECTS, collectively referred to as Stockton Energy for All, will enhance the generation of local renewable energy by installing up to 621 kilowatts of DC rated (kW-DC) solar PV panels on the roofs of residential buildings. A total of 378 kW-DC will be installed across 108 single-family homes and 243 kW-DC will be installed on four multi-family structures, all at no cost to property owners. Using leveraged funding, Stockton Energy for all may also provide residents with roof re- pairs and electrical service panel upgrades to help make their homes “solar r
eady” and/or prepared for full-building electrification.

All project outputs will specifically benefit low-income households. As a result, all single-family homes must be owner-occupied by a low-income household to qualify. For multi-family installations, GRID Alternatives will specifically target properties that are providing affordable housing to low-income residents.

Stockton Energy for All will be led by GRID Alternatives, an Oakland-based nonprofit organization that installs solar power systems and provides job training opportunities in the process. The workforce development services offered by GRID Alternatives will be integrated into the Stockton Rising WDEOP (see previous chapter for more details about the WDEOP).

Rooftop SolarRooftop Solar
Key Accomplishments*
» 4 contr acts executed for
installations on single-family
properties
» 4 contr
acts executed for
installations on multi-family
properties
* Fr om award date (January 2018) through the
end of FY 2020-’21 (June 2021)

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 45 Project Details
Launch date
December 2020
Anticipate completion date
September 2023
Project lifetime (post-implementation)
40 years
TCC grant funds
$2,068,281
Leveraged funds
$1,431,173
Estimated Benefits Over Project Lifetime
GHG emissions reductions
6,748 MTCO2e
PM 2.5 reductions
936 pounds
NOx reductions
3,735 pounds
Reactive organic gas reductions
595 pounds
Renewable energy generation
28,457 ,555 kWh
Energy cost savings
$3,801,929
Direct jobs from TCC dollars
8 FTEs
Indirect jobs from TCC dollars
2 FTEs
Induced jobs from TCC dollars
5 FTEs
 PROFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS TCC FUNDED PROJECTS PROFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS TCC FUNDED PROJECTS 

ATTACHMENT B
46 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant STOCKTON RISING’S URBAN FORESTRY PROJECT, know locally as the Urban Forest Renovation Project, will reverse a decline in tree canopy in the project area through the planting of 1,750 trees (in addition to the 117 that will be planted as part of the Miner Avenue Complete Street Improvement Project). Plantings will occur at locations where trees were lost to natural events (many of which are in the city’s public parks) ,as well as new locations that will be identified by Stockton Rising’s collabora- tive stakeholder structure. All of the trees will belong to species that will thrive and ar
e as drought tolerant as possible to minimize watering. As the trees mature, they will reduce GHGs by sequestering carbon. More- over, the trees will help absorb local air pollutants such as PM 2.5 and NO
x, as well as stormwater runoff.

The City of Stockton will lead project implementation and will also be responsible for maintaining trees that are on public land. Little Manila Ris- ing (LMR) will 10 host community tree planting events in which residents c
an learn basic tree planting skills. Additionally, LMR will hire and train 25 seasonal, part-time workers to assist with planting activities. PUENTES will serve in a supporting role, assisting with trainings for volunteers at planting events.

Key Accomplishments
Implementation pending
 PROFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS TCC FUNDED PROJECTS PROFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS TCC FUNDED PROJECTS  Trees being planted in the TCC project area at Mattie Harrell Park. Photo credit: City of Stockton Urban ForestryUrban Forestry

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 47 Estimated Benefits Over Project Lifetime
Launch date
December 2020
Anticipated completion date
September 2023
Project lifetime (post-implementation)
40 years
TCC grant funds
$1,835,000
Leveraged funds
$0
Estimated Benefits Over Project Lifetime
GHG emissions reductions
1,697 MTCO2e
Total PM 2.5 reductions
533 pounds
Total NOx reductions
5,725 pounds
Avoided stormwater runoff
11,340,676 gallons
Direct jobs from TCC dollars
19 FTEs
Indirect jobs from TCC dollars
4 FTE
Induced jobs from TCC dollars
7 FTEs
 PROFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS TCC FUNDED PROJECTS PROFILES:PROFILES: TCC FUNDED PROJECTS TCC FUNDED PROJECTS 

ATTACHMENT B
48 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Aerial view of the Stockton TCC site boundary; the site is 5.0 square miles and measures 5.1 miles from west to east and 2.7 miles from north to south at the farthest points. Photo credit: Google Earth 2022 INDICATOR TRACKING:INDICATOR TRACKING:
BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA
THE FIRST STEP IN EVALUATION is to establish baseline data for indicators in treatment and control settings prior to an intervention. In the context of Stockton Rising, the treatment setting is the TCC project boundary area (and the census tracts it encompasses), while the control setting is a group of census tracts that are demographically and environmentally similar to the treatment tracts, but did not receive a TCC award. In addition to looking at baseline conditions in the project boundary area and control tracts, the LCI evaluation team will also be looking at baseline conditions at the scale of San Joaquin County and the State of California. This will help demonstrate whether TCC investments are addressing equity gaps at broader geographic scales.

The following section provides a summary of the baseline conditions for indicators that the LCI evaluation team will be tracking throughout TCC grant implementation. When possible, baseline data is reported over a five-year period preceding grant implementation (2016-2020); otherwise, a pre-investment snapshot or truncated trend line is provided. For some indicators, treatment and control sites may have pre-in- vestment trend lines that differ in scale and direction. At this stage, these differences reflect the inherent he
terogeneity of disadvantaged communities in California. These differences will be more meaningful after grant implementation, when they can be viewed alongside differences in post-investment trend lines.

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 49 INDICATOR TRACKING:INDICATOR TRACKING: BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA  Demographics
The population in the TCC project area Stockton decreased at a statistically significant rate over the past decade, a trend that is inconsistent with the rest of San Joaquin County and California (see Table 4). It’s difficult to assess whether the population decline is actually reflective of what’s happening in the community or a result of de-
creased turnout for the 2020 census.

In terms of race and ethnicity, there has been a statistically significant de
crease in the relative size of the non-His-
panic Asian population the project area. This decline has be
en coupled with a statistically significant increase in the relative size of the Hispanic population and non-Hispan- ic white population. Excluding the increase in Hispanic individuals, the statistically signific
ant demographic shifts
in the TCC project area are incongruent with what is hap- pening at the county and state level. Again, it’s difficult to asse
ss whether these shifts are consistent with what’s ac-
tually happening on the ground, or a result of a systematic undercount in the 2020 census.

Table 4: ACS Demographic Indicators14
Indicator
ACS
Five-year
Sample
TCC
C
ensus
Tracts
Control
Census
Tracts
San
Joaquin
County California
Total population
2016-2020 38,501 47,196 751,615 39,346,023
2011-2015 53,043 54,154 708,554 38,421,464
% Change -27 .4%* -12.8%* +6.1%* +2.4%*
Percent Hispanic, all races
2016-2020 73.6% 56.8% 41.7% 39.1%
2011-2015 68.5% 55.3% 40.1% 38.4%
% Change +7.4% * +2.7% +4.0* +1.8*
Percent Non-Hispanic, Asian
2016-2020 8.1% 14.6% 15.5% 14.6%
2011-2015 13.9% 15.4% 14.5% 13.5%
% Change -41.6%* -5.6% +7 .3%* +8.1*
Percent Non-Hispanic, Black
2016-2020 10.3% 11.8% 6.8% 5.4%
2011-2015 10.1% 8.5% 6.7% 5.6%
% Change +1.8% +39.3%* +0.9% -3.2%*
Percent Non-Hispanic, White
2016-2020 6.2% 14.0% 30.7% 36.5%
2011-2015 4.7% 1 7. 3 % 34.3% 38.7%
% Change +30.1%* -19.0%* -10.5%* -5.7%*
Percent Non-Hispanic, others
(Pacific Islander, American Indian, two
or more r
aces, and other)
2016-2020 1.8% 2.8% 5.3% 4.4%
2011-2015 2.8% 3.5% 4.4% 3.7%
% Change -35.3% -19.4% +20.1%* +16.4*
Percent foreign-born population
2016-2020 33.7% 28.1% 23.0% 26.6%
2011-2015 35.9% 29.1% 23.3% 2 7.0 %
% Change -6.1% -3.5% -1.3% -1.7%*
* Statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Significance tests were conducted in accordance with methods described by the U.

S. Census Bureau in Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What All Data Users Need to Know (2018). 14 See Appendix 7 for the following details: (1) the ACS table numbers that were sourced for each indicator; (2) additional estimates for 2012-2016, 2013- 2017 , 2014-2018, and 2015-2019; and (3) the margins of error for all estimates.

ATTACHMENT B
50 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant  INDICATOR TRACKING:INDICATOR TRACKING: BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA INDICATOR TRACKING: INDIC ATOR TRACKING: BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA  Economy
Economic conditions in the TCC project area in Stockton appear to have improved according to multiple ACS indica- tors during the decade that followed the recession: median hous
ehold income, high income attainment, and the em-
ployment rate increased, while poverty levels decreased.

A
ll of these trends were statistically significant. Moreover, these trends are consistent with what is occurring at the county and state level (see Table 5).

Mixed results were observed for educational attainment, a precursor to economic mobility. While the share of the population with less than a high school education has gone down at statistically significant rate, so too have the share of individuals with a bachelor’s degree. However, the latter trend was too marginal to be statistically significant.

Table 5: ACS Economic Indicators15
Indicator
ACS
Five-year
Sample
T
CC
Census
Tracts
Control
Census
Tracts
San
Joaquin
County California
Median household income17 16
2016-2020 $36,591 $43,601 $68,628 $78,672
2011-2015 $28,556 $33,600 $53,274 $61,818
% Change +28.1%* +29.8%* +28.8%* +27 .3%*
Percent of individuals
living below poverty
2016-
2020 30.2% 25.2% 13.7% 12.6%
2011-2015 39.2% 30.8% 18.6% 16.3%
% Change -23.0%* -18.0%* -26.4%* -22.8%*
Percent high-income households
($125k+)
2016-2020 4.6% 8.2% 23.0% 29.8%
2011-2015 2.2% 3.8% 14.0% 20.9%
% Change +105.5%* +114.7%* +65.3%* +43.0%*
Percent with less than
high school education
2016-
2020 43.2% 32.7% 19.9% 16.1%
2011-2015 48.5% 34.9% 22.0% 18.2%
% Change -11.0%* -6.2% -9.6%* -11.7%*
Percent with bachelor’s degree or higher
2016-2020 5.0% 10.0% 19. 2% 34.7%
2011-2015 5.1% 9.1% 18.4% 31.4%
% Change -2.6% +10.1% +4.3%* +10.4%*
Percent employed in civilian labor force
2016-2020 50.5% 49.9% 56.0% 59.4%
2011-2015 44.7% 45.9% 52.7% 56.9%
% Change +13.0%* +8.7%* +6.3%* +4.4%*
* S tatistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Significance tests were conducted in accordance with methods described by the U.S. Census Bureau in Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What All Data Users Need to Know (2018). 15 See Appendix 7 for the following details: (1) the ACS table numbers that were sourced for each indicator; (2) additional estimates for 2012-2016, 2013- 2017 , 2014-2018, and 2015-2019; and (3) the margins of error for all estimates. 17 Median incomes for the TCC project area and TCC control tracts are not true medians because the evaluator did not have access to the underly- ing survey data. So to construct a representative median for the TCC project area and TCC control tracts, the evaluator aggregated the number of households in each income range in Table B19001 for selected census tracts, calculated cumulative shares for each range, and used linear interpola- tion to determine the median. This approach assumes an even distribution of incomes within the range that contains the midpoint. This approach yields a comparable figure to the median income within the aggregated tracts, but it overestimates the margin of error compared to methods that rely on actual survey data. Given these limitations, the evaluator only estimated the median for this indicator and did not conduct a test for statistical significance. More details about the methodology can be found in California Department of Finance (2011) Re-calculating Medians and their Margin of Errors for Aggregated ACS Data.

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 51  INDICATOR TRACKING:INDICATOR TRACKING: BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA INDICATOR TRACKING: INDICATOR TRACKING: BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA  Energy
There is a limited set of energy-related indicators that can be tracked at the census tract scale or smaller given the regional nature of electricity generation and transmission.

Also, utility data on electricity and gas consumption at the address level are not publicly available for privacy reasons.

However, several useful indicators can be obtained at an appropriate geographic scale for tracking trends in local energy resources. In particular, ACS data can be used to ex- amine the reliance of different communities on fossil fuels for he
ating purposes. Additionally, satellite data processed
and maintained by Stanford University’s DeepSolar Project can be used to examine the prevalence of solar PV systems among households in different communities.

Within the TCC project area, it appears that residents are becoming increasingly more reliant on natural gas utili- ties for their heating needs, and less reliant on electrical he
ating appliances (see Table 6). This trend was consistent was also observed for San Joaquin County as a whole, but the reverse is true for California. This discrepancy may be due to the economic recovery of households in the Central Valley after the foreclosure crisis, whereby low-income households feel like they can better afford to run heating or cooking appliances fueled by natural gas.

With respect to solar PV installations, data were not
available for different points in time, but were available at different geographic scales, showing a disparity in solar PV adoption among TCC residents relative to the rest of the county and state (See Table 7). Compared with the rest of the state and county, the adoption rate in the TCC project area is less than half that of the state.

Table 6: ACS Energy Indicators1817
Indicator
ACS
Five-year
Sample
T
CC
Census
Tracts
Control
Census
Tracts
San
Joaquin
County California
Percent of households heating
home with electricity
2016-
2020 25.7% 28.0% 25.6% 2 7.1%
2011-2015 30.5% 31.3% 29.0% 26.2%
% Change -15.6%* -10.5% -11.6%* +3.5%*
Percent of households heating
home with utility gas
2016-
2020 71.6% 6 7.9 % 6 7.4% 63.6%
2011-2015 6 7.6% 65.1% 65.0% 65.0%
% Change +5.9%* +4.4% +3.7%* -2.2%*
Percent of households heating home
with other fossil fuels (bottled, tank, or
liquefied petroleum gas; fuel oil, kero-
sene, etc.; coal or coke)
2016-
2020 0.9% 1.2% 3.6% 3.6%
2011-2015 0.8% 0.9% 3.5% 3.4%
% Change +23.2% +26.4% +4.2% +6.4%*
Percent of houses with no fuel used
2016-2020 1.2% 1.3% 1.0% 3.2%
2011-2015 0.7% 1.7% 0.6% 3.2%
% Change +69.0% -25.7% +50.6%* +0.8%
* Statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Significance tests were conducted in accordance with methods described by the U.S. Census Bureau in Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What All Data Users Need to Know (2018).

Table 7: Solar PV Systems per 1,000 Households1918
Indicator
Dataset
Year
TCC
Census
Tracts
Control
Census
Tracts
San
Joaquin
County California
Solar PV Systems for All Building Types 2018 23.3 33.2 61.70 49.4 18 See Appendix 7 for the following details: (1) the ACS table numbers that were sourced for each indicator; (2) additional estimates for 2012-2016, 2013- 2017 , 2014-2018, and 2015-2019; and (3) the margins of error for all estimates. 19 Solar PV system data were sourced from The DeepSolar Project, a product of Stanford Engineering. For TCC census tracts and control tracts, a weight- ed average was applied, as based on the number of households within each census tract (using 2011-2015 ACS data)

ATTACHMENT B
52 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Environment
14 CalEPA and OEHHA, 2017 . CalEnviroScreen 3.0.
15 World Health Organization. 2012. Health Indicators of Sustainable Cities in the Context of the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development 16 Open space indicators were derived from the December 2021 edition of the California Protected Areas Database (CPAD). Accessible at:
https://www.calands.org/cpad/
17 Based on 2016-2020 ACS data.

Like energy indicators, there is a limited set of environ- mental quality indicators that can be tracked at the neigh- borhood scale from secondary sources. The California
Envir
onmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and the Cali-
fornia Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (
OEHHA) publish a number of environmental metrics at
the census tract level (e.g., air pollutants, pesticide use, drinking water contaminants, etc.) through the CalEnviro- Screen tool, but these metrics are derived from a sample of data colle
cted a more coarse geographic scale, and
then modeled or estimated at the census tract level.14 The resulting data are helpful for ranking census tracts accord- ing to their likely pollution burden, but are not a reliable s
ource for measuring the effects of the Stockton Rising
initiative over time.

Satellite data, however, are regularly updated and can
be used to measure changes in land cover at small geo-
graphic scales. The National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) administ
ered by the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA), provides
satellite imagery at a one-meter ground sample distance with an infrared band that allows researchers to classify imagery according to the spectral wavelengths of different land-cover types. This classification process, however, is resource intensive because it requires time and expertise to properly stitch together satellite imagery at the neigh- borhood scale. For that reason, the LCI evaluation team will r
efrain from analyzing vegetative cover within the Stockton project area until the end of project implementation, when pre and post-implementation imagery can be processed
alongside one another, thereby allowing for cost-efficien- cies in processing labor.

A
s an interim measure of vegetative cover, the LCI evalua- tion team has analyzed the percentage of open space with- in the Stockton Rising project area and comparison geog- raphies (see Table 8). The underlying data for this analysis was obtaine
d from the California Protected Areas Database
(CPAD). This database reflects lands that are owned in fee and protected for open space purposes by over 1,000 pub- lic agencies or non-profit organizations. It’s important to not
e that this database does not include open space that is not formally designated as such (e.g., landscaped medians, tree wells along sidewalks, etc.), nor does it include pri- vately held open space (e.g., backyards, golf courses, etc.), s
o it is an imperfect proxy of total vegetative cover within the project area. Nonetheless, open space coverage does communicate how much of a neighborhood is expressly
protected from hardscaped development.

According to data from CPAD, about 3% of the total proj- ect area is open space. When normalized by population,
that tr
anslates to about 114 square feet of open space per
resident. The World Health Organization recommends the
availability of a minimum of 9 square meters (or 97 square feet) of green space per individual.
15 The Stockton Rising
project area exceeds that threshold by 18%. For a spatial overview of where much of this open space is located with- in the project area, see the detailed map in Appendix 1.

Table 8: Open Space Indicators16
Stockton Rising
Project Area
Boundary
Control
Census Tracts
San Joaquin
County California
Open access (sq mi) 0.16 0.13 11 58,750
Total area (sq mi) 5 26 1,427 163,696
Percent of open access 3% 0.5% 1% 36%
Total population17 38,501 47,196 751,615 39,346,023
Open access per person (sq ft) 114 75 410 41,629
 INDICATOR TRACKING:INDICATOR TRACKING: BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA INDICATOR TRACKING: INDIC ATOR TRACKING: BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA 

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 53  INDICATOR TRACKING:INDICATOR TRACKING: BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA INDICATOR TRACKING: INDICATOR TRACKING: BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA  Health
19 CalSTA, 2019, California Office of Traffic Safety 2019 Annual Report 20 See Appendix 7 for the following details: (1) the ACS table numbers that were sourced for each indicator; (2) additional estimates for 2012-2016, 2013- 2017 , 2014-2018, and 2015-2019; and (3) the margins of error for all estimates.

Health data are highly sensitive information and are not generally available from secondary sources at a temporal and geographic scale appropriate for measuring neigh-
borhood-level transformations. Many of the indicators
of int
erest to TCC stakeholders, such as changes in the
prevalence of asthma, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, are only available at the zip code level or are not released annually. Stockton’s TCC project boundary area, however, is much smaller than the zip code boundaries that it bisects (see Appendix 1 for an overlap between the TCC project
boundary area and zip code boundaries). Nonetheless,
there are two health related indicators that can be tracked at a geographic scale that is appropriate for evaluating the effects of Stockton Rising: health insurance coverage and vehicle collisions involving a cyclist or pedestrian.

While enrolling individuals in health insurance programs is not an explicit objective of Stockton Rising, it could be an indirect effect of the initiative. Workforce development components of Stockton Rising could provide workers
access to jobs that have employer sponsored health in-
surance packages or the supplemental income needed to
pur
chase health insurance from the public market. Within
the TCC project area, there has already been a statistically significant trend towards increased enrollment in health insurance, which is true for San Joaquin County and Cali- fornia as well. This could be explained by the rollout of the Affor
dable Care Act in 2010. See Table 9 for a summary of
these trends.

Pedestrian- and bicyclist-involved vehicle collisions con- tinue to be a concern in California.19 Stockton Rising’s investments in active transportation infrastructure should theoretically lead to a decline in vehicle collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians. Prior to these investments, total vehicle collisions involving a bicyclist in the TCC project area declined by 25% from 2015 to 2020 (20 to 15 colli- sions, respectively). Collisions involving a pedestrian also de
clined, at a rate of 29% during the same period (22 to
31 collisions, respectively). See Table 10 for a summary of collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians in both the TCC project area and control sites.

Table 9: ACS Health Indicators20
Indicator
ACS
Five-year
Sample
T
CC
Census
Tracts
Control
Census
Tracts
San
Joaquin
County California
Percent with health insurance coverage
2016-2020 88.9% 92.2% 93.7% 92.8%
2011-2015 7 7.6% 81.4% 86.0% 85.3%
% Change +14.5%* +13.3* +8.9%* +8.8%*
Percent with private insurance coverage
2016-2020 30.0% 37 .3% 60.6% 64.3%
2011-2015 2 7.9 % 3 7. 5 % 5 7. 2 % 61.2%
% Change +7.4% -0.5% +6.0%* +5.0%*
Percent with public insurance coverage
2016-2020 64.4% 61.6% 42.9% 38.0%
2011-2015 54.6% 50.7% 37 .7% 32.6%
% Change +18.0%* +21.4%* +13.7%* +16.5%*
* Statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Significance tests were conducted in accordance with methods described by the U.S. Census Bureau in Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What All Data Users Need to Know (2018).

ATTACHMENT B
54 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Table 10: Vehicle Collisions Involving Bicyclists and Pedestrians21,22 Indicator Data
Range
Gross Number Normalized per 1,000 Street Miles
TCC Project
Boundary Area
Control
Census Tracts
T
CC Project
Boundary Area
C
ontrol
Census Tracts
Bicycle Collision at
Injury Level 1: Fatal
2020 2 0 15.1 0.0
2015 0 0 0.0 0.0
% Change +100% No change +100% No change
Bicycle Collision at Injury
Level 2: Severe Injury
2020
3 0 22.7 0.0
2015 2 2 15.1 10.0
% Change +50% -100% +50% -100%
Bicycle Collision at Injury
Level 3: Visible Injury
2020 6 5 45.4 24.9
2015 8
6 60.5 29.9
% Change -25% -17% -25% -17%
Bicycle Collision at Injury
Level 4: Complaint of Pain
2020 4 2 30.3 10.0
2015 10 17 75.7 84.7
% Change -60% -88% -60% -88%
Pedestrian Collision at
Injury Level 1: Fatal
2020 4 3 30.3 15.0
2015 1 2 7.6 10.0
% Change +300%
+50% +299% +50%
Pedestrian Collision at
Injury Level 2: Severe Injury
2020 5
7 3 7. 8 34.9
2015 6 3 45.4 15.0
% Change -17% +133% -17% +133%
Pedestrian Collision at
Injury Level 3: Visible Injury
2020 8 5 60.5 24.9
2015 10 13 75.7 64.8
% Change
-20% -62% -20% -62%
Pedestrian Collision at
Injury Level 4: Complaint of
Pain
2020 5 7 3 7. 8 34.9
2015 14
9 105.9 44.9
% Change -64% -22% -64% -22%
21 Collision data were obtained from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). The numbers presented here are conservative in that they do not include collisions that were missing geographic coordinates in TIMS. Street mileage was obtained from OpenStreetsMap (OSM) and totaled 132 miles for the project area and 201 miles for the control tracts. See Appendix 7 for results at different buffer sizes to capture collisions with geographic coordinates that may not have perfectly overlapped with street lines within the project area and control tracts. 22 Vehicle collisions involving bicycles and pedestrians are not mutually exclusive because some accidents may involve both modes.  INDICATOR TRACKING:INDICATOR TRACKING: BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA INDICATOR TRACKING: INDIC ATOR TRACKING: BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA 

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 55  INDICATOR TRACKING:INDICATOR TRACKING: BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA INDIC ATOR TRACKING:INDIC ATOR TRACKING: BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA  Housing
23 Zuk, M., Bierbaum, A. H., Chapple, K., Gorska, K., Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Ong, P., & Thomas, T. (2015, August). Gentrification, displacement and the role of public investment: a literature review. In Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Vol. 79). 24 See Appendix 7 for the following details: (1) the ACS table numbers that were sourced for each indicator; (2) additional estimates for 2012-2016, 2013- 2017 , 2014-2018, and 2015-2019; and (3) the margins of error for all estimates.

There are a number of housing related indicators that can be tracked using ACS data: housing cost burden, housing crowding, tenure (i.e., residents in the same house on
year ago), and vacancies of units for rent or for sale. Taken together, these indicators provide a snapshot of displace- ment pressures that may be occurring in the TCC project are
a. High rent burdens, low vacancies, short tenures, and crowded conditions all suggest that a neighborhood is vul- nerable to residential displacement or already experienc- ing displacement.
23 See Tables 11 and 12 for a summary of
the housing indicators tracked for renters and homeown- ers in the TCC project area and comparison geographies.

Statistically signific
ant housing trends for renters in the
TCC project area include: decreased housing cost burden (at or above 50% of household income); increased tenure; and a decline in the percentage of rental units that are va- cant. These were all consistent with the rest of San Joaquin Count
y and California, except for housing tenure, which
went down in the rest of the state. This may suggest that gentrification and displacement pressures in the project area are not as intense as in the rest of the state because renters have been able to maintain their housing for a lon- ger period of time.

Me
anwhile there were no statistically significant trends for homeowners over the past five years in the TCC project
area. This speaks to the relative stability of homeownership relative to renting.

Table 11: ACS Housing Indicators for Renters24
Indicator
ACS
Five-year
Sample
TCC
C
ensus
Tracts
Control
Census
Tracts
San
Joaquin
County California
Percent renters**
2016-2020 60.8% 56.0% 42.3% 44.7%
2011-2015 62.1% 54.9% 43.4% 45.7%
% Change -2.0% +2.1% -2.5%* -2.1%*
Percent of renters paying �30%
of income on rent**
2016-2020 60.7% 60.3% 51.4% 51.5%
2011-2015 64.2% 63.7% 54.2% 54.0%
% Change -5.4% -5.3% -5.3%* -4.5%*
Percent of renters paying �50%
of income on rent**
2016-2020

30.3% 36.6% 24.3% 26.2%
2011-2015 35.9% 35.7% 29.0% 28.2%
% Change -15.7%* +2.7% -16.0%* -7.1% *
Percent of renters in with more than one
occupant per room in their unit**
2016-2020

8.6% 7. 7 % 5.0% 5.9%
2011-2015 10.8% 8.2% 5.0% 6.0%
% Change -20.4% -5.7%* +0.5% -1.8%*
Percent of renters in same house in same
house one year ago**
2016-2020

58.9% 48.2% 34.4% 35.6%
2011-2015 47 .5% 39.4% 32.7% 34.7%
% Change +23.8%* +22.4%* +5.2%* -2.7%*
Percent of housing units
for rent that are vacant
2016-2020

1.1% 3.1% 1.5% 1.6%
2011-2015 5.1% 5.7% 2.3% 1.8%
% Change -78.2%* -46.0%* -33.0%* -10.7%*
* Statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Significance tests were conducted in accordance with methods described by the U.S. Census Bur
eau in Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What All Data Users Need to Know (2018). **Refers to households rather than individuals.

ATTACHMENT B
56 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Table 12: ACS Housing Indicators for Homeowners25
Indicator
ACS
Five-year
Sample
T
CC
Census
Tracts
Control
Census
Tracts
San
Joaquin
County California
Percent homeowners**
2016-2020 39.2% 44.0% 5 7. 7 % 55.3%
2011-2015 3 7.9 % 45.1% 56.6% 54.3%
% Change +3.5% -2.6% +1.9%* +1.7%*
Percent of homeowners paying �30%
of income on mortgage**
2016-
2020 25.5% 28.6% 14.3% 15.4%
2011-2015 29.0% 28.6% 1 7.6% 18.2%
% Change -12.0% +<0.1% -18.7%* -15.2%*
Percent of homeowners paying �50%
of income on mortgage**
2016-
2020 6.4% 5.0% 4.9% 5.2%
2011-2015 6.0% 4.4% 6.6% 6.2%
% Change +6.3% +12.7% -25.2%* -1 7.0 % *
Percent of homeowners in with more
than one occupant per room in their
unit**
2016-2020

4.2% 3.3% 2.8% 2.3%
2011-2015 5.4% 3.8% 2.3% 2.2%
% Change -22.3% -12.5% +25.1%* +5.9%*
Percent of homeowners in same house
one year ago**
2016-2020

35.8% 41.3% 53.7% 52.7%
2011-2015 3 7.0 % 42.1% 51.4% 51.3%
% Change -3.4% -1.8% +4.5%* +2.7%*
Percent of housing units
for sale that are vacant
2016-
2020 1.0% 1.0% 0.5% 0.5%
2011-2015 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7%
% Change -18.8% -1.4% -39.0%* -24.8%*
* S tatistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Significance tests were conducted in accordance with methods described by the U.S. Census Bureau in Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What All Data Users Need to Know (2018). **Refers to households rather than individuals.
25 Ibid.
 INDICATOR TRACKING:INDICATOR TRACKING: BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA INDICATOR TRACKING: INDIC ATOR TRACKING: BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA 

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 57  INDICATOR TRACKING:INDICATOR TRACKING: BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA INDICATOR TRACKING: INDICATOR TRACKING: BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA  Transportation
26 https://nhts.dot.ca.gov/
27 Data were not collected for California at this time because it must be requested by county directly from the California Air Resources Board (CARB). 28 See Appendix 7 for the following details: (1) the ACS table numbers that were sourced for each indicator; (2) additional estimates for 2012-2016, 2013- 2017 , 2014-2018, and 2015-2019; and (3) the margins of error for all estimates.

Within the TCC project area, there has been a statistical- ly significant shift away from carpooling toward driving alone for commut
es to work. The decline in carpooling is
consistent at the county and state scale, while the increase in driving alone is unique to the TCC site and San Joaquin County (see Table 13). According to project partners, this inconsistency may be due to the relative share of super commuters in Stockton and San Joaquin County compared
to the rest of the state. Many of these super commuters may have had to return to less flexible jobs that do not allow for remote work.

Aside from the ACS data on commutes to work, there is no other secondary data that is updated on an annual basis at the census tract scale or smaller for understanding the travel behavior of TCC project area residents in relation to the comparison to geographies. The last National House- hold Travel Survey, for example, was conducted in 2017 . 26 In addition to looking at travel behavior, this report also provides baseline data on the adoption rate of electric vehicles (EV) and the rollout of EV charging infrastructure.

While these are not explicit objectives of Stockton Rising, they could be indirectly affected. For example, improved economic outcomes for TCC residents alongside commu-
nity education about the environmental goals of TCC could le
ad to changes in consumer demand for zero-emission
technologies.

Prior to TCC investment, the adoption of electric vehicles in the TCC project area appears to be growing at a faster rate than the rest of San Joaquin County when normalized by population (see Table 14).
27 Meanwhile, the relative
growth rates of publicly available EV charging stations in the TCC project area versus the county are difficult to com- pare because there were zero stations in the TCC project ar
ea a the start of the study period (see Table 15), so any increase appears significant in relative terms.

Table 13: ACS Transportation Indicators28
Indicator
ACS
Five-year
Sample
T
CC
Census
Tracts
Control
Census
Tracts
San
Joaquin
County California
Percent of workers commuting to work
by car (alone)
2016-2020 80.3% 7 7. 8% 78.6% 72.1%
2011-2015 69. 2% 74.4% 76.6% 73.4%
% Change +15.9%* +4.5% +2.6%* -1.8%*
Percent of workers commuting to work
by carpool
2016-2020 14.0% 14.6% 12.2% 10.0%
2011-2015 23.1% 18.7% 14.8% 10.8%
% Change -39.4%* -21.8%* -1 7.4% * -7. 8% *
Percent of workers commuting to work
by public transit
2016-2020 1.8% 2.3% 1.6% 4.6%
2011-2015 1.7% 0.8% 1.5% 5.2%
% Change +7. 2 % +187 .8%* +10.3% -11.5%*
Percent of workers commuting to work
by foot
2016-2020 0.9% 0.9% 1.3% 2.5%
2011-2015 1.2% 1.3% 1.9% 2.7%
% Change -25.5% -32.6% -29.4%* -6.8%*
Percent of workers commuting to work
by bike
2016-2020 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.8%
2011-2015 0.6% 1.0% 0.5% 1.1%
% Change -19.9% -58.2% -44.3%* -24.7%*
* S tatistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Significance tests were conducted in accordance with methods described by the U.S. Census Bureau in Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What All Data Users Need to Know (2018).

ATTACHMENT B
58 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant  INDICATOR TRACKING:INDICATOR TRACKING: BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA INDICATOR TRACKING: INDIC ATOR TRACKING: BASELINE DATA BASELINE DATA  Table 14: Plug-in Electric Vehicle (PEV) Registrations29 Indicator
Dataset
Year
Gross Number Normalized per 10,000 Residents
TCC
Census
T
racts
Control
Census
Tracts
San
Joaquin
C
ounty
TCC
Census
T
racts
Control
Census
Tracts
San
Joaquin
C
ounty
Battery electric
vehicle (BEV)
2020 55 45 2,882 14.3 9.5 38.3
2015 5 8 459 0.9 1.5 6.5
% Change +1000% +463% +528% +1489% +533% +489%
Plug-in hybrid
electric vehicle
(PHEV)
2020
99 69 2,401 25.7 14.6 31.9
2015 20 9 385 3.8 1.7 5.4
% Change +395% +668% +524% +576% +441% +491%
Fuel cell vehicle
(FCEV)
2020
0 0 19 0 0 <1.0
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0
% Change No change No change +90% No change No change +200% Total EVs
2020 154 114 5,302 40 24.1 70.5
2015 25 17 844 4.7 3.1 11.9
%Change +516% +571% +528% +751% +677% +492%
Table 15: Publicly Available Charging Infrastructure30
Indicator
Dataset
Year
Gross Number Normalized per 10,000 Residents
TCC
Census
T
racts
Control
Census
Tracts
San
Joaquin
C
ounty
TCC
Census
T
racts
Control
Census
Tracts
San
Joaquin
C
ounty
Level 2 Stations
2020 2 0 41 0.5 0 0.6
2015 0 0 28 0 0 0.4
% Change +100% No Change +46% +100% No Change +50%
DC Fast-Charging
Stations
2020 0 0 11 0 0 0.1
2015 0 0 7 0 0 0.1
% Change No Change No Change +57% No Change No Change No Change * Difference is due to population growth because there was no change in charging stations. 29 EV registration data were obtained by request from the California Air Resources Boards (CARB) Online Fleet Database. The EV registration data were normalized with 2015 and 2020 five-year ACS data.
30 Charging station data were obtained by request from the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC), a resource administered by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s Vehicle Technologies Office. The 2015 and 2020 datasets include active stations and does not include stations that have previously opened and closed. The charging station data were normalized with 2015 and 2020 five-year ACS data.

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 59 

APPENDICES APPENDICES
Detailed project map. Figure credit: City of Stockton
Appendix 1: Supplemental MapsAppendix 1: Supplemental Maps

ATTACHMENT B
60 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Maps depicting the scale of the TCC project area. Figure credit: UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 61 Appendix 2 Appendix 2
Summary of Methods for Estimating Project BenefitsSummary of Methods for Estimating Project Benefits Benefit Methodology Version Revision Date
Avoided stormwater runoff
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Quantification Methodology (QM): Urban
Greening Grant Program
Version 2 2/4/2019
Energy use and cost savings CARB QM: Low-Income Weatherization Program N/A 1/22/2019 CARB QM: Water-Energy Grant Program Version 3 10/6/2018 Greenhouse gas (GHG)
reductions
CARB Q
M: Low-Income Weatherization Program N/A 1/22/2019
CARB QM: Urban Greening Grant Program Version 2 2/4/2019 CARB QM: Water-Energy Grant Program Version 3 10/6/2018 Jobs CARB Job Co-benefit Assessment Methodology N/A 1/31/2020 Local air pollutant reductions
CARB QM: Low-Income Weatherization Program N/A 1/22/2019 CARB QM: Urban Greening Grant Program Version 2 2/4/2019 CARB QM: Water-Energy Grant Program Version 3 10/6/2018 Renewable energy generation CARB QM: Low-Income Weatherization Program N/A 1/22/2019 Travel cost savings CARB QM: Urban Greening Grant Program Version 2 2/4/2019 Vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
reductions CARB Q
M: Urban Greening Grant Program Version 2 2/4/2019
Water cost savings Evaluator methodology15,16,17 N/A N/A Water use reduction CARB QM: Water-Energy Grant Program Version 3 10/6/2018 15 At the time of writing this report, CARB did not provide a methodology for estimating water cost savings. Thus, the evaluation team developed a cus- tom methodology for estimating water cost savings from Stockton Rising’s water efficiency interventions. Using the total water use reduction estimate from CARB’s GHG Quantification Methodology for Water-Energy Projects (11,927 ,092 gallons), the evaluation team proportionally allocated those cost savings to the two different catchment zones in the TCC project area served by the California Water Service Company (98% of the project area) and the City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department (2% of the project area). The evaluation team then applied the most conservative cost estimate from each utility’s rate schedule to the water savings that were allocated to each catchment zone: $3.18 per centum cubic foot (CCF) for CalWater and $2.11 per CCF for The City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department. 16 The rate schedule for the California Water Service Company was obtained from:
http://www.stocktonca.gov/government/departments/adminServices/ubilServFee.html 17 The rate schedule for the City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department was obtained from:
http://www.stocktonca.gov/government/departments/adminServices/ubilServFee.html

ATTACHMENT B
62 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant  APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 
Appendix 3: Appendix 3:

Rise Stockton Coalition Members Rise Stockton Coalition Members Member Organization Organization Mission Organization
Location
Asian-Pacific Self-Devel-
opment And Residential
A
ssociation (APSARA)
Provide leadership for the San Joaquin County residents by collabo- rating with the larger community to provide a safe, positive environ- ment that promotes economic independence.

St
ockton
Catholic Charities of the
Diocese of Stockton
Partner with others in advocating for justice and in assisting those in need by providing help for today and hope for tomorrow.

Stockton
The Climate Center Work to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas pollution at scale, starting in California.

Santa Rosa
Changeist Build a community of diverse young people that utilize their personal agency to create a more just society.

Stockton
The Edible Schoolyard
Project
Transform the health of children by designing hands-on educational experiences in the garden, kitchen, and cafeteria that connect chil- dren to food, nature, and to each other.

B
erkeley
Elemental Excelerator Provide funding and bring commercial opportunities to entrepre - neurs who are building world-changing companies.

E
ast Palo Alto
Fathers & Families of San
Joaquin*
Reclaim our destiny and to give our people a reason to live, and lead with purpose.

Stockton
The Greenlining Institute Work toward a future when communities of color can build wealth, live in healthy places filled with economic opportunity, and are ready to meet the challenges posed by climate change.

Oakland
GRID Alternatives Cen-
tral Valley
M
ake renewable energy technology and job training accessible to underserved communities.

Fresno
Little Manila Rising Bring multifaceted equity to Stockton. Stockton Public Health Advocates Bring a public health lens to today’s most pressing problems, helping communities to pass laws, reform systems, and establish norms that foster justice, equity, health.

Davis
Promotores Unidas Para
la Educacion Nacional
Tecnologias Sostenibles
(PUENTES)
Fight food deserts, advocates for food education, and encourages the sustainable development of communities by cultivating a connection between people and their food.

Stockton
Restore the Delta Ensure the health of the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary and Delta communities.

Stockton
Rising Sun Center for
Opportunity
Benefit the community through training, employment, and direct energy and water efficiency services.

Oakland
STAND Work to make our neighborhood of minority and low-income resi- dents a safer and more desirable place to live.

St
ockton
Third City Coalition Connect local changemakers across all backgrounds to form strong, lasting partnerships.

Stockton
*Organization dissolved in 2021.

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 63  APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 
Appendix 4: Appendix 4:

Stockton Rising Collaborative Stockton Rising Collaborative Stakeholder Structure (CSS)Stakeholder Structure (CSS)
Subgroup
(meeting
frequency)
Purpose Member (number of members) Role in Subgroup
Steering
Committee
(quarterly)
Coordination and
alignment of CSS;
monitor grant prog-
ress; adaptive grant
manag
ement; and
conflict resolution.

City of Stockton (1) Facilitator and final decision maker Public Health Advocates (1) Community Engagement Coordinator Rising Sun Center for Opportunity (1) Workforce Coordinator Project Area Residents (2) Resident Representatives
Capital
Strategies
Working
Team
(bi-monthly)
Coordination of all
7 projects; review
progress of projects;
and report progress.

City of Stockton (3) Facilitator and final decision maker (1) and City Representatives (2)
Edible Schoolyard Project Project Partner
GRID Alternatives Central Valley (1) Project Partner
Little Manila (1) Project Partner
PUENTES (1) Project Partner
Rising Sun Center for Opportunity(1) Project Partner
Project Area Residents (2) Resident Representatives
Community
Engagement
Working
Team
(monthly)
Coordination of
community engage-
ment activities;
o
versight of public
communications;
and onboarding of
residents to partici-
pate in the CSS.

Public He
alth Advocates (1) Facilitator*
Catholic Charities (1) Project Partner*
Little Manila (1) Project Partner*
Third City Coalition (1) Community Stakeholder*
TBD (1) Community Stakeholder*
Project Area Residents (2) Resident Representatives*
Workforce
Develop-
ment
W
orking
Team
(bi-monthly)
Coordination of
workforce develop-
ment activities; and
r
eport on progress of
activities.

Rising Sun Center for Opportunity (1) Facilitator*
GRID Alternatives Central Valley (1) Project Partner*
Insight Garden Program (1) Project Partner*
San Joaquin Regional Transportation
District (1)
Project Partner*
Edge Collaborative (1) Community Stakeholder*
TBD (1) Community Stakeholder*
Project Area Residents (2) Resident Representatives*
Community
Coalition
(bi-monthly)
Share information;
collect community
feedback; ensure
alignment of TCC
with community
priorities; and partic-
ipate in mandatory
consultation pr
ocess.

Public Health Advocates (1) Facilitator
Project Area Residents (unlimited) Resident Representative* Project Area Workers (unlimited) Worker Representative* *Voting members (decisions are made by simple majority of voting members).

ATTACHMENT B
64 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Appendix 5: Appendix 5:

Stockton Rising TCC Census Tracts Stockton Rising TCC Census Tracts Census Tract GeoID Number City
Population
(ACS 2015-
2019 estimat
e)
Area
(sq. mi.)
Population
D
ensity
(pop./ sq.mi.)
Ov
erlap with TCC
Project Area
(%)
14000US006077000100 Stockton 3,688 0.73 5,054 65% 14000US006077000600 Stockton 1,703 0.35 4,834 68% 14000US006077000700 Stockton 4,680 0.7 6,713 80% 14000US006077000801 Stockton 7,624 3.43 2,220 13% 14000US006077001900 Stockton 4,681 1.11 4,205 52% 14000US006077002000 Stockton 3,357 0.78 4,329 62% 14000US006077002201 Stockton 2,856 0.85 3,354 36% 14000US006077002202 Stockton 5,079 0.86 5,897 19% 14000US006077002300 Stockton 4,334 0.8 5,389 67% 14000US006077002401 Stockton 5,328 0.74 7,182 66% 14000US006077002503 Stockton 2,258 0.68 3,317 39% 14000US006077002504 Stockton 3,884 0.35 11,186 100%  APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 65  APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 
Appendix 6: Appendix 6:

Stockton Rising Control Census TractsStockton Rising Control Census Tracts Census Tract
GeoID Number C ity
Population
(ACS 2015-
2019 estimate)
Ar
ea
(sq. mi.)
P
opulation
Density
(pop./ sq.mi.)
14000US006077000402 St
ockton 4,153 0.56 7,368
14000US006077001500 Stockton 10,290 1.84 5,596 14000US006077001700 Stockton 3,957 0.65 6,079 14000US006077001800 Stockton 4,438 0.74 5,998 14000US006077002100 Stockton 5,727 1.28 4,478 14000US006077002800 Stockton 6,097 2.82 2,160 14000US006077003305 Stockton 4,375 0.79 5,537 14000US006077003313 Stockton 2,895 0.19 15,196 14000US006077003405 Stockton 4,507 0.43 10,538 14000US006077003406 Stockton 3,938 0.32 12,151 14000US006077003409 Stockton 4,159 0.54 7,732 14000US006077003700 Stockton 3,154 16.18 195

ATTACHMENT B
66 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Appendix 7: Appendix 7:

Indicator DataIndicator Data
Appendix 7 .1: Demographics
Table A7 .1.1: American Community Survey (ACS) Demographic Indicators* Time
Period
(ACS 5-Year
s
ample)
Estimate
for
TCC
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for
Control
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for San
Joaquin
County MOE
Estimate
for
California MOE
Total Population
(B01003)
2011-2015 53,043 1,559 54,154 1,736 708,554 0 38,421,464 0 2012-2016 52,578 1,604 55,033 1,736 714,860 0 38,654,206 0 2013-2017 51,575 1,718 55,447 1,684 724,153 0 38,982,847 0 2014-2018 49,960 1,544 57 ,224 1,678 732,212 0 39,148,760 0 2015-2019 49,472 1,6745 5 7,69 0 1,751 742,603 0 39,283,497 0 2016-2020 38,501 2,327 47,196 2,327 751,615 0 39,346,023 0 Percent Hispanic, all
races (B03002)
2011-2015 68.5% 2.1% 55.3% 2.4% 40.1% 0 38.4% 0
2012-2016 69.4% 2.1% 55.3% 2.3% 40.5% 0 38.6% 0
2013-2017 69.3% 2.3% 55.2% 2.5% 40.8% 0 38.8% 0
2014-2018 68.0% 2.4% 55.6% 2.3% 41.1% 0 38.9% 0
2015-2019 68.5% 2.6% 56.1% 2.2% 41.4% 0 39.0% 0
2016-2020 73.6% 3.8% 56.8% 3.4% 41.7% 0 39.1% 0
Percent White,
non-Hispanic (B03002)
2011
-2015 4.7% 0.7% 1 7. 3 % 1.2% 34.3% 0.04% 38.7% 0.0%
2012-2016 5.3% 0.7% 16.3% 1.2% 33.9% 0.04% 38.4% 0.0%
2013-2017 5.7% 0.9% 15.7% 1.2% 33.2% 0.04% 3 7.9 % 0.0% 2014-2018 6.0% 1.0% 15.2% 1.4% 32.5% 0.04% 3 7. 5 % 0.0% 2015-2019 6.6% 1.0% 14.9% 1.3% 31.8% 0.03% 37 .2% 0.0%
2016-2020 6.2% 1.2% 14.0% 1.5% 30.7% 0.1% 36.5% 0.0%
Percent all communities
of color, non-Hispanic:

Black, Asian, Pacific
Islander, American
Indian, Other, and Two
or More Races (B03002)
2011-2015 26.8% 1.7% 2 7.4% 1.9% 25.6% 0.3% 22.9% 0.0%
2012-2016 25.3% 1.6% 28.4% 2.0% 25.7% 0.3% 23.1% 0.0%
2013-2017 25.0% 1.7% 29.1% 2.0% 26.0% 0.3% 23.3% 0.0%
2014-2018 26.0% 1.9% 29.2% 2.1% 26.4% 0.3% 23.6% 0.0%
2015-2019 24.9% 2.0% 29.0% 2.2% 26.7% 0.3% 23.8% 0.0%
2016-2020 20.2% 2.1% 29.2% 2.5% 2 7.6% 0.5% 24.4% 0.1%
* M argins of Error (MOE) for the county and the state are obtained directly from the U.S. Census Bureau. MOEs for TCC and control census tracts are derived by the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation (LCI) in accordance with the methods described by the U.S. Census Bureau in Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What All Data Users Need to Know (2018). All MOEs are report- ed at the 90% confidence interval.
 APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 
Table continues next page

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 67  APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 
Time
Period
(ACS 5-Year
s
ample)
Estimate
for
TCC
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for
Control
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for San
Joaquin
County MOE
Estimate
for
California MOE
Percent other
communities of color,
non-Hispanic: Pacific
Islander, American
Indian, Other, Two or
More Races
2011-2015 2.8% 0.7% 3.5% 0.9% 4.4% 0.3% 3.7% 0.0%
2012-2016 2.4% 0.6% 2.9% 0.7% 4.4% 0.3% 3.8% 0.0%
2013-2017 2.8% 0.7% 3.1% 0.8% 4.6% 0.2% 3.9% 0.0%
2014-2018 2.8% 0.8% 2.7% 0.7% 4.5% 0.2% 3.9% 0.0%
2015-2019 3.1% 0.9% 3.2% 0.7% 4.8% 0.2% 4.0% 0.0%
2016-2020 1.8% 0.8% 2.8% 0.7% 5.3% 0.3% 4.4% 0.0%
Percent Black, non-
Hispanic (B03002)
2011-2015 10.1% 1.2% 8.5% 1.0% 6.7% 0.2% 5.6% 0.0%
2012-2016 9. 2% 1.1% 9.4% 1.1% 6.7% 0.1% 5.6% 0.0%
2013-2017 9.7% 1.1% 9.7% 1.2% 6.7% 0.1% 5.5% 0.0%
2014-2018 10.5% 1.3% 9.4% 1.1% 6.8% 0.1% 5.5% 0.0%
2015-2019 10.1% 1.4% 9.7% 1.1% 6.7% 0.1% 5.5% 0.0%
2016-2020 10.3% 1.8% 11.8% 2.1% 6.8% 0.1% 5.4% 0.0%
Percent Asian, non-
Hispanic (B03002)
2011-2015 13.9% 1.2% 15.4% 1.5% 14.5% 0.2% 13.5% 0.0%
2012-2016 13.7% 1.2% 16.1% 1.6% 14.5% 0.2% 13.7% 0.0%
2013-2017 12.6% 1.3% 16.3% 1.5% 14.8% 0.2% 13.9% 0.0%
2014-2018 12.7% 1.3% 1 7.1% 1.8% 15.0% 0.2% 14.1% 0.0%
2015-2019 11.7% 1.3% 16.1% 1.8% 15.2% 0.1% 14.3% 0.0%
2016-2020 8.1% 1.2% 14.6% 1.6% 15.5% 0.3% 14.6% 0.0%
Percent Pacific Is-
landers, non-Hispanic
(B03002)
2011
-2015 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% <1.0% 0.4% 0.0%
2012-2016 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.5% <1.0% 0.4% 0.0%
2013-2017 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% <1.0% 0.4% 0.0%
2014-2018 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% <1.0% 0.4% 0.0%
2015-2019 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% <1.0% 0.4% 0.0%
2016-2020 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.6% <1.0% 0.3% 0.0%
Percent American
Indian, non-Hispan-
ic(B03002)
2011
-2015 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0%
2012-2016 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%
2013-2017 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.05% 0.4% 0.0%
2014-2018 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%
2015-2019 <0.5% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.05% 0.4% 0.0%
2016-2020 <0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%
Table continues next page

ATTACHMENT B
68 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Time
Period
(ACS 5-Year
s
ample)
Estimate
for
TCC
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for
Control
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for San
Joaquin
County MOE
Estimate
for
California MOE
Percent other, non-
Hispanic (B03002)
2011-2015 0.0% 0.04% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.04% 0.2% 0.0%
2012-2016 0.0% 0.04% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.04% 0.2% 0.0%
2013-2017 0.0% 0.04% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.03% 0.2% 0.0%
2014-2018 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.04% 0.2% 0.0%
2015-2019 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.04% 0.3% 0.0%
2016-2020 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0%
Percent foreign-born
population (B05006)
2011-2015 35.9% 1.7% 29.1% 1.6% 23.3% 0.5% 2 7.0 % 0.1% 2012-2016 35.4% 1.7% 29.8% 1.6% 23.3% 0.4% 2 7.0 % 0.1% 2013-2017 35.2% 1.7% 29.6% 1.7% 23.3% 0.4% 2 7.0 % 0.1% 2014-2018 34.6% 1.7% 29.6% 1.5% 23.3% 0.4% 26.9% 0.1%
2015-2019 33.2% 1.7% 29.6% 1.6% 23.3% 0.5% 26.8% 0.1%
2016-2020 33.7% 2.7% 28.1% 1.7% 23.0% 0.5% 26.6% 0.1%
Percent born in Asia
(B05006)
2011-2015 7. 8% 0.8% 9.0% 1.0% 9.0% 0.2% 10.1% 0.0%
2012-2016 8.3% 0.9% 9.3% 1.0% 9.1% 0.2% 10.2% 0.0%
2013-2017 7.6% 0.8% 9.3% 1.0% 9. 2% 0.2% 10.4% 0.0%
2014-2018 7.6% 0.8% 9.4% 1.1% 9.5% 0.2% 10.5% 0.0%
2015-2019 7.0 % 0.9% 9.6% 1.2% 9.7% 0.2% 10.6% 0.0%
2016-2020 5.5% 1.1% 9.1% 1.2% 9.5% 0.3% 10.6% 0.0%
Percent born in Africa
(B05006)
2011-2015 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.4% 0.0%
2012-2016 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0%
2013-2017 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0%
2014-2018 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0%
2015-2019 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0%
2016-2020 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0%
Percent born in Latin
America (B05006)
2011-2015 2 7.6% 1.7% 19.7% 1.6% 12.6% 0.3% 14.2% 0.1%
2012-2016 26.7% 1.7% 20.1% 1.5% 12.5% 0.3% 14.0% 0.0%
2013-2017 2 7.1% 1.7% 19.6% 1.5% 12.4% 0.3% 13.8% 0.1%
2014-2018 26.5% 1.7% 19.5% 1.4% 12.2% 0.3% 13.7% 0.1%
2015-2019 25.7% 1.6% 19.3% 1.5% 12.1% 0.3% 13.5% 0.1%
2016-2020 28.0% 2.7% 18.5% 1.6% 11.8% 0.4% 13.2% 0.1%
 APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 
Table continues next page

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 69  APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 
Time
Period
(ACS 5-Year
s
ample)
Estimate
for
TCC
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for
Control
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for San
Joaquin
County MOE
Estimate
for
California MOE
Median household
income (B19001)
2011-2015 $28,556 N/A $33,600 N/A $53,274 $946 $61,818 156 2012-2016 $28,645 N/A $34,180 N/A $55,045 $896 $63,783 188 2013-2017 $31,338 N/A $36,312 N/A $57 ,813 $863 $ 6 7,1 69 192 2014-2018 $32,776 N/A $38,968 N/A $61,145 $1,022 $71,228 217 2015-2019 $34,830 N/A $41,565 N/A $64,432 $745 $75,235 232 2016-2020 $36,591 N/A $43,601 N/A $68,628 $1,259 $78,672 270 Percent of individuals
living below poverty
(B17001)
2011-2015 39.2% 2.7% 30.8% 2.9% 18.6% 0.5% 16.3% 0.1%
2012-2016 39.8% 2.7% 29.6% 2.6% 1 7. 8% 0.6% 15.8% 0.1% 2013-2017 35.9% 2.7% 28.8% 2.9% 1 7.1% 0.6% 15.1% 0.1%
2014-2018 33.1% 2.6% 25.6% 2.6% 15.9% 0.5% 14.3% 0.1%
2015-2019 30.9% 2.7% 23.3% 2.6% 14.5% 0.6% 13.4% 0.1%
2016-2020 30.2% 3.0% 25.2% 3.0% 13.7% 0.6% 12.6% 0.1%
Percent high income
($125k +) (B19001)
2011-2015 2.2% 0.7% 3.8% 1.0% 13.9% 0.5% 20.9% 0.1%
2012-2016 2.9% 0.9% 4.0% 0.9% 14.9% 0.5% 22.1% 0.1%
2013-2017 3.9% 1.0% 4.8% 1.0% 16.8% 0.6% 23.9% 0.1%
2014-2018 4.5% 1.2% 6.1% 1.2% 18.8% 0.7% 26.1% 0.1%
2015-2019 5.3% 1.3% 6.7% 1.2% 20.9% 0.7% 28.0% 0.1%
2016-2020 4.6% 1.4% 8.2% 1.6% 23.0% 0.8% 29.8% 0.1%
Percent with less than
high school education
(S1501)
2011-2015 48.5% 2.3% 34.9% 2.2% 22.0% 0.5% 18.2% 0.1%
2012-2016 4 7.0 % 2.2% 35.7% 2.2% 22.0% 0.5% 17 .9% 0.1% 2013-2017 45.8% 2.4% 34.4% 2.2% 21.6% 0.5% 1 7. 5 % 0.1% 2014-2018 44.1% 2.4% 34.4% 2.1% 21.1% 0.5% 1 7.1% 0.1%
2015-2019 43.6% 2.5% 33.9% 2.3% 20.7% 0.6% 16.7% 0.1%
2016-2020 43.2% 2.9% 32.7% 2.2% 19.9% 0.6% 16.1% 0.1%
Percent with bachelor’s
degree or higher (S1501)
2011-2015 5.1% 0.7% 9.1% 1.1% 18.4% 0.5% 31.4% 0.1%
2012-2016 4.9% 0.7% 8.6% 1.0% 18.2% 0.4% 32.0% 0.1%
2013-2017 5.1% 0.8% 8.7% 1.0% 18.1% 0.5% 32.6% 0.1%
2014-2018 5.6% 0.9% 8.4% 1.1% 18.4% 0.5% 33.3% 0.1%
2015-2019 5.8% 0.9% 9.0% 1.1% 18.8% 0.5% 33.9% 0.1%
2016-2020 4.9% 1.0% 10.0% 1.6% 19. 2% 0.6% 34.7% 0.1%
Appendix 7 .2: Economy
Table A7 .2.1: American Community Survey (ACS) Economic Indicators* * M OEs for the county and the state are obtained directly from the U.S. Census Bureau. MOEs for TCC and control census tracts are derived by LCI in accordance with the methods described by the U.S. Census Bureau in Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What All Data Users Need to Know (2018). All MOEs are reported at the 90% confidence interval.

Table continues next page

ATTACHMENT B
70 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Time
Period
(ACS 5-Year
sample)
Estimate
for
TCC
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for
Control
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for San
Joaquin
County MOE
Estimate
for
California MOE
Percent employed for
the population 16 years
and over (B23025)
2011-2015 44.7% 1.7% 45.9% 1.8% 52.7% 0.5% 56.9% 0.1%
2012-2016 44.9% 1.7% 46.5% 1.6% 53.4% 0.4% 5 7. 5 % 0.1% 2013-2017 4 7. 8% 1.6% 4 7.6% 1.7% 54.2% 0.4% 58.2% 0.1% 2014-2018 50.1% 1.8% 50.2% 1.7% 55.2% 0.4% 58.9% 0.1%
2015-2019 50.6% 1.8% 51.0% 1.7% 55.6% 0.4% 59.4% 0.1%
2016-2020 50.5% 2.4% 49.9% 2.0% 56.0% 0.5% 59.4% 0.1%
 APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 71 * M OEs for the county and the state are obtained directly from the U.S. Census Bureau. MOEs for TCC and control census tracts are derived by LCI in accordance with the methods described by the U.S. Census Bureau in Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What All Data Users Need to Know (2018). All MOEs are reported at the 90% confidence interval.  APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 
Time
Period
(ACS 5-Year
s
ample)
Estimate
for
TCC
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for
Control
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for San
Joaquin
County MOE
Estimate
for
California MOE
Percent of households
heating home with
electricity (B25040)
2011-2015 30.5% 2.2% 31.3% 2.5% 29.0% 0.6% 26.2% 0.1%
2012-2016 26.9% 2.2% 30.4% 2.4% 28.4% 0.6% 26.4% 0.1%
2013-2017 25.1% 2.2% 29.3% 2.5% 27 .2% 0.6% 26.5% 0.1%
2014-2018 24.8% 2.2% 29.0% 2.3% 26.7% 0.7% 26.4% 0.1%
2015-2019 23.3% 2.1% 26.6% 2.3% 25.5% 0.6% 26.6% 0.1%
2016-2020 25.7% 2.9% 28.0% 2.9% 25.6% 0.8% 2 7.1% 0.1%
Percent of households
heating home with
other non-fossil fuels
(B25040)
2011-2015 0.4% 0.3% 0.6% 0.4% 1.5% 0.2% 1.9% 0.02%
2012-2016 0.6% 0.3% 0.8% 0.4% 1.7% 0.2% 1.9% 0.03%
2013-2017 0.7% 0.4% 1.0% 0.5% 1.7% 0.2% 2.0% 0.02%
2014-2018 0.6% 0.3% 1.1% 0.5% 1.9% 0.2% 2.1% 0.03%
2015-2019 0.5% 0.3% 0.9% 0.5% 2.0% 0.2% 2.1% 0.02%
2016-2020 0.4% 0.4% 1.0% 0.5% 2.1% 0.2% 2.2% 0.03%
Percent of households
heating home with
utility gas (B25040)
2011-2015 6 7.6% 2.3% 65.1% 2.4% 65.0% 0.6% 65.0% 0.1%
2012-2016 70.8% 2.3% 65.8% 2.5% 65.5% 0.6% 64.6% 0.1%
2013-2017 72.1% 2.3% 66.6% 2.5% 66.5% 0.6% 64.4% 0.1%
2014-2018 71.6% 2.3% 6 7. 3 % 2.6% 66.7% 0.7% 64.3% 0.1% 2015-2019 73.4% 2.2% 70.0% 2.5% 68.1% 0.6% 64.1% 0.0%
2016-2020 71.6% 3.3% 6 7.9 % 2.7% 6 7.4% 0.7% 63.6% 0.1% Percent of households
heating home with other
fossil fuels (B25040)
2011-2015 0.8% 0.4% 0.9% 0.4% 3.5% 0.2% 3.4% 0.04%
2012-2016 0.9% 0.4% 1.2% 0.5% 3.5% 0.2% 3.4% 0.04%
2013-2017 1.0% 0.4% 1.2% 0.6% 3.5% 0.2% 3.5% 0.04%
2014-2018 1.0% 0.4% 1.3% 0.6% 3.6% 0.2% 3.5% 0.04%
2015-2019 0.9% 0.4% 1.2% 0.6% 3.5% 0.2% 3.5% 0.04%
2016-2020 0.9% 0.5% 1.2% 0.5% 3.6% 0.3% 3.6% 0.0%
Percent of houses with
no fuel used (B25040)
2011-2015 0.7% 0.4% 1.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.1% 3.2% 0.03%
2012-2016 0.9% 0.4% 1.6% 0.5% 0.7% 0.1% 3.3% 0.03%
2013-2017 1.2% 0.5% 1.7% 0.6% 0.8% 0.1% 3.4% 0.03%
2014-2018 1.9% 0.7% 1.3% 0.5% 0.8% 0.1% 3.4% 0.04%
2015-2019 1.9% 0.7% 1.2% 0.6% 0.8% 0.1% 3.3% 0.03%
2016-2020 1.2% 0.7% 1.3% 0.6% 1.0% 0.2% 3.2% 0.04%
Appendix 7 .3: Energy
Table A7 .3.1: American Community Survey (ACS) Energy Indicators*

ATTACHMENT B
72 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant  APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 
Table A7 .3.2: Solar PV Systems per 1,000 Households*
Indicator
Dataset
Year
TCC
Census
Tracts
Control
Census
Tracts
San
Bernardino
County California
Solar PV Systems for All Building Types 2018 23.3 33.2 61.7 49.4 *Solar PV system data were sourced from The DeepSolar Project, a product of Stanford Engineering. For TCC census tracts and control tracts, a weighted average was applied, as based on the number of households within each census tract (using 2011-2015 ACS data)

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 73  APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 
Appendix 7 .4: Environment
Table A7 .4: Open Space Indicators*
Stockton Rising
Project Area
Boundary
Control
Census Tracts
San Joaquin
County California
Open access (sq mi) 0.16 0.13 11.04 58,750.05
Total area (sq mi) 5.0 26.4 1,426.5 163,695.6
Percent of open access 3% 0.5% 1% 36%
Total population 38,501 47,196 751,615 39,346,023
Open access per person (sq ft) 114 75 410 41,629.40
*Open space indicators were derived from the California Protected Areas Database (CPAD).

ATTACHMENT B
74 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant * MOEs for the county and the state are obtained directly from the U.S. Census Bureau. MOEs for TCC and control census tracts are deri
ved by LCI in accordance with the methods described by the U.S. Census Bureau in Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What All Data Users Need to Know (2018). All MOEs are reported at the 90% confidence interval.  APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 
Appendix 7 .5: Health
Table A7 .5.1: American Community Survey (ACS) Health Indicators* Time
Period
(ACS 5-Year
sample)
Estimate
for
TCC
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for
Control
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for San
Joaquin
County MOE
Estimate
for
California MOE
Percent with health
insurance coverage
(B27001)
2011-2015 7 7.6% 1.6% 81.4% 1.4% 86.0% 0.5% 85.3% 0.1%
2012-2016 80.7% 1.7% 85.3% 1.3% 88.3% 0.4% 8 7.4% 0.1%
2013-2017 83.4% 2.0% 8 7.4% 1.2% 90.3% 0.4% 89.5% 0.1%
2014-2018 86.0% 1.8% 89.9% 1.2% 92.5% 0.3% 91.5% 0.1%
2015-2019 88.8% 1.6% 91.8% 1.3% 93.6% 0.3% 92.5% 0.1%
2016-2020 88.9% 1.4% 92.2% 1.5% 93.7% 0.3% 92.8% 0.1%
Percent with private
health insurance
coverage (B27002)
2011-2015 2 7.9 % 1.8% 3 7. 5 % 2.2% 5 7. 2 % 0.7% 61.2% 0.2% 2012-2016 28.0% 1.9% 38.5% 2.3% 5 7.9 % 0.6% 61.8% 0.2% 2013-2017 28.9% 1.8% 37 .3% 2.3% 58.1% 0.7% 62.6% 0.2%
2014-2018 29.9% 1.9% 37 .7% 2.3% 58.9% 0.7% 63.4% 0.2%
2015-2019 31.5% 2.1% 3 7. 5 % 2.2% 59.7% 0.6% 63.8% 0.2% 2016-2020 30.0% 2.1% 37 .3% 2.1% 60.6% 0.7% 64.3% 0.2%
Percent with public
health insurance cover-
age (B27003)
2011-
2015 54.6% 2.4% 50.7% 2.3% 37 .7% 0.6% 32.6% 0.1%
2012-2016 58.1% 2.3% 54.1% 2.5% 39.7% 0.6% 34.3% 0.1%
2013-2017 59.6% 2.4% 5 7.1% 2.3% 41.5% 0.6% 35.8% 0.1%
2014-2018 61.3% 2.5% 59. 2% 2.6% 43.0% 0.6% 37 .2% 0.1% 2015-2019 63.2% 2.7% 61.0% 2.6% 43.4% 0.6% 38.0% 0.1%
2016-2020 64.4% 3.4% 61.6% 3.1% 42.9% 0.7% 38.0% 0.1%

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 75 Indicator
Dataset
Year
Gross Number of Collisions Normalized by 1,000 Street Mile Value for TCC
Site by Buffer
Size
Value for
Controls by
Buffer Size
Value for TCC
Site by Buffer
Size
Value for Con-
trols by Buffer
Size
0f
t 50 ft 0ft 50 ft 0ft 50ft 0ft 50ft
Bicycle Collision
at Injury Level 1:

F
atal
2020 2 2 0 0 15.1 15.1 0.0 0.0
2019 2 2 2 2 15.1 15.1 10.0 10.0
2018 2 2 1 1 15.1 15.1 5.0 5.0
2017 1 1 0 0 7.6 7.6 0.0 0.0
2016 1 1 2 2 7.6 7.6 10.0 10.0
2015 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bicycle Collision
at Injury Level 2:

S
evere Injury
2020 3 4 0 0 22.7 30.3 0.0 0.0
2019 3 3 2 2 22.7 22.7 10.0 10.0
2018 3 3 3 3 22.7 22.7 15.0 15.0
2017 3 3 5 6 22.7 22.7 24.9 29.9
2016 3 3 0 0 22.7 22.7 0.0 0.0
2015 2 2 2 3 15.1 15.1 10.0 15.0
Bicycle Collision
at Injury Level 3:

Visible Injur
y
2020 6 6 5 6 45.4 45.4 24.9 29.9
2019 10 11 9 12 75.7 83.2 44.9 59.8
2018 10 11 9 9 75.7 83.2 44.9 44.9
2017 10 10 7 9 75.7 75.7 34.9 44.9
2016 14 15 8 11 105.9 113.5 39.9 54.8
2015 8 8 6 8 60.5 60.5 29.9 39.9
Bicycle Collision
at Injury Level 4:

Complaint of Pain
2020 4 4 2 3 30.3 30.3 10.0 15.0
2019 10 10 7 11 75.7 75.7 34.9 54.8
2018 9 9 7 8 68.1 68.1 34.9 39.9
2017 9 10 5 8 68.1 75.7 24.9 39.9
2016 10 10 10 17 75.7 75.7 49.8 84.7
2015 10 11 17 20 75.7 83.2 84.7 99.7
Table A7 .5.2: Vehicle Collisions Involving Bicyclists and Pedestrians* * C ollision data were obtained from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). The numbers presented here are conservative in that they do not include collisions that were missing geographic coordinates in TIMS. Street mileage was obtained from OpenStreetsMap (OSM) and totaled 129 miles for the project area and 470 miles for the control tracts. Vehicle collisions involving bicycles and pedestrians are not mutually exclusive because some accidents may involve both modes.  APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 
Table continues next page

ATTACHMENT B
76 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Indicator
Dataset
Year
Gross Number of Collisions Normalized by 1,000 Street Mile Value for TCC
Site by Buffer
Size
Value for
Controls by
Buffer Size
Value for TCC
Site by Buffer
Size
Value for Con-
trols by Buffer
Size
0f
t 50 ft 0ft 50 ft 0ft 50ft 0ft 50ft
Pedestrian Collision
at Injury Level 1: Fatal
2020 4 4 3 4 30.3 30.3 15.0 19.9
2019 2 2 5 7 15.1 15.1 24.9 34.9
2018 5 5 1 1 3 7. 8 3 7. 8 5.0 5.0
2017 3 3 2 3 22.7 22.7 10.0 15.0
2016 1 1 3 3 7.6 7.6 15.0 15.0
2015 1 2 2 2 7.6 15.1 10.0 10.0
Pedestrian Collision
at Injury Level 2:

Severe Injury
2020 5 6 7 9 3 7. 8 45.4 34.9 44.9
2019 3 3 5 6 22.7 22.7 24.9 29.9
2018 5 5 7 8 3 7. 8 3 7. 8 34.9 39.9
2017 7 7 4 5 53.0 53.0 19.9 24.9
2016 4 6 8 10 30.3 45.4 39.9 49.8
2015 6 7 3 4 45.4 53.0 15.0 19.9
Pedestrian Collision
at Injury Level 3:

Visible Injur
y
2020 8 8 5 6 60.5 60.5 24.9 29.9
2019 13 14 7 10 98.4 105.9 34.9 49.8
2018 10 10 7 10 75.7 75.7 34.9 49.8
2017 17 18 9 11 128.6 136.2 44.9 54.8
2016 12 13 10 11 90.8 98.4 49.8 54.8
2015 10 11 13 15 75.7 83.2 64.8 74.8
Pedestrian Collision
at Injury Level 4:

Complaint of Pain
2020 5 5 7 9 3 7. 8 3 7. 8 34.9 44.9
2019 18 18 11 13 136.2 136.2 54.8 64.8
2018 11 12 11 13 83.2 90.8 54.8 64.8
2017 20 21 8 10 151.3 158.9 39.9 49.8
2016 15 16 16 17 113.5 121.1 79.7 84.7
2015 14 15 9 12 105.9 113.5 44.9 59.8
 APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 
Table continues next page

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 77 Indicator
Dataset
Year
Gross Number of Collisions Normalized by 1,000 Street Mile Value for TCC
Site by Buffer
Size
Value for
Controls by
Buffer Size
Value for TCC
Site by Buffer
Size
Value for Con-
trols by Buffer
Size
0ft
50 ft 0ft 50 ft 0ft 50ft 0ft 50ft
Combined Bicycle and
Pedestrian Collision
at Injury Level 1: Fatal
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Combined Bicycle and
Pedestrian Collision
at Injury Level 2:

Se
vere Injury
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Combined Bicycle
and Pedestrian
at Injury Level 3:

Visible Injury
2020
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Combined Bicycle
and Pedestrian at
Injury L
evel 4:

Complaint of Pain
2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICE SAPPENDICES 

ATTACHMENT B
78 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Time
Period
(ACS 5-Year
s
ample)
Estimate
for
TCC
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for
Control
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for San
Joaquin
County MOE
Estimate
for
California MOE
Percent renters
(B25003)
2011-2015 62.1% 2.5% 54.9% 2.4% 43.4% 0.7% 45.7% 0.1%
2012-2016 63.8% 2.5% 55.0% 2.4% 44.3% 0.7% 45.9% 0.2%
2013-2017 63.8% 2.3% 56.1% 2.5% 44.3% 0.7% 45.5% 0.1%
2014-2018 64.6% 2.3% 56.5% 2.5% 44.4% 0.7% 45.4% 0.1%
2015-2019 65.0% 2.3% 56.3% 2.6% 43.4% 0.7% 45.2% 0.1%
2016-2020 60.8% 3.7% 56.0% 3.2% 42.3% 0.8% 44.7% 0.1%
Percent homeowners
(B25003)
2011-2015 3 7.9 % 2.2% 45.1% 2.3% 56.6% 0.7% 54.3% 0.3% 2012-2016 36.2% 2.1% 45.0% 2.1% 55.7% 0.7% 54.1% 0.3%
2013-2017 36.2% 2.0% 43.9% 2.2% 55.7% 0.7% 54.5% 0.3%
2014-2018 35.4% 2.1% 43.5% 2.1% 55.6% 0.7% 54.6% 0.3%
2015-2019 35.0% 2.1% 43.7% 2.4% 56.6% 0.7% 54.8% 0.3%
2016-2020 39.2% 3.1% 44.0% 2.5% 5 7. 7 % 0.8% 55.3% 0.3% Percent of households
paying ≥30% of income
on rent (B25070)
2011-2015 64.2% 4.1% 63.7% 4.6% 54.2% 1.3% 54.0% 0.1%
2012-2016 64.2% 4.0% 63.6% 4.4% 53.4% 1.3% 53.6% 0.1%
2013-2017 62.6% 4.0% 61.9% 4.4% 52.8% 1.3% 53.1% 0.1%
2014-2018 60.3% 4.1% 58.3% 4.3% 52.3% 1.2% 52.6% 0.2%
2015-2019 60.1% 4.1% 58.4% 4.4% 51.8% 1.3% 52.1% 0.2%
2016-2020 60.7% 5.1% 60.3% 5.5% 51.4% 1.6% 51.5% 0.2%
Percent of households
paying ≥50% of income
on rent (B25070)
2011-2015 35.9% 3.2% 35.7% 3.6% 29.0% 1.0% 28.2% 0.2%
2012-2016 36.0% 3.1% 36.4% 3.5% 28.3% 0.9% 2 7.9 % 0.1% 2013-2017 34.3% 2.9% 34.1% 3.4% 2 7.1% 1.0% 2 7.4% 0.1% 2014-2018 31.6% 3.0% 33.7% 3.5% 26.0% 0.8% 2 7.0 % 0.2% 2015-2019 31.4% 2.9% 34.1% 3.4% 25.6% 1.0% 26.6% 0.2%
2016-2020 30.3% 3.4% 36.6% 5.1% 24.3% 1.0% 26.2% 0.2%
Appendix 7 .6: Housing
Table A7 .6.1: American Community Survey (ACS) Housing Indicators* *MOEs for the county and the state are obtained directly from the U.S. Census Bureau. MOEs for TCC and control census tracts are derived by LCI in accordance with the methods described by the U.S. Census Bureau in Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What All Data Users Need to Know (2018). All MOEs are reported at the 90% confidence interval.  APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 
Table continues next page

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 79  APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 
Time
Period
(ACS 5-Year
s
ample)
Estimate
for
TCC
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for
Control
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for San
Joaquin
County MOE
Estimate
for
California MOE
Percent of households
paying ≥30% of income
on mortgage (B25091)
2011-2015 29.0% 3.8% 28.6% 3.8% 1 7.6% 0.8% 18.2% 0.05% 2012-2016 28.1% 3.9% 27 .2% 3.6% 16.6% 0.8% 1 7. 2 % 0.04% 2013-2017 25.9% 4.0% 28.2% 3.8% 15.8% 0.8% 16.5% 0.1%
2014-2018 25.7% 4.0% 26.5% 4.0% 15.1% 0.7% 16.0% 0.1%
2015-2019 24.7% 4.2% 30.0% 4.3% 14.7% 0.8% 15.7% 0.1%
2016-2020 25.5% 5.1% 28.6% 4.7% 14.3% 0.8% 15.4% 0.1%
Percent of households
paying ≥50% of income
on mortgage (B25091)
2011-2015 6.0% 2.0% 4.4% 1.4% 6.6% 0.5% 6.2% 0.0%
2012-2016 5.8% 2.0% 3.5% 1.1% 5.7% 0.4% 5.8% 0.1%
2013-2017 5.6% 2.1% 3.0% 1.1% 5.2% 0.4% 5.5% 0.1%
2014-2018 6.0% 2.1% 3.1% 1.1% 5.2% 0.4% 5.4% 0.1%
2015-2019 5.9% 2.1% 3.9% 1.5% 5.0% 0.5% 5.3% 0.0%
2016-2020 6.4% 2.7% 5.0% 2.5% 4.9% 0.5% 5.2% 0.1%
Percent of households
with more than one
occupant per room
(B25014)
2011-2015 16.1% 2.0% 12.0% 1.8% 7. 3 % 0.4% 8.2% 0.1%
2012-2016 15.6% 1.9% 11.1% 1.6% 7. 2 % 0.4% 8.2% 0.1%
2013-2017 13.8% 1.8% 10.8% 1.6% 7.1% 0.4% 8.2% 0.1%
2014-2018 13.7% 1.8% 11.7% 1.8% 7. 3 % 0.4% 8.2% 0.1%
2015-2019 12.5% 1.8% 11.8% 1.9% 7.4% 0.4% 8.2% 0.1%
2016-2020 12.7% 2.3% 11.0% 2.0% 7.9 % 0.5% 8.2% 0.1%
Percent of households
with more than one
occupant per room
(renters) (B25014)
2011-2015 10.8% 1.7% 8.2% 1.6% 5.0% 0.3% 6.0% 0.1%
2012-2016 10.9% 1.6% 6.9% 1.3% 4.9% 0.3% 6.1% 0.0%
2013-2017 10.0% 1.5% 6.4% 1.2% 4.8% 0.3% 6.0% 0.1%
2014-2018 10.2% 1.6% 7. 2 % 1.4% 5.0% 0.3% 6.0% 0.0%
2015-2019 9. 2% 1.6% 7.6% 1.5% 4.9% 0.3% 6.0% 0.1%
2016-2020 8.6% 2.0% 7. 7 % 1.8% 5.0% 0.4% 5.9% 0.1%
Percent of households
with more than one
occupant per room
(homeowners) (B25014)
2011-2015 5.4% 1.1% 3.8% 0.9% 2.3% 0.2% 2.2% 0.0%
2012-2016 4.6% 1.0% 4.2% 1.0% 2.2% 0.2% 2.1% 0.0%
2013-2017 3.8% 1.0% 4.4% 1.1% 2.3% 0.2% 2.2% 0.0%
2014-2018 3.6% 0.9% 4.5% 1.1% 2.3% 0.2% 2.2% 0.0%
2015-2019 3.3% 0.9% 4.3% 1.1% 2.5% 0.3% 2.2% 0.0%
2016-2020 4.2% 1.3% 3.3% 1.0% 2.8% 0.3% 2.3% 0.0%
Table continues next page

ATTACHMENT B
80 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Time
Period
(ACS 5-Year
s
ample)
Estimate
for
TCC
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for
Control
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for San
Joaquin
County MOE
Estimate
for
California MOE
Percent of households
in same house 1 year ago
(renters) (B07013)
2011-2015 47 .5% 3.1% 39.4% 2.8% 32.7% 0.9% 34.7% 0.2%
2012-2016 51.8% 3.3% 41.5% 3.0% 34.2% 0.7% 35.4% 0.2%
2013-2017 53.2% 3.2% 42.7% 3.0% 34.5% 0.8% 35.6% 0.2%
2014-2018 56.0% 3.1% 44.6% 3.1% 35.4% 0.8% 35.8% 0.2%
2015-2019 59.0% 3.2% 46.5% 3.2% 35.3% 0.8% 35.9% 0.2%
2016-2020 58.9% 4.9% 48.2% 3.7% 34.4% 0.9% 35.6% 0.2%
Percent of households
in same house 1 year ago
(homeowners) (B07013)
2011-2015 3 7.0 % 2.6% 42.1% 2.5% 51.4% 0.8% 51.3% 0.3% 2012-2016 34.6% 2.5% 42.9% 2.8% 50.5% 0.8% 51.0% 0.3%
2013-2017 33.9% 2.2% 41.3% 2.7% 50.9% 0.8% 51.4% 0.2%
2014-2018 33.5% 2.2% 41.4% 2.6% 50.7% 0.9% 51.6% 0.2%
2015-2019 33.0% 2.4% 41.7% 2.7% 52.0% 0.9% 52.0% 0.3%
2016-2020 35.8% 3.4% 41.3% 3.0% 53.7% 0.8% 52.7% 0.2%
Percent of households
in same house 1 year ago
(w/ income of
> $75k) (B07010)
2011-2015 1.5% 0.4% 2.3% 0.5% 8.5% 0.2% 12.4% 0.1%
2012-2016 1.6% 0.4% 2.3% 0.4% 9.0% 0.3% 13.0% 0.1%
2013-2017 1.9% 0.5% 2.9% 0.5% 9.9% 0.3% 13.8% 0.1%
2014-2018 2.1% 0.5% 3.4% 0.6% 10.7% 0.3% 14.8% 0.1%
2015-2019 2.6% 0.6% 3.8% 0.7% 11.6% 0.3% 16.0% 0.1%
2016-2020 2.4% 0.7% 4.4% 0.8% 12.4% 0.3% 16.8% 0.1%
Percent of households
in same house 1 year ago
(w/ income of
< $75k) (B07010)
2011-2015 83.2% 1.8% 80.1% 1.8% 75.2% 0.8% 72.9% 0.1%
2012-2016 84.7% 1.8% 82.5% 2.0% 75.3% 0.8% 72.8% 0.1%
2013-2017 85.1% 1.8% 81.3% 2.1% 75.1% 0.8% 72.4% 0.1%
2014-2018 86.7% 2.0% 82.6% 2.2% 74.9% 0.8% 71.8% 0.1%
2015-2019 88.3% 1.9% 84.2% 2.2% 75.3% 0.9% 71.0% 0.1%
2016-2020 91.2% 7. 5 % 85.0% 0.6% 75.1% 0.9% 70.6% 0.1% Percent of housing units
for rent that are vacant
(B25002 and B25004)
2011-2015 5.1% 1.1% 5.7% 1.4% 2.3% 0.2% 1.8% 0.0%
2012-2016 3.9% 1.0% 4.4% 1.1% 2.0% 0.2% 1.7% 0.0%
2013-2017 3.8% 0.9% 4.5% 1.0% 2.0% 0.2% 1.6% 0.0%
2014-2018 2.7% 0.8% 3.6% 0.9% 1.6% 0.2% 1.5% 0.0%
2015-2019 2.5% 0.7% 3.4% 0.9% 1.5% 0.2% 1.6% 0.0%
2016-2020 1.1% 0.6% 3.1% 0.9% 1.5% 0.2% 1.6% 0.0%
Percent of housing units
for sale that are vacant
(B25002 and B25004)
2011-2015 1.2% 0.6% 1.0% 0.6% 0.8% 0.2% 0.7% 0.0%
2012-2016 1.0% 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.1% 0.6% 0.0%
2013-2017 1.1% 0.6% 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.1% 0.6% 0.0%
2014-2018 1.0% 0.5% 0.8% 0.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.6% 0.0%
2015-2019 1.1% 0.6% 0.8% 0.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.6% 0.0%
2016-2020 1.0% 0.7% 1.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0%
 APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 81  APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 
Time
Period
(ACS 5-Year
s
ample)
Estimate
for
TCC
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for
Control
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for San
Joaquin
County MOE
Estimate
for
California MOE
Percent of households
with a vehicle available
(B08201)
2011-2015 N/A N/A N/A N/A 92.9% 1.1% 92.3% 0.1%
2012-2016 N/A N/A N/A N/A 93.1% 1.1% 92.4% 0.1%
2013-2017 N/A N/A N/A N/A 93.4% 1.1% 92.6% 0.1%
2014-2018 N/A N/A N/A N/A 93.6% 1.2% 92.8% 0.1%
2015-2019 N/A N/A N/A N/A 93.9% 1.2% 92.9% 0.1%
2016-2020 N/A N/A N/A N/A 94.4% 1.4% 93.0% 0.1%
Percent of workers
commuting to work
alone by car (B08301)
2011-2015 69. 2% 2.2% 74.4% 2.5% 76.6% 0.6% 73.4% 0.1%
2012-2016 69.9% 2.0% 73.4% 2.3% 76.9% 0.7% 73.5% 0.0%
2013-2017 73.6% 2.0% 75.1% 2.1% 7 7.4% 0.5% 73.6% 0.1%
2014-2018 74.8% 2.1% 7 7. 2 % 2.3% 78.2% 0.3% 73.7% 0.0% 2015-2019 76.9% 2.6% 78.8% 2.3% 78.8% 0.7% 73.7% 0.0%
2016-2020 80.3% 3.9% 7 7. 8% 2.7% 78.6% 0.8% 72.1% 0.1% Percent of workers
commuting to work by
carpool (B08301)
2011-2015 23.1% 2.7% 18.7% 2.4% 14.8% 0.7% 10.8% 0.1%
2012-2016 22.9% 2.7% 19.0% 2.4% 14.4% 0.6% 10.6% 0.1%
2013-2017 19.6% 2.4% 1 7. 7 % 2.4% 13.9% 0.5% 10.4% 0.1% 2014-2018 18.9% 2.5% 15.9% 2.3% 13.6% 0.5% 10.3% 0.1%
2015-2019 16.2% 2.4% 14.3% 2.3% 12.9% 0.6% 10.1% 0.1%
2016-2020 14.0% 2.8% 14.6% 2.5% 12.2% 0.5% 10.0% 0.1%
Percent of workers
commuting to work by
public transit (B08301)
2011-2015 1.7% 0.6% 0.8% 0.5% 1.5% 0.2% 5.2% 0.0%
2012-2016 1.7% 0.6% 1.5% 0.6% 1.4% 0.2% 5.2% 0.0%
2013-2017 1.5% 0.6% 1.5% 0.6% 1.5% 0.2% 5.2% 0.0%
2014-2018 1.7% 0.6% 1.6% 0.7% 1.5% 0.2% 5.1% 0.0%
2015-2019 2.2% 0.7% 1.6% 0.7% 1.7% 0.2% 5.1% 0.0%
2016-2020 1.8% 0.7% 2.3% 0.9% 1.6% 0.2% 4.6% 0.0%
Percent of workers
commuting to work by
foot (B08301)
2011-2015 1.2% 0.6% 1.3% 0.6% 1.9% 0.2% 2.7% 0.0%
2012-2016 1.2% 0.5% 1.6% 0.7% 1.9% 0.2% 2.7% 0.0%
2013-2017 1.1% 0.5% 0.8% 0.5% 1.6% 0.2% 2.7% 0.0%
2014-2018 1.0% 0.5% 0.7% 0.4% 1.5% 0.1% 2.7% 0.0%
2015-2019 0.8% 0.5% 0.8% 0.4% 1.4% 0.2% 2.6% 0.0%
2016-2020 0.9% 0.6% 0.9% 0.5% 1.3% 0.2% 2.5% 0.0%
Appendix 7 .7: Transportation
Table A7 .7 .1: American Community Survey (ACS) Transportation Indicators* * M OEs for the county and the state are obtained directly from the U.S. Census Bureau. MOEs for TCC and control census tracts are derived by LCI in accordance with the methods described by the U.S. Census Bureau in Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What All Data Users Need to Know (2018). All MOEs are reported at the 90% confidence interval.

Table continues next page

ATTACHMENT B
82 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Time
Period
(ACS 5-Year
s
ample)
Estimate
for
TCC
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for
Control
Tracts MOE
Estimate
for San
Joaquin
County MOE
Estimate
for
California MOE
Percent of workers
commuting to work by
bike (B08301)
2011-2015 0.6% 0.4% 1.0% 0.4% 0.5% 0.1% 1.1% 0.0%
2012-2016 0.6% 0.4% 1.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.1% 1.1% 0.0%
2013-2017 0.7% 0.4% 1.1% 0.7% 0.6% 0.1% 1.1% 0.0%
2014-2018 0.6% 0.4% 1.0% 0.6% 0.5% 0.1% 1.0% 0.0%
2015-2019 0.5% 0.4% 0.9% 0.6% 0.4% 0.1% 1.0% 0.0%
2016-2020 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.8% 0.0%
Percent of workers
commuting to work by
other modes: taxicab,
motorcycle, and other
(B08301)
2011-2015 2.1% 0.8% 1.6% 0.7% 1.1% 0.2% 1.4% 0.0%
2012-2016 1.6% 0.6% 1.2% 0.6% 1.0% 0.1% 1.4% 0.0%
2013-2017 1.3% 0.5% 1.4% 0.6% 1.0% 0.1% 1.5% 0.0%
2014-2018 1.0% 0.5% 1.3% 0.6% 0.9% 0.1% 1.6% 0.0%
2015-2019 1.4% 0.6% 0.9% 0.4% 0.8% 0.1% 1.6% 0.0%
2016-2020 1.1% 0.7% 0.4% 0.3% 0.8% 0.1% 1.6% 0.0%
 APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 

ATTACHMENT B
Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 83 Table A7 .7 .2: Plug-in Electric Vehicle (PEV) Registrations* Indicator
Dataset
Year
Gross Number Normalized per 10,000 Residents
TCC
Census
T
racts
Control
Census
Tracts
San
Joaquin
C
ounty
TCC
Census
T
racts
Control
Census
Tracts
San
Joaquin
C
ounty
Battery electric
vehicle (BEV)
2020 55 45 2,882 14.3 9.5 38.3
2019 35 30 746 7.1 5.2 10.0
2018 30 24 1,378 6.0 4.2 18.8
2017 30 19 948 5.8 3.4 13.6
2016 16 20 740 3.0 3.6 10.4
2015 5 8 459 0.9 1.5 6.5
Plug-in hybrid
electric vehicle
(PHEV)
2020 99 69 2,401 25.7 14.6 31.9
2019 49 53 870 9.9 9. 2 11.7
2018 75 52 1,568 15.0 9.1 21.4
2017 59 42 1,066 11.4 7.6 14.7
2016 32 24 591 6.1 4.4 8.3
2015 20 9 385 3.8 1.7 5.4
Fuel cell vehicle
(FCEV)
2020 0 0 19 0 0 0.3
2019 0 0 4 0 0 0.1
2018 0 0 10 0 0 0.1
2017 0 0 2 0 0 <0.1
2016 0 0 1 0 0 <0.1
2015 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total EVs
2020 154 114 5,302 40.0 24.2 70.5
2019 84 83 1,620 1 7.0 14.4 21.8
2018 105 76 2,956 21.0 13.3 40.4
2017 89 61 2,052 1 7. 3 11.0 28.3
2016 48 44 1,375 9.1 8.0 19. 2
2015 25 17 844 4.7 3.1 11.9
 APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 
* EV r egistration data were obtained by request from the California Air Resources Boards (CARB) Online Fleet Database. The EV registra- tion data were normalized with five-year ACS data for the respective year.

ATTACHMENT B
84 | Stockton Rising: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant Table A7 .7 .3: Publicly Available Charging Infrastructure19 Indicator
Dataset
Year
Gross Number Normalized per 10,000 Residents
TCC
Census
Tr
acts
Control
Census
Tracts
San
Joaquin
Count
y
TCC
Census
Tr
acts
Control
Census
Tracts
San
Joaquin
Count
y
Level 2 Stations
2021 2 1 55 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
2020 2 0 41 <0.1 0 <0.1
2019 1 0 34 <0.1 0 <0.1
2018 0 0 34 0 0 <0.1
2017 0 0 30 0 0 <0.1
2016 0 0 29 0 0 <0.1
DC Fast-Charging
Stations
2021 0 0 26 0 0 <0.1
2020 0 0 11 0 0 <0.1
2019 0 0 6 0 0 <0.1
2018 0 0 6 0 0 <0.1
2017 0 0 7 0 0 <0.1
2016 0 0 7 0 0 <0.1
19 Charging station data were obtained by request from the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC), a resource administered by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s Vehicle Technologies Office. Each dataset includes active stations and does not include stations that have previously opened and closed. in other words, each dataset is a snapshot of currently active stations in that year (taken during fall of each year). The charging station data were normalized with five-year ACS data for the respective year.  APPENDICESAPPENDICES APPENDICESAPPENDICES 

ATTACHMENT B
Ontario Together: A Baseline and Progress Report on Early Implementation of the TCC Grant | 85

ATTACHMENT B

City Council and Concurrent AuthoritiesJune 21, 2022

City Council and Concurrent Authorities
June 21, 2022