BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF STOCKTON, AS FOLLOWS:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated by reference.
2. A resolution to adopt a General Plan Amendment to incorporate the 2023- 2031 Housing Element and revise the Safety Element for consistency with State law, based on the following findings per SMC section 16.116.050 for Amendments to the General Plan:
a. The proposed amendment updates existing and incorporates new policies and programs that are consistent with and support General Plan Goals CH-2 Restored Communities and CH-4 Affordable Housing, and Policies LU-2.2, CH-2.2, and CH-4.1 and would not create any inconsistencies with the City’s Development Code. The proposed Housing Element has been updated in conformity with the provisions of State Law requirements of California Government Code section 65588 as evidenced by the May 22, 2024, conditional approval letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development. The Safety Element was circulated to local and regional agencies responsible for managing safety in the region and was also reviewed by the City’s Engineering, Fire, and Police departments. b. The Housing Element is needed to comply with State Law to identify current and future housing needs and identify actions the City can take to accommodate those needs. The Element establishes appropriate goals, objectives, and policies to address such issues as adequate sites, affordability, governmental constraints, preservation of housing and neighborhoods, housing accessibility, and energy conservation.
The revised Safety Element is also required by State Law to identify potential hazards to the City and its residents and identify actions the City could take to minimize or mitigate those impacts. Like the Housing Element, the Safety Element establishes appropriate goals, objectives, and policies to identify likely hazards (environmental and man-made) and identify resources and service that will provide timely assistance in the event of those an emergency.
These elements are vital for the City in addressing sufficient housing and emergency management systems. As they are needed to maintain services to residents, the proposed Housing Element and revised Safety Element will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the City.
1012
c. That no further environmental review is required per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15183 (Consistency with a Community Plan or General Plan). Changes to Housing and Safety Elements are required by State law and provide additional information to reaffirm and clarify objectives, but do not alter land use designations, zoning, or development intensity, or result in an indirect or direct physical change to the environment.
Therefore, the changes are consistent with the General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provided under section 15183, and no further environmental review is required.
3. The City Council approves a resolution adopting the 2023-2031 Housing Element as illustrated in Exhibit 1 and revised Safety Element as illustrated in Exhibit 2, based on the findings and evidence detailed above, incorporated by reference.
4. The City Manager is hereby authorized to take whatever actions are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED: July 9, 2024 .
KEVIN J. LINCOLN II
Mayor of the City of Stockton
ATTEST:
KATHERINE ROLAND, CMC, CPMC
Interim City Clerk of the City of Stockton
1013
City of Stockton
2023-2031 Housing Element
Subsequent Draft, April 2024
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1014
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1015
Prepared By:
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 200
Folsom, California 95630
t 916.245.7500
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE www.placeworks.com
City of Stockton
2023-2031 Housing Element
Subsequent Draft, April 2024
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1016
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1017
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HOUSING .................................................................................................................................................. HE-1 Introduction to the Policy Document ................................................................................................................HE-1 Goals, Policies, and Implementation Programs.................................................................................................HE-2 Goal HE-1 and Associated Policies .................................................................................................................HE-2 Goal HE-1 Implementation Programs..............................................................................................................HE-4 Goal HE-2 and Associated Policies ...............................................................................................................HE-10 Goal HE-2 Implementation Programs............................................................................................................HE-11 Goal HE-3 and Associated Policies ...............................................................................................................HE-13 Goal HE-3 Implementation Programs............................................................................................................HE-13 Goal HE-4 and Associated Policies ...............................................................................................................HE-16 Goal HE-4 Implementation Programs............................................................................................................HE-17 Goal HE-5 and Associated Policies ...............................................................................................................HE-19 Goal HE-5 Implementation Programs............................................................................................................HE-20 Quantified Objectives ..................................................................................................................................HE-34
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... BR-1 Overview of State Requirements...................................................................................................................... BR-1 General Plan and Housing Element Consistency............................................................................................... BR-2 General Plan and Housing Element Differences................................................................................................ BR-3 Public Participation......................................................................................................................................... BR-3
2. EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................. BR-5 Major Findings .............................................................................................................................................. BR-5 Introduction................................................................................................................................................... BR-6 Demographic and Employment Profile............................................................................................................. BR-6 Demographics............................................................................................................................................... BR-6 Household Characteristics and Housing Supply .............................................................................................. BR-12 Special Housing Needs ................................................................................................................................ BR-26 Preserving At-Risk Units ................................................................................................................................ BR-43
3. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING .......................................................................................................... BR-49 Introduction................................................................................................................................................. BR-49 Outreach .................................................................................................................................................... BR-50 Integration and Segregation.......................................................................................................................... BR-55 Access to Opportunity .................................................................................................................................. BR-82 Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1018
ii ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Disproportionate Housing Need and Displacement Risk ................................................................................BR-101 Other Relevant Factors................................................................................................................................BR-120 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity ...........................................................................................................BR-131 Sites Inventory and Fair Housing Analysis......................................................................................................BR-132 Potential Effect on Patterns of Integration and Segregation.............................................................................BR-140 Potential Effect on Access to Opportunity......................................................................................................BR-147 Contributing Factors ...................................................................................................................................BR-155
4. HOUSING SITES INVENTORY ................................................................................................................ BR-159 Introduction................................................................................................................................................BR-159 Regional Housing Needs Allocation .............................................................................................................BR-159 Availability of Land .....................................................................................................................................BR-160 Sites Suitably Zoned for Residential Uses at Appropriate Densities...................................................................BR-161 Sites Identified in Previous Housing Elements ................................................................................................BR-161 Realistic Capacity .......................................................................................................................................BR-161 Representative Projects................................................................................................................................BR-165 Summary of Approach to Meeting RHNA......................................................................................................BR-167 Programs to Encourage and Facilitate Housing Development.........................................................................BR-167 Pipeline Projects .........................................................................................................................................BR-168 Vacant Sites ...............................................................................................................................................BR-176 Accessory Dwelling Unit Potential.................................................................................................................BR-180 Hazards and Other Potential Site Constraints................................................................................................BR-181 Adequacy of Public Facilities and Infrastructure .............................................................................................BR-182
5. EXISTING HOUSING PROGRAMS AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES .............................................................. BR-185 Introduction................................................................................................................................................BR-185 Local Housing Programs .............................................................................................................................BR-185 Private Funding ..........................................................................................................................................BR-193 Energy Conservation Opportunities..............................................................................................................BR-193
6. POTENTIAL HOUSING CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................................... BR-197 Major Findings...........................................................................................................................................BR-197 Introduction................................................................................................................................................BR-197 Potential Governmental Constraints .............................................................................................................BR-198 Potential Nongovernmental Constraints........................................................................................................BR-231
7. EVALUATION ....................................................................................................................................... BR-233 APPENDIX A: LAND INVENTORY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY .............................................................................................. B-1 Release of Public Review Draft Housing Element .................................................................................................B-1 Housing Element Service Provider Consultations .................................................................................................B-1 Housing Action Plan/Displacement Study Stakeholder Consultations.....................................................................B-3 Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1019
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
Public Workshops ............................................................................................................................................ B-6 Planning Commission and City Council Meetings............................................................................................. B-11 Written Public Comments................................................................................................................................ B-11 Response to Input Received............................................................................................................................. B-11 APPENDIX C: PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSE ..........................................................................................C-1 TABLES
Table HE-1: Summary Of Quantified Objectives........................................................................................HE -34 Table HE-2: Historical Population Change ................................................................................................... BR-6 Table HE-3: Population Change .................................................................................................................. BR-7 Table HE-4: Age Characteristics .................................................................................................................. BR-7 Table HE-5: Population Breakdown by Race/Ethnicity .................................................................................... BR-8 Table HE-6: Personal Income1..................................................................................................................... BR-8 Table HE-7: Household Income Distribution ................................................................................................. BR-9 Table HE-8: Income Limits for San Joaquin County and Regional Housing Needs Allocation.......................... BR-10 Table HE-9: Top Employers in the City of Stockton...................................................................................... BR-10 Table HE-10: Employment by Industry ........................................................................................................ BR-11 Table HE-11: Unemployment Rate............................................................................................................. BR-11 Table HE-12: Population and Employment Projections................................................................................. BR-12 Table HE-13: Family and Nonfamily Households........................................................................................ BR-13 Table HE-14: Tenure ................................................................................................................................ BR-14 Table HE-15: Overcrowding...................................................................................................................... BR-15 Table HE-16: Household Size by Tenure..................................................................................................... BR-16 Table HE-17: Number of Bedrooms by Tenure ........................................................................................... BR-16 Table HE-18: Average Household Size by Tenure........................................................................................ BR-17 Table HE-19: Housing Units by Type.......................................................................................................... BR-18 Table HE-20: Occupancy/Vacancy ............................................................................................................ BR-18 Table HE-21: Vacant Units by Type ............................................................................................................ BR-19 Table HE-22: Age of Housing Stock and Housing Stock Conditions by Tenure .............................................. BR-20 Table HE-23: Code Enforcement Cases ..................................................................................................... BR-21 Table HE-24: Housing Cost Burden by Household Income Classification ...................................................... BR-22 Table HE-25: HCD Household Income Limits ............................................................................................. BR-23 Table HE-26: Ability to Pay for Housing based on HCD Income Limits1......................................................... BR-24 Table HE-27: HUD Fair Market Rent.......................................................................................................... BR-25 Table HE-28: Median Home Value ............................................................................................................ BR-25 Table HE-29: Median Housing Value Over Time (Owner-Occupied)............................................................ BR-25 Table HE-30: Average Rental Rates............................................................................................................ BR-26 Table HE-31: Senior Populations and Households ...................................................................................... BR-27 Table HE-32: Senior Household Income Distribution ................................................................................... BR-28 Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1020
iv ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Table HE-33: Disability Status and Types of Disabilities by Age Group, Persons Five Years and Older .............BR-29 Table HE-34: Developmental Disability by Age Group .................................................................................BR-31 Table HE-35: Large Households.................................................................................................................BR-32 Table HE-36: Female-Headed Households .................................................................................................BR-32 Table HE-37: Homeless Population Survey..................................................................................................BR-35 Table HE-38: Overnight and Emergency Facilities .......................................................................................BR-37 Table HE-39: Transitional and Permanent Supportive Housing .....................................................................BR-39 Table HE-40: Emergency and Transitional/Permanent Supportive Shelter Provider Capacities .........................BR-40 Table HE-41: Housing Cost Burden of Extremely Low-Income Households.....................................................BR-42 Table HE-42: Federally Subsidized Rental Facilities At-Risk ...........................................................................BR-43 Table HE-43: Estimated Acquisition/ Rehabilitation Costs.............................................................................BR-46 Table HE-44: Estimated Cost to Subsidize Rents ..........................................................................................BR-47 Table HE-45: Estimated Replacement Costs ................................................................................................BR-47 Table HE-46: Performance Scores for Stockton Unified School District...........................................................BR-92 Table HE-47: Performance Scores for Lincoln Unified School District.............................................................BR-94 Table HE-48 Distribution of RHNA Capacity by Census Tract......................................................................BR-135 Table HE-49: Factors that Contribute to Fair Housing Issues.......................................................................BR-156 Table HE-50: Stockton’s 2023-2031 RHNA by Income Category ...............................................................BR-160 Table HE-51: Capacity Adjustment Factors – Residential Zones ..................................................................BR-164 Table HE-52: Capacity Adjustment Factors – Other Zones .........................................................................BR-164 Table HE-53: Representative Projects........................................................................................................BR-165 Table HE-54: Approach to Meeting 2023-2031 RHNA..............................................................................BR-167 Table HE-55: Pipeline Projects Summary...................................................................................................BR-168 Table HE-54: San Joaquin Housing Authority Public Housing .....................................................................BR-189 Table HE-55: Financial Resources for Housing Activities.............................................................................BR-190 Table HE-56: General Plan Land Use Designations Allowing Residential Uses .............................................BR-199 Table HE-57: Zoning Districts Allowing Residential Uses.............................................................................BR-200 Table HE-58: Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Residential Uses .........................................................BR-202 Table HE-59: Development Standards in Zones That Allow Residential Development....................................BR-203 Table HE-60: Allowable Land Uses and Permit Requirements for Residential Infill Projects.............................BR-204 Table HE-61: Development Scenarios.......................................................................................................BR-206 Table HE-62: Required Off-Street Parking Spaces......................................................................................BR-209 Table HE-63: Community Development/ Planning Division Schedule of Residential Processing Times............BR-217 Table HE-64: Residential Approvals Required for Typical Permitted Residential Projects.................................BR-217 Table HE-65: Planning Fees.....................................................................................................................BR-220 Table HE-66: Development Impact and Planning-Related Fees...................................................................BR-222 Table HE-67: Review of 2015-2023 Housing Element Programs ................................................................BR-235 Table A-1: Sites Inventory ............................................................................................................................. A-3 Table A-2: Pipeline Projects......................................................................................................................... A-23 Table B-1: Summary of Public Outreach .........................................................................................................B-1 Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1021
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
FIGURES
Figure HE-1: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas.............................................................................................. BR-58 Figure HE-2: Median Household Incomes .................................................................................................. BR-61 Figure HE-3: Local Poverty Rates................................................................................................................ BR-65 Figure HE-4: Local Racial Demographics ................................................................................................... BR-69 Figure HE-5: Racially or Ethically Concentrated Areas of Poverty .................................................................. BR-72 Figure HE-6: Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence................................................................................ BR-73 Figure HE-7: Children in Female-Headed Households ................................................................................ BR-76 Figure HE-8: Adults Living Alone................................................................................................................ BR-78 Figure HE-9: Percentage of the Population with a Disability ......................................................................... BR-80 Figure HE-10: AllTransit Performance Score, 2022 ..................................................................................... BR-83 Figure HE-11: Housing Choice Voucher Distribution in Stockton .................................................................. BR-85 Figure HE-12: Local Labor Market Engagement.......................................................................................... BR-88 Figure HE-13: Local Jobs Proximity ............................................................................................................ BR-90 Figure HE-14: Local TCAC/HCD Educational Domain Score....................................................................... BR-96 Figure HE-15: CalEnviroScreen Percentiles................................................................................................. BR-98 Figure HE-16: TCAC/HCD Environmental Domain ................................................................................... BR-100 Figure HE-17: Overcrowded Households in Stockton ................................................................................ BR-103 Figure HE-18: Renter Overpayment in Stockton ........................................................................................ BR-108 Figure HE-19: Homeowner Overpayment in Stockton................................................................................ BR-109 Figure HE-20: Elevated Displacement Risk................................................................................................ BR-116 Figure HE-21: Home Owners’ Loan Corporation Redlining Grade ............................................................. BR-124 Figure HE-22a: Zoning in Stockton (South)............................................................................................... BR-126 Figure HE-22b: Zoning in Stockton (North)............................................................................................... BR-127 Figure HE-23: Stockton Census Tracts...................................................................................................... BR-134 Figure HE-24: Percent Unit Capacity by TCAC/HCD Resource Designation ................................................ BR-142 Figure HE-25: Percent Unit Capacity by Median Income............................................................................ BR-142 Figure HE-26, Percent Unit Capacity by Poverty Rate................................................................................. BR-143 Figure HE-27: Percent Unit Capacity by Non-White Population.................................................................. BR-144 Figure HE-28: Percent Unit Capacity by Disability Rate .............................................................................. BR-145 Figure HE-29: Percent Unit Capacity by Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households ........................ BR-146 Figure HE-30: Percent Unit Capacity by Jobs Proximity Index Score ............................................................ BR-149 Figure HE-31: TCAC/HCD Educational Domain Scores ............................................................................ BR-149 Figure HE-32: Percent of Unit Capacity by CalEnviroScreen Scores ............................................................ BR-151 Figure HE-33: Percent Unit Capacity by Rate of Overcrowded Households ................................................. BR-152 Figure HE-34: Percent Unit Capacity by Renter Overpayment..................................................................... BR-153 Figure HE-35: Percent of Unit Capacity by Homeowner Overpayment ........................................................ BR-154 Figure HE-36: Historical Mortgage Rates.................................................................................................. BR-231 Figure HE-37: Mortgage Rates ................................................................................................................ BR-231 Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1022
vi ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Sites Inventory Map Citywide ....................................................................................................................... A-33 Sites Inventory Map M1 .............................................................................................................................. A-34 Sites Inventory Map M2 .............................................................................................................................. A-35 Sites Inventory Map M3 .............................................................................................................................. A-36 Sites Inventory Map M4 .............................................................................................................................. A-37 Sites Inventory Map M5 .............................................................................................................................. A-38 Sites Inventory Map M6 .............................................................................................................................. A-39 Sites Inventory Map M7 .............................................................................................................................. A-40 Sites Inventory Map M8 .............................................................................................................................. A-41 Sites Inventory Map M9 .............................................................................................................................. A-42 Sites Inventory Map M10 ............................................................................................................................ A-43 Sites Inventory Map M11 ............................................................................................................................ A-44 Sites Inventory Map M12 ............................................................................................................................ A-45 Sites Inventory Map M13 ............................................................................................................................ A-46 Sites Inventory Map M14 ............................................................................................................................ A-47 Sites Inventory Map M15 ............................................................................................................................ A-48 Sites Inventory Map M16 ............................................................................................................................ A-49 Sites Inventory Map M17 ............................................................................................................................ A-50 Sites Inventory Map M18 ............................................................................................................................ A-51 Sites Inventory Map M19 ............................................................................................................................ A-52 Sites Inventory Map M20 ............................................................................................................................ A-53 Sites Inventory Map M21 ............................................................................................................................ A-54 Sites Inventory Map M22 ............................................................................................................................ A-55 Sites Inventory Map M23 ............................................................................................................................ A-56 Sites Inventory Map M24 ............................................................................................................................ A-57 Sites Inventory Map M25 ............................................................................................................................ A-58 Sites Inventory Map M26 ............................................................................................................................ A-59 Sites Inventory Map M27 ............................................................................................................................ A-60 Sites Inventory Map M28 ............................................................................................................................ A-61 Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1023
HOUSING HE-1
HOUSING
This main element is divided into three sections:
• Introduction to the Policy Document
• Goals and Policies
• Implementation Programs and Quantified Objectives
INTRODUCTION TO THE POLICY DOCUMENT
Under California law, a housing element must include the community's goals, policies, quantified objectives, and housing programs for the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.
This Housing Element includes nine goal statements. Under each goal statement are policies that amplify the goal statement. Implementation programs are listed after the policies and briefly describe the proposed action, City departments with primary responsibility for carrying out the program, funding source(s), and time frame for accomplishing the program.
The following definitions describe the nature of the statements of goals, policies, implementation programs, and quantified objectives as they are used in the Housing Element Policy Document:
• Goal: Ultimate purpose of an effort stated in a way that is general in nature and immeasurable. • Policy: Specific statement guiding action and implying clear commitment. • Implementation Program: An action, procedure, program, or technique that carries out policy.
Implementation programs also specify primary responsibility for carrying out the action and an estimated time frame for its accomplishment. The time frame indicates the fiscal year in which the activity is scheduled to be completed. These time frames are general guidelines and may be adjusted based on City staffing and budgetary considerations.
• Quantified Objective: The number of housing units that the City expects to be constructed, conserved, or rehabilitated, or the number of households the City expects will be assisted through Housing Element programs based on available resources and general market conditions during the time frame of the Housing Element. Housing element law recognizes that in developing housing policies and programs, identified housing needs may exceed available resources and the community's ability to satisfy these needs. The quantified objectives of a housing element, therefore, need not be identical to the identified housing need, Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1024
HE-2 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
but should establish the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved, or households assisted over an eight-year time frame.
GOALS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
GOAL HE-1 AND ASSOCIATED POLICIES
GOAL HE-1: INCREASE HOUSING PRODUCTION AND ENSURE ADEQUATE LAND FOR ALL HOUSING TYPES AND INCOME LEVELS. INCREASE HOUSING
PRODUCTION BY ENSURING ADEQUATE SITES FOR HOUSING OF ALL TYPES
AND INCOMES, RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF A JOBS-TO-HOUSING RATIO THAT ENCOURAGES LIVING AND WORKING IN OUR COMMUNITY.
Policy HE-1.1 Availability of Land: The City shall maintain sufficient designated and zoned vacant and underutilized sites for housing to achieve a mix of single-family and multifamily development that will accommodate anticipated population growth and the housing needs established in the City’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) of 12,673 units (1,232 extremely low, 1,233 very low, 1,548 low, 2,572 moderate, 6,088 above moderate). In addition to the Housing Capacity sites needed toward RHNA, the Housing Action Plan (HAP) shall explore additional areas that could potentially support housing. This could include underutilized properties, underutilized buildings, and unincorporated areas. This surplus shall be used to maintain the City’s Pro-Housing Designation that requires the City to maintain 30-percent surplus over the RHNA requirement. (Programs 1, 2 and 3)
Policy HE-1.2 Avoid Downzoning: The City shall not downzone parcels identified in the Housing Element inventory unless they are replaced concurrently by comparably zoned land elsewhere within the City, or the City makes the determination that there are still adequate sites in the inventory to meet the remaining regional housing needs allocation. (Program 1) Policy HE-1.3 Parcel Consolidation: The City shall encourage the splitting or consolidation of parcels to facilitate more effective residential development and continue to process these requests ministerially. (Program 8) Policy HE-1.4 Infrastructure and Public Facilities to Support Residential Development: The City shall take into consideration where housing is planned or likely to be built when preparing plans for capital improvements to expand or improve infrastructure and public facilities that support new residential development and ensure adequate services. The City shall also use the place-based strategy of identifying and targeting lower-income and high-poverty areas for prioritizing capital improvements related to infrastructure and public facilities, such as the South Stockton neighborhood, Downtown, and parts of the East Stockton and Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhoods. (Program 4) Policy HE-1.5 Higher Residential Densities: The City shall encourage residential densities at the high end of the allowable density range to make more efficient use of land and public facilities and services, and expand programs that would allow densities increase beyond the maximum allowable density range for projects that adhere to Housing Element policies. This includes the existing Supplemental Density Bonus program and new programs as part of the Development Code Overhaul. (Program 1 and 20)
Policy HE-1.6 Residential Mixed-Use Development: The City shall encourage the development of mixed-use residentialoffice and residential-retail projects. (Programs 2, 5, and 7) Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1025
HOUSING HE-3
Policy HE-1.7 Housing Variety: The City shall encourage and provide opportunities for a variety of housing types that provide market-rate and affordable housing opportunities and promote balanced mixed-income neighborhoods. The Development Code Update shall amend zoning to allow more housing variety and higher densities in various residential and commercial zones. (Program 5)
Policy HE-1.8 Accessory Dwelling Units in New and Existing Developments: The City shall encourage the development of accessory dwelling units within new and existing residential development and single-family neighborhoods. (Program 6) Policy HE-1.9 Infill Development Targets: In an effort to meet the infill target of 4,400 new units in the Greater Downtown Area, the City shall promote infill development within the Downtown and Greater Downtown areas through incentives such as less restrictive height limits, less restrictive setback and parking requirements, subsidies, infrastructure improvements, and streamlined permitting process. (Programs 2 and 7)
Policy HE-1.10 Balanced Growth: The City shall ensure that development at the city’s outskirts, particularly residential or mixed-use development, does not occur in a manner that is out of balance with infill development. (Program 7) Policy HE-1.11 Transit Oriented Development: The City shall encourage higher-density residential uses and mixed-use development to locate near main transportation routes to offer an alternative means of transportation to employment centers, schools, shopping, and recreational facilities and to promote walking and biking. Consistent with the General Plan policies, the City will establish Transit Oriented Development overlays as part of the Development Code Update. (Programs 2, 5 and 7)
Policy HE-1.12 Adaptive Reuse: The City shall encourage the adaptive reuse of existing buildings for residential and mixed use. The HAP shall outline potential reuse sites in the downtown area and explore potential partnerships and resources to retrofit chronically vacant buildings for residential and mixed uses. (Program 2) Policy HE-1.13 Public/Private Partnerships: The City shall strive to establish public-private partnerships for the revitalization of blighted areas. The HAP shall explore these partnerships and make recommendations on where these partnerships should be achieved to address existing barriers to new housing. (Program 5) Policy HE-1.14 Pursue State Funding for Infill: The City shall pursue State funding to support infill development in the Downtown and Greater Downtown areas. (Program 7)
Policy HE-1.15 Improve the Downtown Image: The City shall strive to reshape the perception of Downtown Stockton as a livable city center. (Program 2)
Policy HE-1.16 Integrated Affordable Housing: The City shall encourage the integration of sites for affordable housing throughout the residentially designated areas of the city and avoid concentration of low-income housing units. (Programs 5 and 7)
Policy HE-1.17 Mixed Income Housing: The City shall encourage mixed income developments to create more economically diverse neighborhoods. (Programs 5 and 6)
Policy HE-1.18 Facilities and Services: The City shall provide, maintain, and upgrade, as necessary, community facilities and municipal services in support of residential development. (Program 4 and 31) Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1026
HE-4 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
GOAL HE-1 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
Program 1. Adequate Sites Monitoring and No Net Loss. As part of the annual progress report on the Housing Element to the State, the City shall update its vacant land inventory, including an updated inventory of potential infill sites (smaller parcels). The City shall make the updated inventory available to the public and development community via the City’s website. For any project approval on a Housing Element site for fewer housing units/or at lower densities than assumed in the Housing Element, the City shall determine whether there is still adequate capacity to meet the remaining housing need, consistent with “no net loss” state law. In addition, the City will track development approvals on sites in the inventory that allow non-residential uses. If projects approved on this type of site by December 31, 2027 are not in line with the City’s non-residential RHNA projections in the inventory, within one year (by December 31, 2028) the City will identify additional sites to address the remaining RHNA and if necessary will rezone to make the sites available for residential development.
Quantified Objectives: Continue to maintain sufficient sites to address 12,673 units.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department, Economic Development Department Time Frame: Update inventory annually as part of the Housing Element Annual Progress Report and assess “no net loss” as projects come forward on Housing Element sites. Assess project approvals on Housing Element inventory sites as of December 31, 2027. If approved projects are not in line with the City’s non-residential RHNA projections in the inventory, within one year (by December 31, 2028) the City will identify additional sites beyond the sites in the inventory that allow non-residential uses in order to further facilitate residential development.
Program 2. Downtown Implementation: The City shall continue to implement measures to enable development of 4,400 residential units in the Greater Downtown Area by 2035, as laid out in the Climate Action Plan and General Plan. This will include strategies and regulations anticipated as part of the Comprehensive Development Code Update and Housing Action Plan (HAP) currently underway. The HAP shall specifically explore the following topics:
• Sufficient infrastructure capacity and estimated costs for develop all income types and densities. • Market analysis to explore the opportunities and constraints of new housing in the greater downtown area. • Cost gap analysis to better understand financial constraints in adaptive reuse of unused commercial buildings in the downtown area.
• Explore existing and potential funding mechanisms for infrastructure and building retrofitting. • Explore potential partnerships for new housing and supportive services for all income types.
Quantified Objectives: 4,400 residential units in the Greater Downtown Area by 2040.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department, Economic Development Department Time Frame: Adopt Comprehensive Development Code Update and HAP by April 2024; and annually thereafter to identify any additional strategies to address General Plan goals.
Program 3. Sites Included in Previous Housing Elements: As specified in Appendix A, some vacant parcels have been included in the land inventories of the 5th Cycle and 4th Cycle Stockton Housing Elements as suitable to address the City’s RHNA allocation. Per Government Code Section 65583.2(c), to continue to include these parcels in that portion of the land inventory for this 6th Cycle Housing Element, the City will commit to update all required Development Code and General Plan provisions to allow projects that have at least 20 percent affordable units (extremely low, very low, or low) without discretionary review or “by right” (Government Code Section 65583.2 (i)).
Quantified Objectives: Units on repeat sites identified in Appendix A with lower income units that don’t already allow residential development by right.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1027
HOUSING HE-5
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Update Development Code and, if needed, Land Use Element by December 31, 2026 Program 4. Public Facilities Repair and Replacement: Through implementation of the HUD Consolidated Plan, and upon funding availability, the City shall continue to use place-based strategies by identifying and targeting low-income neighborhoods for the expansion of existing facilities/infrastructure, replacement of deteriorating facilities, and construction of new facilities/infrastructure to increase quality of life for Stockton residents. To help identify these neighborhoods and facilities, the City shall update its Housing Conditions survey to better direct staff time and resources in identifying areas and facilities that could benefit the most.
Quantified Objectives: 5 public facility/ infrastructure projects, prioritizing lower-income, high-poverty neighborhoods such as the South Stockton neighborhood, Downtown, and parts of the East Stockton and Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhoods.
Potential Funding: CDBG
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department, Community Development Time Frame: Annually
Program 5. Housing and Neighborhood Action Plans: The City is currently preparing a Housing Action Plan (HAP) to provide a guidebook with information to interested developers and property owners about residential opportunities in the city. This plan will include the top priority sites the City has identified as “shovel-ready” for housing development.
Selection of the priority sites will be based on financial feasibility analysis and policy goals. The HAP will be marketed and provided to potential developers upon completion. Implementation of the HAP will include marketing and incentivizing development of missing middle housing types including tiny homes, cottage homes, single-room occupancy units, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. All of these housing types are already allowed in the city. As detailed in Program 17, the city is proposing to expand where multi-unit residential (duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes) is allowed in the city as part of the Comprehensive Development Code Update. Incentivizing housing types such as single-room occupancy units and tiny homes is expected to create new housing opportunities for extremely lowincome households.
The City is also preparing Neighborhood Action Plans for three (3) neighborhoods - South Airport Way Corridor, Little Manila/Gleason Park, and Cabral/East Cabral. The plans are focusing on eliminating barriers to housing construction and will result in recommended actions and strategies for each of the Neighborhood Areas. In particular, the Neighborhood Action Plans for Cabral Station Area and Little Manila/Gleason Park neighborhoods will serve as a tool to improve conditions and opportunities in these two primarily lower-income areas.
Quantified Objectives: Objective is that adoption of HAP will help facilitate permitting 1,000 residential units, prioritizing affordable housing in high-opportunity areas such as the Morada/Holman, Brookside/Country Club, Eight Mile/Bear Creek, and Midtown neighborhoods. Additional focus will be given to eliminating barriers to housing construction in lower-income areas such as the Cabral Station Area and Little Manila/Gleason Park neighborhoods.
Potential Funding: LEAP, REAP, General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Neighborhood Action Plans by December 2023 and Housing Action Plan by April 2024 Program 6. Accessory Dwelling Units: The City will update its ADU regulations as needed throughout the planning period to address changes to State law. The City will encourage the construction of ADUs throughout the city through the following actions. These actions are aimed at providing an increased supply of affordable units and therefore help reduce Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1028
HE-6 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
displacement risk for low-income households resulting from housing overpayment and facilitate mixed-income neighborhoods:
• Provide guidance and educational materials for building ADUs on the City's website, including permitting procedures and construction resources. The City already has preapproved/permit ready ADU plans available for use by homeowners. Additionally, the City will present homeowner associations with information about the community and neighborhood benefits of ADUs and inform them that covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) prohibiting ADUs are contrary to State law.
• Proactively advertise the benefits of ADUs by distributing multilingual informational materials in areas of high opportunity and limited rental opportunities to increase mobility for low-income households. This will be achieved by posting flyers in community gathering places and providing flyers to community groups and homeowners' associations at least annually.
• Monitor ADU production and affordability every other year and adjust or expand the focus of the education and outreach efforts. If needed, identify additional sites to accommodate the unmet portion of the lower-income RHNA.
• Apply annually, or as grants are available, for funding to provide incentives for homeowners to construct ADUs. • Work with regional and local agencies to update existing ADU pre-approved construction plans and explore additional plans that reflect the housing market, cost constraints, and typical residential lots that could support them.
Quantified Objectives: Approve 180 ADUs over the course of the planning period, targeting areas of high opportunity, specifically the following neighborhoods - Brookside/Country Club, Weston Ranch, Eight Mile/Bear Creek, Midtown around the University of the Pacific (between I-5 and “Miracle Mile”/Pacific Avenue), western Upper Hammer/Thornton Rd, and eastern Morada/Holman.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: The City is currently updating the ADU regulations as part of the Comprehensive Development Code Update, to be completed by April 2024. The City currently defers to state law regarding ADUs and JADUs until the local ordinance is updated to be consistent with state ADU law. Starting in November 2024, evaluate the consistency of Stockton’s ADU regulations with State law and update accordingly. Continue to make ADU materials available; evaluate effectiveness of ADU approvals every other year, starting April 2025; and, identify additional site capacity, if needed, by December 2026. Apply annually, or as grants are available, for funding to support ADU incentives.
Program 7. Infill Strategy: The City shall continue to implement the Downtown Infrastructure Infill Incentive Program or explore other financing strategies to facilitate the development of infill projects in the Downtown and Greater Downtown areas. The Downtown Infrastructure Infill Incentive Program provides financial incentives to eligible parties in developing new market-rate residential, commercial, or mixed-use projects in Downtown Stockton. Under the Downtown Infill Infrastructure Program, eligible development projects may receive a reimbursement for certain public infrastructure improvements based on the project meeting certain criteria including a threshold number of residential units or square footage, being within the qualifying geographic area, investing at least $500,000, and needing public infrastructure improvements of at least $100,000. The program identifies actions and incentives to promote infill development, including brownfield remediation.
In addition, the Housing Action Plan, currently underway, will identify additional recommended strategies that could include:
• Identification of potential infill properties, both vacant and underutilized. • Explore the practicality and feasibility of pre-approved design review and/or construction plans.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1029
HOUSING HE-7
• Increase waivers for development standards that would restrict buildout of a small infill lot. This could include reduced setbacks, height and size increases, and an increase in the amount of waiver by the Community Development Director.
• Density increase allowances for infill projects to exceed the maximum density requirement through the existing 100-percent Density Bonus.
• Additional strategies and incentives to plan and fund infrastructure improvements. • Ways to further streamline the ministerial design review permitting process for infill development.
Quantified Objectives: 100 extremely low-income units and 150 other lower income units; funding for 10 brownfield sites minimum to promote new housing choices and affordability in areas of opportunity.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department, Community Development Department Time Frame: Continue to offer the Downtown Infrastructure Infill Incentive Program. Adopt Housing Action Plan by April 2024. Implement Housing Action Plan strategies by 2025. Annually, beginning in 2026, identify any additional strategies needed to address overpayment and reduce displacement risk and implement them within 2 years of identification.
Program 8. Site Assembly: The City shall actively work with local property owners and developers to assist in the consolidation and assembly of small privately-owned parcels (including infill parcels) for residential projects, particularly as related to parcels listed in the sites inventory and parcels with multiple owners. The City is updating infill requirements as part of the Comprehensive Development Code Update. The City is also working on mapping potential infill sites that are vacant and ready for development as part of the Housing Action Plan, currently underway (see Programs 5 and 17).
The City shall continue to process lot mergers ministerially and shall offer incentives, in addition to the incentives already offered to infill development. The City shall also conduct meetings to connect owners of properties with potential developers and to discuss development opportunities and incentives for lot consolidation to accommodate affordable housing units and consider additional incentives brought forth by developers. As developers/owners approach the City with interest in lot consolidation for the development of affordable housing, the City could defer certain fees, allow more height or additional stories, waive lot merger fees for certain small contiguous lots, and provide concurrent/fast tracking of project application reviews to developers who provide affordable housing. By 2027, the City will review the effectiveness of this program and revise as appropriate. The City will also evaluate grant funding for parcel assemblage land banking when it is available.
Quantified Objectives: Support at least 5 lot consolidations on sites with lower income units during the planning period.
Facilitate lot consolidation to produce sites for 2,300 moderate and above moderate residential units to produce new housing opportunities throughout city.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Establish program or resources to connect property owners and developers by December 2025, and assess incentives and resources annually thereafter. Based on the meetings with developers and property owners, add and evaluate incentives as appropriate. Ongoing: Support consolidation as applicable housing applications are received; Pursue grant funding during planning period if California legislation and/or programs enable a tax-increment or similar program that leads to funding for site assembly.
Program 9. Government-Owned Sites: As specified in Chapter 4 and Appendix A, the Housing Element is relying on a cluster of vacant parcels totaling 3.7 acres that are owned by the Stockton Unified School District (SUSD) to satisfy a portion of its RHNA allocation, including 32 lower-income units and 182 above moderate-income units. The City is committed to continuing to coordinate with SDSU on development plans for these parcels. Additionally, the Housing Element is relying on 14 parcels owned by the City, totaling 15.54 acres to satisfy a portion of its RHNA allocation, including 68 lowerincome units and 412 above moderate-income units. If a plan for housing development on these parcels is not underway by 2026, with building permits issued by June 2029 the City will identify additional sites for housing accordingly, including rezoning sites to address the RHNA if needed.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1030
HE-8 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
The City will utilize City-owned sites to develop mixed-income housing projects. All sites are presently suitably zoned and vacant. The City will make such parcels available to developers building affordable housing or otherwise ensure the development of housing on such sites. The anticipated timelines for development are listed in the Timeframe section below and described more fully in Chapter 4. The process to make City-owned sites available will include outreach to create partnerships with affordable housing developers that can maximize the opportunities and number of units. This will include facilitation of lot consolidation, if needed (as described in Program 8) on any city sites in the list below that could benefit from lot consolidation to create a project. The City will facilitate development by providing incentives, as described in Program 7, as appropriate. As described in Chapter 4, the City will continue to use the Surplus Lands Act (SLA) process to pursue affordable housing projects in the city. The City will require an affordability covenant recorded against the land stipulating a specified percent of the total units developed will be affordable to lower-income households, in accordance with State law. The City will comply with State law to implement the SLA process as follows:
• The City will declare land “surplus” in accordance with the definition listed in Government Code, Section 54221, subdivision (b)(1).
• The City will prepare and issue a Notice of Availability (NOA) to the required parties and provide 60 days to receive responses from interested parties.
• The City will negotiate in good faith with any respondents for at least 90 days, prioritizing affordable housing uses in the order provided in Government Code section 54227. • The City will send the proposed disposition to the State for review. • The City will address any State findings, as needed.
• Upon final State approval, the City will execute a sale or lease of the land and record an affordability covenant.
Quantified Objectives: Facilitate development of government-owned sites for 100 lower-income units and 594 above moderate-income units to produce new housing opportunities throughout city.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame:
• SDSU-Owned Sites 1-1 through 1-17 and 1-39 through 1-42: The City will coordinate with SDSU quarterly, starting immediately, with the goal of development of the sites by 2028. • City-Owned Sites 4-96, 4-97, 4-230, 4-33, 4-231, 4-232, 3-74, 4-183:
o RFI/SOQ Issued: Q4 2023
o Entitlements: June 2025
o Building Permits: December 2025
o Construction Complete: June 2027
• City-Owned Sites 1-18, 1-19, 1-20, 1-21:
o RFP previously released in 2020
o Entitlements: October 2024
o Building Permits: May 2025
o Construction Complete: July 2027
• City-Owned Sites 4-67, 4-210:
o RFI/SOQ Issued: Anticipated Q2 2025
o Entitlements: June 2026
o Building Permits: December 2026
o Construction Complete: June 2028
If a plan for housing development on these parcels is not underway by 2026, with building permits issued by June 2029 the City will identify additional sites for housing accordingly, including rezoning sites to address the RHNA if needed.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1031
HOUSING HE-9
Program 10. Large Site Development: As specified in Chapter 4 and Appendix A, the Housing Element is relying on 4 large vacant sites (9-12, 12-34, 12-35, 12-36), totaling 106.23 acres, to satisfy a portion of its RHNA allocation, including 1,512 lower-income units. The City shall actively work with local property owners and developers to assist in the development of these sites. The City will promote, incentivize, and support lot splits and/or large lot development by offering expedited processing. The City will proactively conduct outreach efforts on an annual basis until large higher-density sites in the inventory have been developed in order to distribute information to potential developers and provide notice of incentives to further encourage development of larger parcels. Outreach efforts may include, but will not be limited to, one-on-one meetings with developers and property owners, as well as maintaining and advertising an inventory of large sites appropriate for residential development and informational materials on available incentives. City staff will continue to work with affordable housing builders that have built projects within the City and keep them apprised of available properties for development.
The City will offer the following incentives for the development of affordable housing on large sites, which may include, but is not limited to:
• Streamlining and expediting the approval process for land division • Ministerial review of lot line adjustments
• Deferral of fees related to the subdivision
• Providing technical assistance to acquire funding
In addition, the City will track development approvals on large sites in the inventory. If projects approved on this type of site by December 31, 2027 are not in line with the City’s RHNA projections on larges sites in the inventory, within one year (by December 31, 2028) the City will identify additional sites to address the remaining RHNA and if necessary will rezone to make the sites available for residential development.
Quantified Objectives: Facilitate large lot development, including lot splits, as needed to produce sites for 1,512 lowerincome units to produce new housing opportunities throughout city. • Conduct one-on-one meetings with developers and property owners. • Proactively conduct outreach advertising available incentives, resources, and relevant information for the development of larger sites.
• Establish, maintain, and promote an inventory of large sites appropriate for residential development.
• Facilitate and streamline parceling, or other similar planning methods, to encourage the development of large sites with affordable housing components.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing, as projects come forward. Establish program to connect property owners and developers by December 2025. Annually reach out to developers to gather input on available incentives. Annually conduct outreach and advertising. Facilitate and streamline parceling, or other similar actions, for large sites through 2031. Assess project approvals on large Housing Element inventory sites as of December 31, 2027. If approved projects are not in line with the City’s RHNA projections on large sites in the inventory, within one year (by December 31, 2028) the City will identify additional sites beyond the large sites in the inventory in order to further facilitate residential development and if necessary will rezone to make the sites available for residential development.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1032
HE-10 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
GOAL HE-2 AND ASSOCIATED POLICIES
GOAL HE-2: PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY HOUSING FOR ALL INCOME GROUPS.
ENCOURAGE AND PROMOTE THE CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE AND MARKET RATE HOUSING TO MEET CITY’S HOUSING NEEDS AND PROMOTE DEVELOPMENTS THAT CONSERVE ENERGY.
Policy HE-2.1 Pursue Funding: The City shall pursue Federal and State housing assistance programs designed to help meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. (Program 12) Policy HE-2.2 Networking and Collaboration: The City shall continue to collaborate with public agencies and private and nonprofit entities to access State, Federal, and other sources of funding to provide housing to lower- and moderate-income households. (Program 11)
Policy HE-2.3 Affordable Housing Incentives: The City shall explore incentives, bonuses, and flexibility in standards and requirements in the Development Code that could benefit affordable housing development, such as density bonuses, flexible development standards, and deferred payment of fees. (Programs 5, 13 and 20) Policy HE-2.4 Homeownership Opportunities: The City shall continue to provide opportunities for and reduce barriers to homeownership and promote financial literacy and public awareness of the various means available to become a homeowner. (Program 12)
Policy HE-2.5 Priority Sewer and Water Service for Affordable Housing: The City shall provide priority sewer and water service for developments that include lower income housing units, consistent with State law (Government Code Section 65589.7). (Program 13)
Policy HE-2.6 Energy Conservation and Waste Reduction: The City shall promote energy conservation and waste reduction in residential site planning, design, and construction. (Program 14) Policy HE-2.7 Energy Conservation and Efficiency in City Regulations: The City shall use its review and regulatory power to enhance and expand residential energy conservation and efficiency. (Programs 14, 15, and 16) Policy HE-2.8 Green Building Concepts: The City shall require green building concepts and processes in new residential construction and rehabilitation of existing housing consistent with State building standards and local subdivision and zoning standards. (Program 14)
Policy HE-2.9 Energy Conservation and Efficiency Programs: The City shall work with local energy providers to promote weatherization and energy conservation programs and incentives to new and existing residential developments, especially low-income households. (Programs 14, 15, and 16)
Policy HE-2.10 Green-Up Stockton: The City shall encourage voluntary residential energy efficiency assessments and retrofits for existing dwelling units. (Program 15)
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1033
HOUSING HE-11
GOAL HE-2 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
Program 11. Coordination with the Housing Authority of San Joaquin County: The City shall continue to work closely with the Housing Authority of San Joaquin County in providing assisted housing through the Housing Voucher Program, and in providing housing and supportive services to special needs households and individuals, including farmworkers. In addition, working with the Housing Authority, implement a Housing Choice Voucher education program to share information about the program and available incentives with rental property owners and managers as well as training on avoiding discriminatory practices based on income or other protected classes. Distribute this information at least annually to property owners and managers across the City, though with an emphasis on higher (moderate, high, and highest) resource areas where there are no public housing opportunities available, a disproportionately low rate of voucher usage, and high performing schools. Additional outreach will be targeted in areas with the highest concentration of children in single femaleheaded households, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, Downtown, and South Stockton.
Quantified Objectives: Provide vouchers to 3,800 households in Stockton and assist these lower income households in accessing rental opportunities with Housing Choice Vouchers to facilitate housing mobility. Target additional outreach in areas with the highest concentration of children in single female-headed households, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, Downtown, and South Stockton.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department, Housing Authority of San Joaquin County Time Frame: Ongoing; establish education program by the end of 2024 and distribute information. Then distribute information at least annually through the end of the planning period.
Program 12. State and Federal Funding: The City shall continue to apply annually for Federal entitlement funds under the CDBG, HOME and ESG Programs, and shall pursue additional State and Federal funding that becomes available during the planning period. The City shall continue to administer its Down Payment Assistance Program for low-income first-time homebuyers using a variety of funding sources, including CDBG and HOME funds. The program will be targeted to those buying in higher opportunity areas and farmworkers. The City shall support housing organizations and affordable housing developers by assisting in applications for funding, drafting letters of support and resolutions, and identifying potential sites for affordable housing. The City shall also discuss the possibility of requiring affordable units as part of development agreements when initiating discussions with applicants.
Quantified Objectives: Fund 200 extremely low-, 400 very low-, 450 low-income units; Provide down payment assistance to 75 low-income households, particularly in high opportunity areas such as the Morada/Holman, Brookside/Country Club, Eight Mile/Bear Creek, and Midtown neighborhoods. Outreach for the program will target the areas above as well as areas in relative proximity to agricultural employment including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood to provide residential opportunities for farmworkers near areas of agricultural employment.
Potential Funding: General Fund; CDBG, HOME, HELP, and CalHome Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Review funding opportunities annually; down payment assistance program is ongoing Program 13. Priority Sewer and Water Service for Affordable Housing: The City shall include language in the development code to provide priority sewer and water service for developments that include lower income housing units, consistent with State law (Government Code Section 65589.7).
Quantified Objectives: Include in Development Code as part of Comprehensive Update Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: City Council, Municipal Utilities Department, Community Development Department Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1034
HE-12 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Time Frame: Include in Development Code as part of Comprehensive Update by April 2024 Program 14. Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program. The City shall continue to provide programs for property owners to finance the purchase and installation of infrastructure improvements to their properties with no up-front costs for: renewable energy, energy- and water-efficiency improvements, water conservation upgrades, and/or electric vehicle charging to increase place-based strategies.
Quantified Objectives: Connect 60 eligible Stockton residents with energy- and cost-saving programs to reduce overpayment on housing costs, with a target of 50 percent in the areas listed under program outreach in the next sentence, to increase place-based strategies. Program outreach will be prioritized in areas with high rates of homeowner overpayment, including the Mariposa Lakes neighborhood, parts of Downtown and East Stockton, the Industrial Annex area, and parts of the Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village and Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhoods.
Potential Funding: Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing. A unique, centralized location for this program on the City’s website will be created by December 2025. Annual updating will occur thereafter.
Program 15. Green-Up Stockton: The City shall continue to encourage voluntary energy assessments for housing units built prior to November 1, 2002. The City shall continue to work with community services agencies and PG&E and other funding sources to identify funding and incentivize residential energy efficiency projects to increase place-based strategies.
Quantified Objectives: Connect 60 eligible Stockton residents with energy- and cost-saving programs to reduce overpayment on housing costs, with a target of 50 percent in the areas listed under program outreach in the next sentence, to increase place-based strategies. Program outreach will be prioritized in areas with high rates of homeowner or renter overpayment, including the South and East Stockton, Midtown, Industrial Annex, Downtown, and Mariposa Lakes neighborhoods.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Program 16. Weatherization Activities: The City shall advertise local weatherization programs by posting information on the City website and distributing fliers and brochures, and shall refer elderly homeowners, low-income households within certain income limits, and the general public to agencies offering weatherization programs. The City will also pursue funding opportunities as available to provide small loans or grants to extremely low income households looking to complete weatherization projects to reduce displacement risk caused by substandard housing conditions or high energy costs.
Additionally, the City will target outreach in high and moderate resource areas in relative proximity to agricultural employment opportunities to ensure housing where farmworkers reside is sufficiently maintained, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood. Additional outreach will be targeted in areas with the highest concentration of children in single female-headed households, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, Downtown, and South Stockton to increase place-based strategies.
Quantified Objectives: 200 units weatherized, with a target of 50 percent in the areas listed under additional program outreach below to increase place-based strategies. Program outreach will be prioritized in lower-income neighborhoods and areas with high rates of homeowner or renter overpayment, including the South and East Stockton, Midtown, Industrial Annex, Downtown, and Mariposa Lakes neighborhoods. Additionally, outreach will be prioritized in the area southeast of the intersection of Thornton Road/Pacific Avenue and West Hammer Lane, where the city may be able to reach more senior households. Additional program outreach will target areas in relative proximity to agricultural employment including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1035
HOUSING HE-13
neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood. Additional outreach will be targeted in areas with the highest concentration of children in single female-headed households, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, Downtown, and South Stockton.
Potential Funding: Home Energy Assistance Program HEAP
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Program availability is ongoing. Advertising of the program by the City on the City website and direct outreach will begin by December 2024.
GOAL HE-3 AND ASSOCIATED POLICIES
GOAL HE-3: REMOVE GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS. ADDRESS AND, WHERE
FEASIBLE, REMOVE UNNECESSARY GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT, IMPROVEMENT, AND MAINTENANCE OF STOCKTON’S HOUSING STOCK, AND ENCOURAGE HIGHER-DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.
Policy HE-3.1 Mitigate Governmental Constraints: The City shall strive to mitigate local governmental constraints to the development, improvement, and maintenance of housing. (Programs 17, 18, and 19) Policy HE-3.2 Streamlined Permitting: The City shall continue to streamline the local permit review and approval processes for affordable and infill housing projects. (Programs 17, 18 and 19) Policy HE-3.3 Application and Development Fees: The City shall strive to ensure that application and development fees do not unnecessarily constrain production of new infill and multifamily housing. (Program 18) Policy HE-3.4 Defer Fees for Affordable Housing: The City shall continue waiving and deferring eligible fees to help offset development costs for affordable housing. (Program 18)
Policy HE-3.5 Creativity and Flexibility: The City shall allow for flexibility in the application of development standards to encourage creative and innovative housing solutions. (Program 20) GOAL HE-3 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
Program 17. Development Code Revisions: As part of the Comprehensive Development Code Update, the City shall complete the following changes to the Development Code:
• Amend the Development Code to allow care homes for six persons or fewer in the RE zone to fully comply with State law, which requires group homes for six or fewer to be treated as a single family home. • Amend the Development Code to allow care homes for more than six persons to be subject to the same restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone, to comply with State law. • Continue to permit all types of housing (single family, multi-unit, and multifamily) uses “by-right” and expand “by-right” land uses for businesses and services that support housing. • Update Use Permit findings (used for review of residential uses) to be objective. • Update Design Review Standards to increase their objectivity and review process to include objective design review standards and promote certainty during (ARC’s) review.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1036
HE-14 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
• Amend the Development Code to allow employee housing for six persons or fewer in the same way residential structures are allowed in all zones allowing residential uses. • Amend the Development Code to allow emergency shelters without discretionary review (by right – without conditional or other discretionary permit) in additional zoning districts that allow residential uses, is in proximity to transportation and services, with appropriate development standards, and contains sufficient capacity per capacity analysis required by state law, to address the 893-person unsheltered need in the City.
This use will be allowed without discretionary review in one or more of the following zoning districts:
o Residential High-Density
o Commercial Office
o Commercial General
o Commercial Downtown
• Amend the Development Code to update the definition of emergency shelter to comply with current state law to expand the definition of emergency shelter to include interim interventions, including but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care. • Amend the Development Code to update standards for emergency shelters, including parking, minimum distance, and any other updates needed for consistency with State law. • Include a State-compliant definition of “family” in the Development Code. • Evaluate the possibility of implementing SB 10 (Planning and Zoning Law) in appropriate areas of the city.
SB 10 is an option for jurisdictions to allow for streamlined review of certain housing projects up to 10 units in transit-rich areas or urban infill sites to increase housing opportunity and reduce VMT. • Per the agreements with the Department of Justice and Sierra Club, the City shall create new industrial design and operational standards that will regulate new industrial uses and buildings adjacent to residential communities.
• Amend Development Standards as follows:
• RH zone from 35 feet to 45 feet (ministerial)
Development Code Amendments to Facilitate Opportunities for Residential Development in Zoning Districts that allow Non-Residential Development
• Expand Development Code to allow residential projects in all residential and commercial zoning designations.
• State explicitly in the Development Code that 100 percent residential projects are allowed in all commercially zoned districts as is currently allowed in practice in CN, CG and CD. • Amend the Development Code to address missing middle sized housing types by allowing Multi-Unit Residential (up to 4 units) without discretionary review in all Residential and Commercial zones. • Amend Development Standards as follows:
o Increase maximum heights as follows:
• CO zone from 45 feet to 60 feet with a CUP (max height w/out CUP unchanged – 45 feet) • CN zone from 35 feet to 45 feet (ministerial)
• CG zone from 45 feet to 75 feet (ministerial)
o Decrease interior side setback in the CO zone from 5 feet to 0 feet o Increase interior side setback in the CO zone, when adjacent to residential, from 5 to 10 feet o Decrease minimum open space per multifamily dwelling unit, from 100 square feet to • 50 square feet in the Downtown Core Area and
• 75 square feet in the Greater Downtown Area
• Amend the Development Code and possibly General Plan to encourage future transitions in disadvantaged communities via new commercial/industrial zones that would remove heavy industrial uses from many of the South Stockton areas.
Quantified Objectives: N/A
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1037
HOUSING HE-15
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Amend Development Code to allow emergency shelters without discretionary review in additional zoning districts within one year of Housing Element adoption. All other amendments in this program will be completed by April 2024.
Program 18. Fiscally Positive Impact Fees: The City’s adopted impact fees on new development or other ongoing funding mechanisms (e.g., community facilities districts) are fiscally positive to the City. The City shall continue to consider the impacts on the cost, supply, and affordability of housing and ensure that fees do not unduly constrain housing development by continuing to monitor the Residential Development Public Facilities Fees (PFFs) Exemption Program, Citywide Affordable Housing Development Public Facilities Fees Exemption Program, Greater Downtown Stockton Residential Development Public Facilities Fees Exemption Program, and Stockton Economic Stimulus Plan (SESP) fee reduction components to ensure they are addressing potential constraints. To encourage the development of housing affordable to extremely low-income households, the City will evaluate the feasibility of providing impact or other development fee waivers or deferrals for projects with extremely low-income units.
Quantified Objectives: Provide exemptions and reductions to 200 housing units to reduce overpayment for housing costs and reduce displacement risk specifically for lower-income communities, including 30 units affordable to extremely lowincome households.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department, Public Works Department Time Frame: Annually, evaluate exemptions provided and determine whether all constraints to housing development associated with impact fees or other funding mechanisms are sufficiently addressed. If it is found that they are not being addressed, modifications will be made to one or more exemption programs within one year. This will occur after each annual review until the end of the planning period. The City will evaluate the feasibility of providing impact or other development fee waivers or deferrals for projects with extremely low-income units by the end of 2025.
Program 19. Streamline Approvals and Support for Affordable Housing Projects: The City will develop a preliminary application form and procedure or will formally adopt the Preliminary Application Form developed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), pursuant to SB 330. The City will also establish a written policy and/or procedure, and other guidance as appropriate, to specify the SB 35 streamlining approval process and standards for eligible projects under Government Code Section 65913.4. The applications will be available on the City’s website for developers interested in pursuing the streamlined process or vesting rights. In addition, to facilitate housing mobility and approve more lower income units in higher resourced areas of the city, the City will implement a minimum of two of the items below:
• Community benefit options that could be included in the criteria for initiating modified and new Development Agreements. These benefits could include Inclusionary Housing requirements and fees, Community Benefit agreements, increased land dedications for future city services, and joint-lease agreements for schools and civic uses.
• Other community benefits the City will explore to prevent displacement include a right to counsel program, tenant bill of rights, housing trust fund, rent escrow account program, and land banking. If additional community benefits are approved, put into place by December 2024.
• Additional funding for pre-construction analysis and remediation of infill sites for affordable housing projects and/or infill sites in low-resource areas.
• Additional funding for infrastructure deficiency analysis and improvements in low-income and low resource areas.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1038
HE-16 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
• Update the Citywide Public Facilities Fees (i.e., Impact Fees), and determine the current cost for providing services to underserved areas, adjust fees accordingly and provide waivers for affordable housing projects. • Outreach to establish working community groups within low-resource areas to determine needs and establish community partners for future housing projects.
Quantified Objectives: 150 new affordable units permitted through SB 35 approval streamlining and development of 150 affordable units facilitated by using the adopted preliminary application form.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Develop or adopt HCD’s SB 330 preliminary application form and develop an SB 35 streamlined approval process by December 2024 and implement as applications are received. The City will implement a minimum of two of the options listed in Program 19, to further streamline approvals and support affordable housing projects by December 2026. Program 20. Density Bonuses: The City will continue to allow density bonuses that exceed State requirements and periodically amend its Development Code to comply with changes in California’s density bonus law (Government Code Section 65915 et seq., as revised) and will promote the use of density bonuses for lower-income units by providing information through a brochure in City buildings and on the City’s website. In addition, as part of the Development Code process the City is currently exploring the creation of a new staff level process that would allow projects for all income levels to exceed density maximums (General Plan prescribed and 100-percent bonuses).
Quantified Objectives: Facilitate the construction of 1,000 lower-income units to increase mobility opportunities; encourage density bonus units in high-resource areas.
Potential Funding: General Fund and grant funding
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Complete as part of Comprehensive Development Code Update by April 2024; annually review Development Code and revise as needed; produce brochures and make information available on the City’s website by December 2024.
GOAL HE-4 AND ASSOCIATED POLICIES
GOAL HE-4: PRESERVE EXISTING HOUSING. CONSERVE AND ENHANCE EXISTING HOUSING IN STOCKTON'S NEIGHBORHOODS.
Policy HE-4.1 Preserve Existing Affordable Housing: The City shall seek to preserve existing affordable rental housing, such as subsidized apartments for lower-income households, mobile homes in mobile home parks, and low-cost private rental housing. (Program 21 and 24)
Policy HE-4.2 Housing Maintenance and Rehabilitation: The City shall encourage maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of existing owner-occupied, rental, and affordable housing to prevent deterioration of housing and ensure that housing is safe and sanitary. (Program 22)
Policy HE-4.3 Housing Unit Replacement: The City shall promote the removal and replacement of dilapidated housing units in compliance with State law regarding replacement of existing affordable housing. (Program 23 and 24) Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1039
HOUSING HE-17
Policy HE-4.4 Property Management: The City shall encourage good property management practices in rental properties through regulatory agreements, informational items, code enforcement staffing, the Crime Free Multi-family Housing program, and the City’s rental inspection ordinance. (Program 23) GOAL HE-4 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
Program 21. Preserve At-Risk Units: Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 1521, the City will monitor the list of all dwellings in Stockton that are subsidized by government funding or low-income housing developed through local regulations or incentives. The list will include, at a minimum, the number of units, the type of government program, and the date on which the units are at risk to convert to market-rate dwellings. There have been 392 units (see Analysis of At-Risk Housing section in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment) identified as at risk of converting to market rate within ten (10) years of the beginning of the 6th Cycle Housing Element planning period. The list will include, at a minimum, the project address; number of deed-restricted units, including affordability levels; associated government program; date of completion/ occupancy; and the date on which the units are at risk to convert to market rate. The City will work to reduce the potential conversion of any units to market rate, in order to reduce the potential for displacement and/or placement of additional constraints on the existing affordable housing stock through the following actions:
• Monitor the status of affordable projects, rental projects, and manufactured homes in Stockton. Should the property owner(s) indicate a desire to convert properties, and providing technical and financial assistance when possible, to incentivize long-term affordability.
• Provide information on at-risk housing as well as other housing options and programs for residents and housing advocates on the City’s website.
• If conversion of units is likely, work with local service providers as appropriate to seek funding to subsidize the at-risk units in a way that mirrors the HUD Housing Choice Voucher program. Funding sources may include state or local funding sources to reduce potential for displacement of residents.
Pursuant to State law (Government Code Sections 65853.10, 65863.11, and 65863.13), owners of deed-restricted affordable projects are required to provide notice of restrictions that are expiring to all prospective tenants, existing tenants, and the City within three (3) years, 12 months, and six (6) months before the scheduled expiration of rental restrictions. In addition, the City or owner will provide notice to HUD, HCD, and the local legal aid organization. Owners shall also refer tenants of at-risk units to educational resources regarding tenant rights and conversion procedures and information regarding Section 8 rent subsidies and any other affordable housing opportunities in the City. In addition, notice shall be required prior to conversion of any units to market rate for any additional deed-restricted lower-income units that were constructed with the aid of government funding, that were required by inclusionary zoning requirements, that were part of a project granted a density bonus, or that were part of a project that received other incentives.
If a development is offered for sale, HCD must certify persons or entities that are eligible to purchase the development and to receive notice of the pending sale. Placement on the eligibility list will be based on experience with affordable housing administration / management.
When necessary, the City shall continue to work with property owners of deed-restricted affordable units who need to sell within 55 years of the unit’s initial sale. When the seller is unable to sell to an eligible buyer within a specified time period, equity-sharing provisions are established (pursuant to the affordable housing agreement for the property), whereby the difference between the affordable and market values is paid to the City to eliminate any incentive to sell the converted unit at market rate. Funds generated would then be used to develop additional affordable housing in the City. The City shall continue tracking all residential projects that include affordable housing to ensure that the affordability is maintained for at least 55 years for owner-occupied units and 55 years for rental units, and that any sale or change of ownership of these affordable units prior to satisfying the 55-year restriction shall be “rolled over” for another 55 years to protect “at-risk” units.
Quantified Objectives: Continue to monitor the 392 assisted units, and if any become at risk, work with property owners to develop a strategy to provide assistance to maintain or replace 392 at-risk units as affordable to reduce potential for displacement of tenants and loss of affordable housing stock in the city.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1040
HE-18 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Potential Funding: HOME, CDBG, CalHOME
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing communication with owners, service providers, and eligible potential purchasers; work with owners of deed-restricted units on an ongoing basis, in particular at the time of change of ownership.
Program 22. Housing Rehabilitation Programs: The City shall continue to administer its owner-occupied loan program and emergency repair program using a variety of funding sources, including CDBG and HOME funds. The City will improve communication regarding rehabilitation assistance programs currently available for lower-income households, including to eligible owners of mobile homes, and rental property owners to alleviate substandard conditions to increase placebased strategies. The City recently conducted a blight study that included a windshield survey of the former redevelopment areas and opportunity zones to identify parcels/properties with physical signs of deterioration, vacant properties, and potential environmentally contaminated sites. The results of the study and survey will inform a place-based strategy for prioritizing rehabilitation during the planning period. In addition, the HAP and Neighborhood Action Plans will outline underutilized and vacant parcels as well as complete a housing condition survey to indicate units in need of repair. The City will also pursue funding opportunities as available to provide small loans or grants to extremely low income households looking to complete home rehabilitation projects to reduce displacement risk caused by substandard housing conditions.
Additionally, the City will target outreach in high and moderate resource areas in relative proximity to agricultural employment opportunities to ensure housing where farmworkers reside is sufficiently maintained, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood. Additional outreach will be targeted in areas with the highest concentration of children in single female-headed households, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, Downtown, and South Stockton.
Quantified Objectives: Assist 300 lower-income units to address potential displacement, with a target of at least 50 percent in areas of the city with the poorest housing conditions as identified during the windshield survey to increase place-based strategies, including the Downtown area; areas in close proximity to agricultural employment opportunities such as parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood; as well as any areas identified during the development of the HAP and Neighborhood Action Plans. Additional outreach will be targeted in areas with the highest concentration of children in single female-headed households, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, Downtown, and South Stockton. Of these units, assist 75 units with extremely low-income households.
Potential Funding: HOME, CDBG, CalHOME
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Complete study and survey in 2023. Rehabilitation program is ongoing. Annually review the availability of funding opportunities and apply as opportunities become available.
Program 23. Code Enforcement Program: The City shall continue to inspect housing units in targeted areas to check for building code violations to increase place-based strategies. In situations where properties cannot be rehabilitated, the City will continue to enforce the removal and replacement of substandard units. The City will utilize a place-based strategy for prioritizing areas for inspection based on the results of its recent blight study, which highlighted the need for addressing blight conditions in the Downtown area. Additionally, the City will target inspection in high and moderate resource areas in relative proximity to agricultural employment opportunities to ensure housing where farmworkers reside is sufficiently maintained, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood.
Quantified Objectives: Inspect 2,000 units annually, with a target of prioritizing at least 50 percent in the areas with high potential need for rehabilitation, including the Downtown area; as well as areas in close proximity to agricultural employment opportunities including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood; as well as any areas identified during the development of the HAP and Neighborhood Action Plans.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1041
HOUSING HE-19
Potential Funding: CDBG
Who Is Responsible: Police Department: Neighborhood Services Division Time Frame: Ongoing
Program 24. Replacement of Existing Affordable Units: In accordance with California Government Code Section 65583.2(g), the City will require replacement housing units subject to the requirements of California Government Code Section 65915I(3) on sites identified in the sites inventory when any new development that removes existing residential units (residential, mixed-use, or nonresidential) occurs on a site that has been occupied by or restricted for the use of lowerincome households at any time during the previous five years. This requirement applies to:
• Nonvacant sites
• Vacant sites with previous residential uses that have been vacated or demolished.
Quantified Objectives: N/A
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
GOAL HE-5 AND ASSOCIATED POLICIES
GOAL HE-5: PROVIDE EQUITABLE HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES.
PROVIDE A RANGE OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND SERVICES FOR
HOUSEHOLDS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS, PROMOTE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
ALL RESIDENTS, AND SUPPORT THE ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING.
Policy HE-5.1 Special Needs Accommodation: The City shall seek to accommodate housing and shelter for residents with special needs through appropriate zoning standards and permit processes. (Programs 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29) Policy HE-5.2 Homeless Needs: The City shall strive to address the shelter needs of its homeless residents, and continue to support the provision of facilities and services to meet the needs of homeless individuals and families. (Program 25) Policy HE-5.3 Temporary Housing: The City shall support temporary housing for individuals with special needs (e.g., seniors who have experienced abuse or neglect, individuals who may be at physical or psychological risk, mentally ill homeless individuals, those with HIV/AIDS or other debilitating illnesses) in board and care homes and respite centers. (Program 25) Policy HE-5.4 Large Households: The City shall encourage the development of single-family and multifamily housing affordable to large households. (Program 30)
Policy HE-5.5 Households with Language Barriers: The City shall make information available on housing opportunities and programs to residents who are primarily non-English speaking. (Program 30) Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1042
HE-20 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Policy HE-5.6 Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The City shall encourage the development of housing accessible to people with disabilities, including developmental disabilities. The City shall ensure equal access to housing by providing reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities. (Programs 26, 27, and 28) Policy HE-5.7 Farmworkers: The City shall work with San Joaquin County in efforts to increase the availability of safe, sound, and affordable housing for farmworkers. (Program 28) Policy HE-5.8 Prohibit Discrimination: The City shall support the strict observance and enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and practices including prohibiting discrimination in the sale or rental of housing with regard to race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, source of income, gender/gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, and familial status. (Programs 30 and 32)
Policy HE-5.9 Affirmatively Further Fair Housing: The City shall affirmatively further fair housing consistent with State and Federal law through implementation of programs in this Housing Element and in all other City practices. (Program 30 and 31)
GOAL HE-5 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
Program 25. Continue to Support Organizations Assisting Homeless Persons: The City shall annually apply for and continue to pursue State and Federal funds available to the City, private donations, and volunteer assistance to support homeless shelters. The City shall continue to provide financial assistance from its Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funding to homeless service providers and continue to support additional development of shelter facilities as requested by shelter providers. In addition, the City shall review the need for additional shelter facilities and services when it updates its Consolidated Plan, prioritizing higher-resource areas.
In accordance with its 2022 Homeless Action Plan, the City will also do the following:
• Provide operational support through CDBG funds and the Emergency Solutions Grant to improve outreach and engagement while providing basic services to those experiencing homelessness. • Use Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention Program (HHAP) funds to invest in the Coordinated Entry and HMIS data system by January 2025 to improve the outreach-to-housing timeline and reduce the rate of chronic homelessness.
• Provide $200,000 annually to housing providers to fund on-site case managers and other support services for residents of permanent supportive housing.
• Subsidize the operation of safe camping and safe parking site programs by December 2025 and on an ongoing basis as additional funds are available.
• Use Homeless Housing Assistance Program (HHAP) funding to support the development of non-profit housing. Support the development of rental assistance and rapid re-housing programs. • Create a reserve fund by July 2026 for the delivery of permanent housing that will be available as a match grant for affordable and permanent housing grant applications. All city-funded new affordable housing development will have a homeless and risk of homelessness set-aside of 20 percent. Eligible uses will include, but not be limited to grants to subsidize master leasing programs for either rapid re-housing or permanent supportive housing; housing for youth and young adults aged 24 and younger; and housing specifically reserved for families fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking. The City will also add housing for those exiting incarceration as an eligible use of funds from this program when it is implemented.
Quantified Objectives: Annually, assist up to 2,000 unduplicated homeless persons; and 1,000 households at-risk of homelessness with limited-term rental assistance or utility payments. Target outreach and distribute information about these programs in the downtown area, close to existing homeless services. As part of this, increase the number of board and care or other types of residential or transitional care facilities for vulnerable populations by 300-500 beds. Prioritize Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1043
HOUSING HE-21
new residential or transitional care facilities for vulnerable populations in higher-opportunity areas or areas in close proximity to services, including the Midtown, Trinity/Northwest Stockton, Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village, Eight Mile/Bear Creek, and Morada/Holman neighborhoods.
Potential Funding: ESG, CDBG
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Apply for funding annually and provide funding to housing providers to fund on-site case managers and other support services annually. Provide operating support for organizations that provide basic services, outreach, and engagement annually. Provide financial support for the Coordinated Entry system annually through at least 2027.
Program 26. Continue to Assist the Disabled in Community Development Block Grant Project Areas: The City shall continue to include special provisions for housing the disabled in CDBG project areas, including mobility grants for homes (e.g., Emergency Repair Program) and accessibility features.
Quantified Objectives: Provide mobility assistance home-repair grants for 120 low-income individuals and households including those with special needs including disabilities, in Stockton, including rental units. Of these individuals or households, provide mobility assistance for home-repair grants for 15 extremely low-income individuals or households including those with special needs including disabilities.
Potential Funding: CDBG
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department, Public Works Department Time Frame: Annually, contingent upon CDBG funding
Program 27. Universal Design: Update the City’s standards in the Development Code to encourage universal design features in new homes and accessory dwelling units and improve access to housing for senior residents and other residents with disabilities. In addition, Program 29 includes other actions to facilitate full accessibility, which is different than universal design.
Quantified Objectives: 100 housing units with universal design features to facilitate accessibility for persons with disabilities and seniors; encouraging at least five (5) of these units to be located near transit stations and services.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Make updates as part of the Comprehensive Development Code update by April 2024 Program 28. Assist Farm Workers and other Members of the Workforce: The City shall continue to provide ongoing assistance to farm laborers by working with the San Joaquin Housing Authority, San Joaquin County, agricultural employers, farm labor housing advocates, and the development community to develop affordable, decent housing, including rental housing, for farm workers. The City will update how employee housing (including housing for agricultural workers) is allowed in the Development Code in Program 14.
Quantified Objectives: Assist other organizations in developing at least 500 units of housing for farmworkers in Stockton or in the County during the planning period, including 300 in high and moderate resource areas in relative proximity to agricultural employment opportunities, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood.
Potential Funding: CDBG, HOME, CalHOME
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Meet twice per year to explore opportunities for farmworker housing Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1044
HE-22 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Program 29. Addressing the Needs of Those with Disabilities: The City shall continue to work with the Valley Mountain Regional Center to implement an outreach program that informs families in the City about housing and services available for persons with developmental disabilities. The program includes informational brochures, and information is available on the City’s website. Specifically, the City will collaborate with the Regional Center on:
• Obtaining resources for rent-subsidized affordable housing (with services if necessary) for people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities,
• Creating and preserving accessible housing; and,
• Ensuring rental-based tenant assistance meets the unique needs of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and includes housing navigation supports for this subpopulation of people with disabilities.
For compliance with State law, the City will revise or delete the following two findings for granting a reasonable accommodation:
• Whether the requested reasonable accommodation adequately considers the physical attributes of the property and structures.
• Whether alternative reasonable accommodations could provide an equivalent level of benefit.
The City will also make the following revisions:
• Section 16.214.030 Definitions: “‘Individual with a disability'” means any person who has a medical condition, physical disability, or mental disability that substantially limits one (1) or more of the person’s major life activities, as those terms are defined in the Acts.” The City’s definition here aligns with the federal, but not the state definition of disability. To comply with Government Code § Gov. Code §12926.1(c), the City will strike the word “substantially”. The City shall also include a complete definition of disability: The Act protects any of the following: an individual with a physical or mental impairment that limits one or more major life activities; anyone who is regarded as having any such impairment; or anyone who has a record of having such an impairment. Individuals in recovery from drug or alcohol abuse are protected by federal and state fair housing laws. However, individuals currently using illegal substances are not protected under the law, unless they have a separate disability.
• The Development Code shall be updated to be clear that protections afforded people with disabilities under federal and state fair housing laws extend to those who are associated with them, including providers and developers of housing for people with disabilities.
• Section 16.214.060 Application Filing: A provision will be made to ensure confidentiality of the person with a disability’s contact and medical information. Further, this section will make clear that not only may a person with a disability file an application, but also an organization serving people with disabilities (e.g. sober living homes, transitional or supportive housing for people with disabilities, etc.) • Section 16.214.070 Review and Processing: The City will remove the requirement to notify neighbors of a reasonable accommodation request, to ensure meaningful access to the City’s land use and zoning programs under the ADA and to affirmatively further fair housing under AB 686 and the Fair Housing Act. • Section 16.214.080 Findings and Decision: The City will add a clause making it clear that if the request is denied because it would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the County and/or would require a fundamental alteration to the zoning or building laws, policies or procedures of the County, the Director or their designee must engage in an interactive process with the person seeking the accommodation to determine if there is another reasonable accommodation that may provide an equivalent level of benefit. • Section 16.214.090 Appeals: Revise to state that appeals will be directed to the City Manager in consultation with the ADA Coordinator, in order to ensure confidentiality.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1045
HOUSING HE-23
The City shall also prepare public information brochures and website information on reasonable accommodations for disabled persons and translate the materials to provide information to residents with language barriers. The City shall make this information available at the public counter and distribute the materials to community groups and organizations that represent persons with disabilities.
Quantified Objectives: By revising its Development Code to remove development constraints, the City will facilitate the development of 300 units for households with a household member who has a disability.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Revise the Reasonable Accommodation procedure including the findings as part of the Comprehensive Development Code Update by April 2024. Prepare public information on Reasonable Accommodations by June 2024.
Continue to partner with the Valley Mountain Regional Center and review the materials on the City website annually starting in 2024 and update as needed after each annual review.
Program 30. Practices to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing: In compliance with California Government Code Sections 8899.50, 65583(c)(5), 65583(c)(10), and 65583.2(a) (AB 686), develop a plan to "affirmatively further fair housing" (AFFH). The AFFH plan shall take actions to address significant disparities in housing access and needs for all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, gender/gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or disability and any other characteristic protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8, commencing with Section 12900, of Division 3 of Title 2), Government Code Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law.
Specific actions include:
• Implement the following strategies to affirmatively further fair housing in coordination with the efforts of this action:
o Strategies to facilitate housing mobility/expand affordable housing in high opportunity areas: Programs 6, 12, 14, 15, 17, 26, 27
o Strategies to reduce or prevent displacement/place-based revitalization strategies: Programs 4, 7, 9, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31
• The City shall continue to provide funds from its CDBG Program to San Joaquin County Fair Housing to provide fair housing counseling and education and outreach efforts to City residents. In addition to providing contact information for San Joaquin Fair Housing on the City's website (under the Housing Division), the City shall continue to make referrals to Fair Housing as issues/cases come to the City's attention. The City shall also work with Fair Housing to periodically review and update fair housing brochures that are provided to the public and posted on the City's website. The City shall distribute fair housing information at City offices, the library, community centers, and other community facilities. These actions are ongoing. Review fair housing materials every two years starting in 2024. Update materials as needed every two years following the review.
The City will assist at least 200 residents annually through the complaint referral process. If fewer than 200 residents use the process, provide assistance to all that do. • The City will educate selected staff in the Community Development, Economic Development, City Attorney, and City Manager departments on responding to complaints received regarding potential claims of housing discrimination and provide these selected personnel with a handout detailing the process for someone with a complaint and the agency that should be contacted regarding a claim: Legal Aid of Northern California.
The City will also maintain a log of all complaints received. The initial training of City staff will start in 2024; with updated training occurring two (2) years thereafter to align with changes to state law.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1046
HE-24 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
• The City will also work with San Joaquin Fair Housing to provide additional training to housing providers to prevent discriminatory actions and behaviors. If the City does not have enough staff capacity to conduct housing audits in order to reduce displacement risk, particularly in lower opportunity areas of Stockton, the City will pursue audit or other strategies to proactively identify discrimination such as contracting with a fair housing provider or outside housing consultant to provide assistance, by March 2025, and then later reviewed annually. The steps in the process would be the City issuing a Request for Proposals for partnership with an external consultant to provide the service of conducting housing audits annually. The City would either renew the contract or seek a new fair housing provider to provide the same service on a yearly basis. • The City shall review and update its Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Report every five years. The next update is scheduled to happen in 2025.
• Should the City conduct a new General Plan Update within the housing cycle, the elements will be updated to strengthen existing AFFH and equity programs as well as a new disadvantaged community inventory for city and unincorporated areas within the City’s sphere of influence. • The City shall post its Annual Housing Element Progress Reports to HCD on the City website annually in the Spring after the report is completed.
• The City will implement multilingual communication and outreach strategies for City-funded affordable housing developments as follows. To increase access to City housing programs and remove barriers to homeownership, provide translation services in the most common languages spoken locally at all public meetings by July 2024 and ensure all public materials are translated and made available. • In order to assist with the high percentage of households living in overcrowded situations including farmworkers, the City will encourage rental developments to add additional bedrooms and will prioritize the use of HOME funds for rental projects, provided that some of the units have three or more bedrooms with a goal of approving 100 units with three or more bedrooms. Additionally, when feasible, expand the City’s preapproved ADU plans to include ADU plans with 3 bedrooms. • when feasible, expand ADU pre-approved plans to include ADU plans with 3-bedrooms. • Incentivize on-site child care in mixed use and multifamily development, particularly for projects in areas with higher proportions of single parent households, which can make childcare easier to access for single-female headed households and potentially lower their cost of living. • The City shall explore best practices for Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Evictions to increase the certainty and fairness within the residential rental market in the City and work to prevent displacement, in addition to the protection granted by California Civil Code Section 1946.2. Exploration may include efforts associated with the Housing Action Plan or additional outreach efforts specific to the topic presented. Specifically, steps in this process will include market/feasibility analysis (complete by December 2024), a community workshop and presentation of findings and recommendations related to the city implementing Just Cause Eviction and Rent Stabilization regulations to the Planning Commission after the exploration/evaluation is complete (hold workshop and Planning Commission meeting by June 2025). • The City will remove and/or repeal any known program or ordinance residing within SMC Title 16 (development Code) that does not comply with current State Housing Element Law by December 2025, and annually assess if additional amendments are needed to respond to future changes to state law. This includes the voluntary “Crime Free Multi-Housing Program” to discourage criminal activities at multifamily housing facilities.
Quantified Objectives: See individual strategies bulleted in the program language at left with specific targets.
Potential Funding: CDBG; HOME; General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department, Community Development Department Time Frame: Refer to each strategy in this Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) program for specific time frames.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1047
HOUSING HE-25
Program 31. Environmental Health and Access to Resources: Environmental health is determined by air quality, climate change related outcomes, water quality, cancer prevalence, and more. Neighborhoods with poor environmental health conditions are often correlated to their proximity to industrial uses, major transit corridors, and other larger pollution sources. The City will facilitate environmental health-oriented, place-based revitalization of neighborhoods, particularly for housing in closer proximity to the lowest scoring areas in terms of environmental health, including the Port of Stockton along the San Joaquin River, Rough and Ready Island, downtown Stockton, and industrial areas east of the Union Pacific Railroad and south of Duck Creek to the southern boundary of the city adjacent to the Stockton Municipal Airport, which are more heavily impacted by pollution from prior industrial uses and diesel particulate matter from proximity to regional freeways and rail lines, through the following strategies:
• Update the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan and continue to enhance existing parks, open space, and tree plantings and provide new parks and open space in these areas to improve environmental health.
Facilitate safe pedestrian and bicycle access to parks or open spaces to reduce environmental health disparities across the city. Implement this objective during the CIP process. • Work with Caltrans to reduce regional air quality impacts associated with regional transportation facilities.
The City will meet with Caltrans annually, as feasible, to identify options for air quality improvements and coordinate action implementation.
• Add performance measures to the City’s Development Code for inventory sites located within 1000 feet of freeways and/or existing facilities that contribute to low air quality conditions as part of the Comprehensive Development Code Update, by April 2024.
• Partner with regional transit agencies and other organizations to address transit needs of those with disabilities including non-fixed-route transportation including paratransit, dial-a-ride, reduced-fare taxis or volunteer driver programs.
• Use place-based strategies to increase active transportation facilities in Downtown and South Stockton to reduce dependence on automobiles and enhance safe connections to existing pedestrian and bicycle routes.
The City will identify at least two active transportation projects in these areas of the city by June 2025. The City has completed a sidewalk survey as part of the Neighborhood Action Plans (in Little Manila/Gleason Park, Cabral Station and South Airport Way areas) to identify gaps and where repairs are needed. As part of implementation of the Neighborhood Action Plans, the city plans to pursue funding to assist property owners with repair and installation of sidewalks in the three study areas. Funding could come from local sources such as the City’s General Fund or State or federal sources such as the Safe Routes to School Program. • Meet with school district representatives by June 2025 to analyze whether housing security poses a barrier, focusing on disadvantaged areas with low education domain scores, including the Port and Mount Diablo Waterfront, Midtown, South Stockton, East Stockton, Industrial Annex, Mariposa Lakes, and Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhoods. Work with the school districts to assist in securing grant funding for teacher recruitment and retention bonuses, classroom materials, and other incentives for teachers to facilitate positive learning environments citywide.
• Require developers to provide local schools with information about initial lease-ups of new affordable housing units within the school catchment area, and ask school leadership to distribute this information to families in their school.
• Implement new commercial/industrial zoning in South Stockton (details are provided in Program 17) • Implement new industrial zoning standards and processing for reviewing existing and future industrial projects adjacent to residential uses (details are provided in Program 16) Quantified Objectives: See individual strategies bulleted in the program language at left with specific targets.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department and Public Works Department Time Frame: Refer to each strategy in this program for specific time frames.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1048
HE-26 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Program 32. Removal of Racially Restrictive Covenants: Historically, covenants that restricted the sale of property to Whites or Caucasians-only were prevalent in the City, especially on residential properties. Although such covenants were declared unconstitutional and have not been enforceable since 1948, many remain on recorded property deeds. Furthermore, if there are properties owned by the City of Stockton found to have racially restrictive covenants, the City will review the deeds of all City-owned properties and remove any existing racially restrictive housing covenants found on them. In the future, any property purchased will require removal of any racially restrictive housing covenant prior to recording the property in the City's name. Additionally, State law (AB 1466) gives property owners the opportunity to remove racially restrictive covenants from their own deeds. Since July 1, 2022, county recorders must provide a Restrictive Covenant Modification form to every person purchasing a property with a restrictive covenant and establish an implementation plan to identify unlawful restrictive covenants in the records of their office. The City will develop a program to support and encourage individual property owners to remove such restrictions from their deeds and provide information about accessing the County process to do so. The City will use its social media platforms, website, and other communications tools to conduct outreach and provide information at community events to assist homeowners to identify and remove restrictive covenants Quantified Objectives: Remove all racially restrictive covenants from Stockton City-owned properties by December 2025 and assist in the removal of all known privately owned properties by the end of the 6 th housing cycle. Advertise County
program starting in 2025; launch website and social media campaigns to support property owners to voluntarily remove these covenants by December 2025, with ongoing reminders in City publications and at City events. Support County enforcement of this State requirement as appropriate through City actions. Work with at least 20 property owners annually to support their efforts to remove restrictions from their deeds.
Potential Funding: General Fund; grants if offered through a State or County program Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department; San Joaquin County Recorder Time Frame: Remove all covenants on City-owned properties by December 2025; launch informational campaign between June and December 2025; encouragement of removal of covenants from private properties is ongoing.
Program 33. Disperse Sites Suitable for Lower Income Housing to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing:
In compliance with California Government Code Sections 8899.50, 65583(c)(5), 65583(c)(10), 65583.2(a) (AB 686), to develop a plan to “affirmatively further fair housing” (AFFH) and ensure that sites to address the lower income RHNA are dispersed more evenly across the city in relatively higher income and higher resource areas, Stockton will identify or rezone additional lower-income units on sites suitably zoned to accommodate lower-income housing at densities up to 30 du/ac.
Specifically, these additional sites will be identified in neighborhoods such as Trinity/Northwest Stockton, Eight Mile Rd/Bear Creek, and Northeast of Morada Lane. Development standards will be amended as appropriate to facilitate achieving maximum allowable densities.
Quantified Objectives: 1,193 additional lower income units on sites in relatively higher income and higher resource areas in neighborhoods such as Trinity/Northwest Stockton, Eight Mile Rd/Bear Creek, and Northeast of Morada Lane.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Make sites available including any needed General Plan or zoning code revisions, by December 31, 2026.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1049
HOUSING HE-27
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM TABLE
IMPLEMENTATION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES TIME FRAME
Goal HE-1: Increase Housing Production and Ensure Adequate Land for All Housing Types and Income Levels
1. Adequate Sites Monitoring and No
Net Loss
Continue to maintain sufficient sites to address 12,673 units Update inventory annually as part of the Housing Element Annual Progress Report and assess “no net loss” as projects come forward on Housing Element sites. Assess project approvals on Housing Element inventory sites as of December 31, 2027. If approved projects are not in line with the City’s non-residential RHNA projections in the inventory, within one year (by December 31, 2028) the City will identify additional sites beyond the sites in the inventory that allow non-residential uses in order to further facilitate residential development.
2. Downtown Implementation 4,400 residential units in the Greater Downtown Area by 2040 Adopt Comprehensive Development Code Update and HAP by April 2024; and annually thereafter to identify any additional strategies to address General Plan goals.
3. Sites Included in Previous Housing
Elements
437 residential units on 16 repeat sites identified in Appendix A that don’t already allow residential development by right.
Update Development Code and, if needed, Land Use Element by December 31, 2026
4. Public Facilities Repair and
Replacement
5 public facility/ infrastructure projects, prioritizing lowerincome, high-poverty neighborhoods such as the South Stockton neighborhood, Downtown, and parts of the East
Stockton and Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhoods.
Annually
5. Housing and Neighborhood
Action Plans
Permit 1,000 residential units, prioritizing affordable housing in high-opportunity areas such as the Morada/Holman,
Brookside/Country Club, Eight Mile/Bear Creek, and Midtown neighborhoods. Additional focus will be given to eliminating barriers to housing construction in lower-income areas such as the Cabral Station Area and Little Manila/Gleason Park
neighborhoods.
Neighborhood Action Plans - December 2023; Housing Action Plan – April 2024
6. Accessory Dwelling Units Approve 180 ADUs over the course of the planning period, targeting areas of high opportunity, specifically the following neighborhoods - Brookside/Country Club, Weston Ranch, Eight Mile/Bear Creek, Midtown around the University of the Pacific (between I-5 and “Miracle Mile/Pacific Avenue), western Upper Hammer/Thornton Rd, and eastern Morada/Holman.
The City is currently updating the ADU regulations as part of the Comprehensive Development Code Update, to be completed by April 2024. Starting in November 2024, evaluate the consistency of Stockton’s ADU regulations with State law and update accordingly. Continue to make ADU materials available; evaluate effectiveness of ADU approvals every other year, starting April 2025; and, identify additional site capacity, if needed, by December 2026. Apply annually, or as grants are available, for funding to support ADU incentives.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1050
HE-28 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES TIME FRAME
7. Infill Strategy 100 extremely low-income units and 150 other lower income units; funding for 10 brownfield sites minimum to promote new housing choices and affordability in areas of opportunity.
Continue to offer the Downtown Infrastructure Infill Incentive Program.
Adopt Housing Action Plan by April 2024. Implement Housing Action Plan strategies by 2025. Annually, beginning in 2026, identify any additional strategies needed to address overpayment and reduce displacement risk and implement them within 2 years of identification.
8. Site Assembly Support at least 5 lot consolidations on sites with lower income units during the planning period. Facilitate lot consolidation to produce sites for 2,300 moderate and above moderate
residential units to produce new housing opportunities
throughout city.
Establish program or resources to connect property owners and developers by December 2025 , and assess incentives and resources thereafter. Ongoing: Support consolidation as applicable housing applications are received; Pursue grant funding during planning period if California legislation and/or programs enable a tax-increment or similar program that leads to funding for site assembly.
9. Government-Owned Sites Facilitate development of government-owned sites for 100 lower-income units and 594 above moderate-income units to produce new housing opportunities throughout city.
Coordinate with SDSU quarterly, starting immediately, with the goal of development of the sites by 2028.
City-Owned Sites 4-96, 4-97, 4-230, 4-33, 4-231, 4-232, 3-74, 4-183:
RFI/SOQ Issued: Q4 2023, Entitlements: June 2025, Building Permits:
December 2025, Construction Complete: June 2027.
City-Owned Sites 1-18, 1-19, 1-20, 1-21: RFP previously released in 2020, Entitlements: October 2024, Building Permits: May 2025, Construction Complete: July 2027.
City-Owned Sites 4-67, 4-210: RFI/SOQ Issued: Anticipated Q2 2025, Entitlements: June 2026, Building Permits: December 2026, Construction Complete: June 2028.
If a plan for housing development on these parcels is not underway by 2026, with building permits issued by June 2029 the City will identify additional sites for housing accordingly, including rezoning sites to address the RHNA if needed.
10. Large Site Development Facilitate large lot development, including lot splits, as needed to produce sites for 1,512 lower-income units to produce new housing opportunities throughout city.
• Conduct one-on-one meetings with developers and
property owners.
• Proactively conduct outreach advertising available
incentives, resources, and relevant information for the development of larger sites.
• Establish, maintain, and promote an inventory of
large sites appropriate for residential development.
• Facilitate and streamline parceling, or other similar planning methods, to encourage the development of
large sites with affordable housing components.
Ongoing, as projects come forward; establish program to connect property owners and developers by December 2025. Annually reach out to developers to gather input on available incentives. Annually conduct outreach and advertising. Facilitate and streamline parceling, or other similar actions, for large sites through 2031. Assess project approvals on large Housing Element inventory sites as of December 31, 2027. If approved projects are not in line with the City’s RHNA projections on large sites in the inventory, within one year (by December 31, 2028) the City will identify additional sites beyond the large sites in the inventory in order to further facilitate residential development and if necessary will rezone to make the sites available for residential development.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1051
HOUSING HE-29
IMPLEMENTATION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES TIME FRAME
Goal HE-2: Provide High Quality Housing for All Income Groups
11. Coordination with the Housing
Authority of San Joaquin County
Provide vouchers to 3,800 households in Stockton and assist these lower income households in accessing rental
opportunities with Housing Choice Vouchers to facilitate housing mobility. Target additional outreach in areas with the highest concentration of children in single female-headed households, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk
neighborhood, Downtown, and South Stockton.
Ongoing; establish education program by the end of 2024 and distribute information. Then distribute information at least annually through the end of the planning period.
12. State and Federal Funding Fund 200 extremely low-, 400 very low-, 450 low-income units; Provide down payment assistance to 75 low-income households, particularly in high opportunity areas such as the Morada/Holman, Brookside/Country Club, Eight Mile/Bear
Creek, and Midtown neighborhoods.
Review funding opportunities annually; down payment assistance program is ongoing
13. Priority Sewer and Water Service
for Affordable Housing
Include in Development Code as part of Comprehensive
Update
Include in Development Code as part of Comprehensive Update by April 2024
14. Property Assessed Clean Energy
(PACE) Program
Connect 60 eligible Stockton residents with energy- and costsaving programs to reduce overpayment on housing costs.
Program outreach will be prioritized in areas with high rates of homeowner overpayment, including the Mariposa Lakes
neighborhood, parts of Downtown and East Stockton, the
Industrial Annex area, and parts of the Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village and Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhoods.
Ongoing. A unique, centralized location for this program on the City’s website will be created by December 2025. Annual updating will occur thereafter.
15. Green-Up Stockton Connect 60 eligible Stockton residents with energy- and costsaving programs to reduce overpayment on housing costs.
Program outreach will be prioritized in areas with high rates of homeowner or renter overpayment, including the South and East Stockton, Midtown, Industrial Annex, Downtown, and Mariposa Lakes neighborhoods.
Ongoing
16. Weatherization Activities 200 units weatherized. Program outreach will be prioritized in lower-income neighborhoods and areas with high rates of homeowner or renter overpayment, including the South and East Stockton, Midtown, Industrial Annex, Downtown, and Mariposa Lakes neighborhoods. Additionally, outreach will be prioritized in the area southeast of the intersection of Thornton Road/Pacific Avenue and West Hammer Lane, where the city may be able to reach more senior households. Additional program outreach will target areas in relative proximity to agricultural employment including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the
Morada/Holman neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex Program availability is ongoing. Advertising of the program by the City on the City website and direct outreach will begin by December 2024.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1052
HE-30 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES TIME FRAME
neighborhood. Additional outreach will be targeted in areas with the highest concentration of children in single femaleheaded households, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, Downtown, and South Stockton.
Goal HE-3: Remove Governmental Constraints
17. Development Code Revisions N/A April 2024
18. Fiscally Positive Impact Fees Provide exemptions and reductions to 200 housing units to reduce overpayment for housing costs and reduce
displacement risk specifically for lower-income communities, including 30 units affordable to extremely low-income
households.
Annually, evaluate exemptions provided and determine whether all constraints to housing development associated with impact fees or other funding mechanisms are sufficiently addressed. If it is found that they are not being addressed, modifications will be made to one or more exemption programs within one year. This will occur after each annual review until the end of the planning period. The City will evaluate the feasibility of providing impact or other development fee waivers or deferrals for projects with extremely low-income units by the end of 2025.
19. Streamline Approvals for
Affordable Housing Projects
150 new affordable units permitted through SB 35 approval streamlining and development of 150 affordable units
facilitated by using the adopted preliminary application form.
Develop or adopt HCD’s SB 330 preliminary application form and develop an SB 35 streamlined approval process by December 2024 and implement as applications are received. The City will implement a minimum of two of the options listed in Program 19, to further streamline approvals and support affordable housing projects by December 2026.
20. Density Bonuses Facilitate the construction of 1,000 lower-income units to increase mobility opportunities; encourage density bonus units in high-resource areas.
Complete as part of Comprehensive Development Code Update by April 2024; annually review Development Code and revise as needed; produce brochures and make information available on the City’s website by December 2024.
Goal HE-4: Preserve Existing Housing
21. Preserve At-Risk Units Continue to monitor the 392 assisted units, and if any become at risk, work with property owners to develop a strategy to provide assistance to maintain or replace 392 at-risk units as affordable to reduce potential for displacement of tenants and loss of affordable housing stock in the city.
Ongoing communication with owners, service providers, and eligible potential purchasers; work with owners of deed-restricted units on an ongoing basis, in particular at the time of change of ownership.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1053
HOUSING HE-31
IMPLEMENTATION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES TIME FRAME
22. Housing Rehabilitation Programs Assist 300 lower-income units to address potential displacement, especially in areas of the city with the poorest housing conditions as identified during the windshield survey, including the Downtown area; areas in close proximity to agricultural employment opportunities such as parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood; as well as any areas identified during the development of the HAP and Neighborhood Action Plans.
Additional outreach will be targeted in areas with the highest concentration of children in single female-headed households, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, Downtown, and South Stockton. Of these units, assist 75 units with extremely low-income households..
Complete study and survey in 2023. Rehabilitation program is ongoing.
Annually review the availability of funding opportunities and apply as opportunities become available.
23. Code Enforcement Program Inspect 2,000 units annually, prioritizing areas with high potential need for rehabilitation, including the Downtown area; as well as areas in close proximity to agricultural employment opportunities including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the
Morada/Holman neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood; as well as any areas identified during the development of the HAP and Neighborhood Action Plans.
Ongoing
24. Replacement of Existing
Affordable Units
N/A Ongoing
Goal HE-5: Provide Equitable Housing and Supportive Services
25. Continue to Support
Organizations Assisting Homeless
Persons
Annually, assist up to 2,000 unduplicated homeless persons; and 1,000 households at-risk of homelessness with limitedterm rental assistance or utility payments. Target outreach and distribute information about these programs in the downtown area, close to existing homeless services. As part of this, increase the number of board and care or other types of residential or transitional care facilities for vulnerable populations by 300-500 beds. Prioritize new residential or transitional care facilities for vulnerable populations in higheropportunity areas or areas in close proximity to services, including the Midtown, Trinity/Northwest Stockton, Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village, Eight Mile/Bear Creek, and
Morada/Holman neighborhoods.
Apply for funding annually and provide funding to housing providers to fund on-site case managers and other support services annually. Provide operating support for organizations that provide basic services, outreach, and engagement annually. Provide financial support for the Coordinated Entry system annually through at least 2027.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1054
HE-32 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES TIME FRAME
26. Continue to Assist the Disabled in
Community Development Block
Grant Project Areas
Provide mobility assistance home-repair grants for 120 lowincome individuals and households including those with special needs including disabilities, in Stockton, including rental units.
Of these individuals or households, provide mobility assistance for home-repair grants for 5 extremely low-income individuals or households including those with special needs including disabilities.
Annually, contingent upon CDBG funding
27. Universal Design 100 housing units with universal design features to facilitate accessibility for persons with disabilities and seniors; encouraging at least five (5) of these units to be located near transit stations and services.
Make updates as part of the Comprehensive Development Code update by April 2024
28. Assist Farm Workers and other
Members of the Workforce
Assist other organizations in developing at least 500 units or housing for farmworkers in Stockton or in the County during the planning period, including 300 in high and moderate resource areas in relative proximity to agricultural employment opportunities, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman
neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood.
Meet twice per year to explore opportunities for farmworker housing
29. Addressing the Needs of Those
with Disabilities
By revising its Development Code to remove development
constraints, the City will facilitate the development of 300 units for households with a household member who has a disability.
Revise the Reasonable Accommodation procedure including the findings as part of the Comprehensive Development Code Update by April 2024.
Prepare public information on Reasonable Accommodations by June 2024. Continue to partner with the Valley Mountain Regional Center and review the materials on the City website annually starting in 2024 and update as needed after each annual review.
30. Practices to Affirmatively Further
Fair Housing
See individual strategies bulleted in the program language at left with specific targets.
Refer to each strategy in this Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) program for specific time frames.
31. Environmental Health and Access
to Resources
See individual strategies bulleted in the program language at left with specific targets.
Refer to each strategy in this program for specific time frames.
32. Removal of Racially Restrictive
Covenants
Remove all racially restrictive covenants from Stockton Cityowned properties by December 2025 and assist in the removal of all known privately owned properties by the end of the 6th housing cycle. Advertise County program starting in 2025; launch website and social media campaigns to support
property owners to voluntarily remove these covenants by December 2025, with ongoing reminders in City publications and at City events. Support County enforcement of this State requirement as appropriate through City actions. Work with at least 20 property owners annually to support their efforts to remove restrictions from their deeds.
Remove all covenants on City-owned properties by December 2025; launch informational campaign between June and December 2025; encouragement of removal of covenants from private properties is ongoing.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1055
HOUSING HE-33
IMPLEMENTATION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES TIME FRAME
33. Disperse Sites Suitable for Lower
Income Housing to Affirmatively
Further Fair Housing
1,193 additional lower income units on sites in relatively higher income and higher resource areas in neighborhoods such as Trinity/Northwest Stockton, Eight Mile Rd/Bear Creek, and Northeast of Morada Lane.
Make sites available including any needed General Plan or zoning code revisions, by December 31, 2026.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1056
HE-34 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
Table HE-1 below summarizes the City’s quantified objectives for new construction, rehabilitation, preservation, and housing assistance over an eight-year time frame. These quantified objectives represent targets. They are estimates based on past experience, anticipated funding levels, and anticipated housing market conditions.
Table HE-1: SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
2023-2031
PROGRAM EXTREMELY
LOW
VERY
LOW LOW MODERATE ABOVEMODERATE
TOTAL
HOUSEHOLDS
New Construction1 1,232 1,233 1,548 2,572 6,088 12,673
Rehabilitation2 700 900 900 - - 2,500
Conservation/Preservation of AtRisk Units3 600 957 985 825 825 4,192 Notes:
1. Corresponds to the City’s RHNA.
2. Corresponds to objectives in Programs 16, 22, and 23.
3. Corresponds to the at-risk affordable assisted units in the city (see Housing Needs Assessment, Table HE-42 and Program 21) and objectives from Programs 11 and 14 aiming to conserve existing housing.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1057
INTRODUCTION BR-1
INTRODUCTION 1
State housing element law (Government Code Section
65580) mandates that local governments must adequately
plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. This section
provides a snapshot of current (2022) information on
household characteristics, housing needs, housing supply, land inventory for new development, housing programs,
constraints, and incentives for new housing development.
It also evaluates progress made since the last Housing
Element was adopted in 2015.
OVERVIEW OF STATE
REQUIREMENTS
State law recognizes the vital role local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing. Each local
government in California is required to adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical
development of their city or county. The housing element is one of eight mandated elements of the general plan.
State law requires local government plans to address the existing and projected housing needs of all economic
segments of the community through their housing
elements. The law acknowledges that for the private
market to adequately address housing needs and
demand, local governments must adopt land use plans
and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development. As a result, housing policy in the state rests largely upon the effective implementation of local general plans and local housing elements in particular.
The purpose of the housing element is to identify the
community’s housing needs, to state the community’s
goals and objectives with regard to housing production, rehabilitation, and conservation to meet those needs, and to define the policies and programs that the community
will implement to achieve the stated goals and objectives.
State law requires cities and counties to address the needs of all income groups in their housing elements. The official definition of these needs is provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) for each city and county within its geographic
jurisdiction. Beyond these income-based housing needs,
the housing element must also address special-needs
groups such as persons with disabilities and homeless
persons.
As required by State Housing Element Law (Government
Code Section 65583(a)), the assessment and inventory for this Housing Element includes the following:
• Analysis of population and employment trends
and projections and a quantification of the
locality’s existing and projected housing needs for
all income levels. This section includes analysis of
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1058
BR-2 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
"at-risk" assisted housing developments that are
eligible to change from lower-income housing to
market-rate housing during the next 10 years.
• Analysis and documentation of household
characteristics, including level of payment
compared to ability to pay, and housing
characteristics, including overcrowding and
housing stock condition.
• Analysis of any special housing needs for the
elderly, persons with disabilities (including
developmental disabilities), large households,
farmworkers, families with female heads of
household, and families and persons in need of
emergency shelter.
• In 2018, California passed Assembly Bill (AB) 686
to address more subtle, discriminatory methods
that reinforce patterns of segregation that persist
in California today. The new legislation requires
cities and counties to update their Housing
Element to include an assessment of fair housing
practices, an analysis of the relationship between
available sites and areas of high or low resources,
and concrete actions in the form of programs to
affirmatively further fair housing. The purpose of
this assessment and analysis is to proactively
promote the replacement of segregated living
patterns with truly integrated and balanced living
patterns and to transform racially and ethnically
concentrated areas of poverty into areas of
opportunity.
• Inventory of land suitable for residential
development, including vacant sites and sites
having potential for redevelopment, and an
analysis of the relationship of zoning, public
facilities, and services to these sites.
• Analysis of potential and actual governmental
constraints upon the maintenance, improvement,
or development of housing for all income levels
and for persons with disabilities, including land
use controls, building codes and their
enforcement, site improvements, fees and other
exactions required of developers, and local
processing and permit procedures. Analysis of
local efforts to remove governmental constraints.
1 San Joaquin Valley Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Collaborative compiled a significant amount of data needed to update the Housing Element. Much of the data in the HCD pre-approved data. package is from the 2016-2020 American Community Survey. The source of information for the tables identifies when the data is from the data package. • Analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental
constraints upon the maintenance, improvement,
or development of housing for all income levels,
including the availability of financing, the price of
land, and the cost of construction.
• Analysis of opportunities for residential energy
conservation.
The Housing Element identifies the nature and extent of the City’s housing needs, which in turn provides the basis for the City’s response to those needs in the Housing
Element Policy Document. In addition to identifying
housing needs, the element also presents information on the setting in which the needs occur, which provides a
better understanding of the community and facilitates
planning for housing.
The Housing Element sections draw on a broad range of
information sources. Information on population, housing stock, and the economy comes primarily from the HCD
pre-approved data package 1 as well as the 2020 US
Census, American Community Survey (ACS), the
California Department of Finance (DOF), and City of
Stockton records. Information on available sites and
services for housing comes from numerous public
agencies. Information on constraints on housing
production and past and current housing efforts in the City of Stockton comes from City staff, other public agencies, and a number of private sources.
GENERAL PLAN AND
HOUSING ELEMENT
CONSISTENCY
The Housing Element is a component of the 2040 General
Plan, which provides guiding policy for all growth and
development within the city. The General Plan consists of elements that address both State-mandated planning
issues plus optional subjects that are of particular concern within Stockton. These elements are:
• Land Use
• Transportation
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1059
INTRODUCTION BR-3
• Safety
• Community Health
All State-mandated elements except the Housing Element
are included in one of these elements as a sub-element.
The Housing Element is updated in a separate Statedictated schedule from the rest of the General Plan. This Housing Element will be effective from December 31,
2023, through December 31, 2031. This Housing
Element updates the City of Stockton Housing Element that was adopted in 2016. The City is also currently updating its Safety Element. During the update process, the City has conducted an internal consistency review to ensure
consistency between the Housing and Safety Element and
all other elements of the General Plan. The City will
maintain consistency as future General Plan amendments
are processed by evaluating proposed amendments for
consistency with all elements of the General Plan,
including the Housing Element.
GENERAL PLAN AND
HOUSING ELEMENT
DIFFERENCES
The housing element is one of eight State-mandated
elements that every general plan must contain. Although the housing element must follow all the requirements of the general plan, the housing element has several Statemandated requirements that distinguish it from other general plan elements. Whereas the State allows local
government the ability to decide when to update their
general plan, State law sets the schedule for periodic
update (eight-year time frame) of the housing element.
Local governments are also required to submit draft and adopted housing elements to HCD for State law
compliance review. This review ensures that the housing element meets the various State mandates. When the City satisfies these requirements, the State will “certify” that the element is legally adequate. Failing to comply with State law could result in potentially serious consequences, such as reduced access to infrastructure, transportation, and housing funding and vulnerability to lawsuits.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
As part of the Housing Element update process, the City is implementing the State’s public participation requirements in Housing Element law, set forth in Government Code
Section 65583(c)(7), that jurisdictions “…shall make a
diligent effort to achieve participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the
housing element, and the program shall describe this
effort.”
The City has sought to engage all segments of the
community during the preparation of the Housing Element update, including the individuals, organizations, and
agencies with which the City consulted; the methods of
community outreach; and a summary of comments
received and how these comments have been addressed.
All segments of the community were encouraged by the
City to participate in preparation of the Housing Element through a series of efforts, including noticing of property owners of sites in the draft Housing Element sites inventory, announcements on the City’s social media channels,
distribution to the Housing Element email listserv, and direct contacts by email and phone with organizations
serving low-income and special-needs groups. The City
invited representatives of these groups to attend the public workshops on the Housing Element. Spanish translation
has been available at the workshop and translation into other languages has been available on request.
Summaries of all outreach , input received, and the way input was incorporated into the Housing Element are
described in Appendix B.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1060
BR-4 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
This page intentionally left blank.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1061
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-5
EXISTING NEEDS
ASSESSMENT 2
MAJOR FINDINGS
• Since 2005, Stockton has experienced an
average annual growth rate (AAGR) of 0.9
percent and grew as a whole by 15.8 percent (an
increase of 43,974 people). However, between
2021 and 2022, the population decreased by
over 1,395. This was the first year of population
decrease since 2008.
• Stockton’s population was slightly younger than
the county and state average in 2020. The city
had a higher percentage of residents under the
age of 34 than San Joaquin County, and the
median age in Stockton (33.0) was lower than
that of the county (34.4) and the state (36.7).
• Stockton’s population was more ethnically and
racially diverse than the county and state in
2020. Asian and Hispanic populations continue
to make up about 64 percent of the population
in Stockton.
• Between 2018 and 2020, the per-capita
personal income increased by 20.3 percent in
the City of Stockton, 13.9 percent in California,
and 10.0 percent in the U.S. Although income
increased in Stockton between 2018 and 2020
at a higher rate than income in California and
the United States, as of 2020, average personal
income in Stockton was approximately $7,500
less than the United States and approximately
$18,000 less than California.
• Stockton’s household income distribution is more
heavily concentrated in the lower end of the
income spectrum than the county and state. In
2020, 21.0 percent of Stockton households
earned less than $25,000 compared to 17.0
percent countywide and 16.0 percent statewide.
Households earning $100,000 or more made up
26.0 percent of Stockton households but
accounted for 33.0 percent of households
countywide and 39.7 percent of all California
households.
• In August 2022, 9.7 percent of Stockton
residents and San Joaquin County residents were
unemployed, which was approximately twice the
statewide unemployment rate (4.1 percent).
• Homeownership rates in Stockton decreased
from 51.6 percent in 2000 to 45.1 percent in
2014 following the housing market crash and
foreclosure crisis. Since then, it rebounded to
49.9 percent in 2020. However, Stockton’s
homeownership rate is lower than the countywide
(57.7 percent) and statewide (55.3 percent)
rates. Stockton has a greater need for large
housing units than the county and state. Stockton
had a larger average household size, smaller
number of housing units, and higher
overcrowding rates than the county and state.
• As of 2020, about 1.9 percent of Stockton’s
housing stock was built after 2010 and another
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1062
BR-6 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
17.4 percent of the housing stock was built
between 1990 and 1999. The majority of new
home construction occurred prior to the
recession from 2000 to 2007. According to the
California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) Data
Dashboard from January 1, 2016, to April 13,
2021, only 888 residential building permits were
issued.
• The rate of housing cost burden for lower-income
households is slightly higher in Stockton (75.0
percent) than in San Joaquin County (72.0
percent) and California (70.0 percent), pointing
to a need for more affordable housing units in
Stockton.
• The 2022 countywide point-in-time homeless
count identified a total of 2,319 unsheltered
persons in San Joaquin County, of which, 893
unsheltered persons were counted in Stockton.
INTRODUCTION
This section begins with a description of housing and
demographic characteristics of Stockton. The section
then discusses the existing housing needs of the city based on housing and demographic characteristics, and the
housing needs of “special” population groups as defined in State law. Data for Stockton is presented, wherever
possible, alongside data for San Joaquin County and
California for comparison. This facilitates an
understanding of the city’s characteristics by illustrating how the city is similar to, or differs from, the county and state in various aspects related to demographic,
employment, and housing characteristics and needs.
DEMOGRAPHIC AND
EMPLOYMENT PROFILE
The purpose of this section is to establish “baseline”
population, employment, and housing characteristics for Stockton. The main sources of the information in this
section are the HCD pre-approved data package, 2020
American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates
(2016-2020), and the California Department of Finance
(DOF). Other sources of information include the San
Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), the
California Employment Development Department (EDD),
and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), including HUD’s Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). It is important to note that the ACS data is a multi-year estimate based on sample data and has a large margin of error. It is noted in the data source at the bottom of tables in this section where this data package was used.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Population
As shown in Table HE-2, overall, Stockton’s population
has grown steadily in the last two decades. Since 2005, Stockton has experienced an AAGR of 0.9 percent and
grew as a whole by 15.8 percent (an increase of 43,974
people). However, between 2021 and 2022, the
population decreased by over 1,395 residents. This was
the first year of population decrease since 2008.
Table HE-3 shows the population growth rate in Stockton relative to San Joaquin County and the state of
California. From 2000 to 2022, both the city of Stockton and the county as a whole grew at a faster rate than the state average. In each jurisdiction, population increased between 2000 and 2010 at approximately twice the rate
of population growth between 2010 and 2022.
Table HE-2: Historical Population Change
Stockton, 2000-2022
YEAR POPULATION CHANGE AAGR
2000 243,771 -
2005 278,515 34,744 2.9%
2006 284,418 5,903 2.1%
2007 295,070 10,652 3.7%
2008 275,885 -19,185 -6.5%
2009 287,584 11,699 4.2%
2010 292,747 5,163 0.4%
2011 296,367 3,620 1.2%
2012 297,975 1,608 0.5%
2013 298,115 140 0.0%
2014 302,405 4,290 1.4%
2015 306,138 3,733 1.2%
2016 309,829 3,691 0.2%
2017 313,255 3,426 1.1%
2018 315,099 1,844 0.6%
2019 317,356 2,257 0.7%
2020 319,188 1,832 0.6%
2021 323,884 4,696 1.5%
2022 322,489 -1,395 -0.4%
Source: DOF, Report E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2022, with 2010 Census Benchmark; DOF, Table 2a Historical Census Populations of California State, Counties, Cities, Places, and Towns.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1063
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-7
Age
Table HE-4 shows the distribution of Stockton’s
population by age in 2020. According to the 2020 ACS
5-Year Estimates (2016-2020), the median age in
Stockton is 33.0 years, which is lower than the county
(34.4 years) and the state (36.7 years). In 2020, 58.6
percent of the population in Stockton was 5 to 45 years of age. Young adults and middle-aged adults, which
make up the workforce, may need homes near
employment or transit centers with adequate size for
families. Those 65 years and older represented about
12.5 percent of the population. When compared to San
Joaquin County, the age distribution was similar although Stockton had a higher percentage of persons between the age of 45 and 64 and San Joaquin had a higher
percentage of persons 65 and older.
Table HE-3: Population Change
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2000 to 2022
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
2000 2010 2022 2000 2010 2022 2000 2010 2022
Population 243,771 291,707 322,489 556,229 685,306 784,298 33,873,086 37,253,956 39,185,605 Growth from
Previous Period 47,936 30,782 129,077 98,992 3,380,870 1,931,649 AAGR from
Previous Period 1.8% 0.9% 2.1% 1.2% 1.0% 0.4%
Source: U.S. Census.
Table HE-4: Age Characteristics
Stockton and San Joaquin County, 2020
AGE GROUP
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Under 5 Years 22,922 7.4% 52,370 13.7% 2,409,082 12.9%
5 to 17 Years 63,563 20.4% 57,392 15.0% 2,431,647 13.0% 18 to 24 Years 32,757 10.5% 59,177 15.5% 2,597,443 13.9% 25 to 34 Years 45,143 14.5% 34,731 9.1% 1,518,469 8.1%
35 to 44 Years 41,033 13.2% 20,997 5.5% 1,029,603 5.5%
45 to 54 Years 35,355 11.4% 10,858 2.8% 545,047 2.9%
55 to 64 Years 31,725 10.2% 11,504 3.0% 540,872 2.9%
65 to 74 Years 22,950 7.4% 29,126 7.6% 1,608,717 8.6%
75 to 84 Years 11,130 3.6% 54,303 14.2% 3,084,036 16.5% 85 Years and Over 4,525 1.5% 51,063 13.4% 2,923,877 15.6% Total 311,103 100.0% 381,521 100.0% 18,688,793 100.0%
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020) Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1064
BR-8 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Race and Ethnicity
Table HE-5 summarizes data related to the race and
ethnicity of residents of Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California in 2020. Compared to San Joaquin
County and California, Stockton is more racially and
ethnically diverse. In 2020, approximately 43.5 percent of the city’s population was Hispanic or Latino, compared to 41.7 percent in the county and 39.1 percent in the
state. The city also has a higher proportion of persons identifying as Asian at 20.5 percent, compared to the
county at 15.5 percent and state at 14.6 percent.
Additionally, 11.0 percent of Stockton’s population was Black or African American, which is a greater proportion than countywide at 6.8 percent and statewide at 5.4
percent. Stockton has a smaller percentage of whites at
19.4 percent compared to 30.7 percent in the county
and 36.5 percent in the state.
Table HE-5: Population Breakdown by Race/Ethnicity
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
RACE/ETHNICITY
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Hispanic or Latino 135,457 43.5% 313,385 41.7% 15,380,929 39.1% Not Hispanic or Latino
White 60,442 19.4% 230,857 30.7% 14,365,145 36.5%
Black or African American 34,195 11.0% 50,920 6.8% 2,142,371 5.4% American Indian and Alaska
Native 493 0.2% 1,447 0.2% 131,724 0.3%
Asian 63,657 20.5% 116,618 15.5% 5,743,983 14.6%
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander 1,404 0.5% 4,228 0.6% 135,524 0.3%
Some Other Race 1,252 0.4% 2,043 0.3% 124,148 0.3%
Two or more Races 14,203 4.6% 32,117 4.3% 1,322,199 3.4% TOTAL POPULATION 311,103 100% 751,615 100% 39,346,023 100% Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)
INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT
Local demand for housing is significantly impacted by
income, employment characteristics, and regional job
growth. To effectively address the housing and jobs
relationship, an understanding of local salary and job
profiles is needed. This section analyzes personal income, household income, and employment characteristics for
San Joaquin County and the city of Stockton, when
available.
Personal Income
Table HE-6 shows the change in average per-capita
income for the Stockton Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA), California, and the United States from 2018 to
2020. Between 2018 and 2020, the Per-Capita Personal
Income increased by 20.3 percent in the City of Stockton,
13.9 percent in California, and 10.0 percent in the
United States. Although income increased in Stockton
between 2018 and 2020 at a higher rate than income in
California and the United States, as of 2020, average
personal income in Stockton was approximately $7,500
less than the United States and approximately $18,000
less than California.
Table HE-6: Personal Income1
Stockton, California, and United States, 2018 to 2020
PER-CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME1
2018 2019 2020 PERCENTAGE
CHANGE
Stockton $43,077 $45,075 $51,816 20.3%
California $61,633 $64,513 $70,192 13.9%
United
States $54,098 $56,047 $59,510 10.0%
1 Per-capita personal income was computed using Census Bureau midyear population estimates.
Source: Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2020.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1065
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-9
Household Income
As shown in Table HE-7, household incomes in Stockton
are generally lower than incomes countywide and in the
state. The most significant income disparities when
comparing Stockton with the county or state occur at
either end of the income spectrum. For example, 21.0
percent of Stockton households earned less than
$25,000 in 2020 compared to 17.0 percent countywide
and 16.0 percent statewide. Households earning
$100,000 or more made up 26.0 percent of Stockton
households but accounted for 33.0 percent of
households countywide and 39.7 percent of all
California households.
Table HE-7: Household Income Distribution
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
INCOME
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Less than $29,999 24,229 25.4% 48,181 20.9% 2,486,133 19.0% $30,000-$44,999 10,271 10.8% 27,050 11.7% 1,377,391 10.5% $45,000-$59,999 11,434 12.0% 26,081 11.3% 1,258,858 9.6% $60,000-$74,999 9,869 10.4% 23,343 10.1% 1,162,681 8.9% $75,000- $125,000 20,420 21.4% 53,173 23.0% 2,911,428 22.2% Above $125,000 19,013 20.0% 53,264 23.0% 3,906,623 29.8% Total 95,236 100.0% 231,092 100.0% 13,103,114 100.0%
Median Income $58,393 $68,628 $78,672
Source: American Community Survey (2016-2020)
Income Categories and the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the
Housing Element planning period from December 31,
2023, through December 31, 2031, for San Joaquin
County as a whole is 52,719. SJCOG developed a
methodology to sub-allocate the county-level projection to the unincorporated county and the cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Tracy, and Stockton. Of
the total 52,719 needed units in the SJCOG region,
12,673 are allocated to the City of Stockton.
Per State law, SJCOG further divided the housing need
for each jurisdiction into four income categories. This division is intended to ensure adequate affordable
housing for all income levels in the region. The four
categories are Very Low Income, Low Income, Moderate
Income, and Above Moderate Income. According to
California Government Code Section 65583(a)(1), the
City may “presume that 50 percent of the very lowincome households qualify as extremely low-income households.” Stockton’s RHNA by income category is
shown in Table HE-8 alongside representative income
ranges that correlate with the RHNA categories.
The income categories shown in Table HE-8 are
additionally used for the purpose of determining eligibility for housing assistance through State, federal and local programs. HCD publishes these income limits for the
following categories annually for each county in
California.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1066
BR-10 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Table HE-8: Income Limits for San
Joaquin County and Regional Housing
Needs Allocation
2022
INCOME
CATEGORY
2022 INCOME
RANGE
(HOUSEHOLD
OF 4)
RHNA
RHNA
PERCENTAGE
Extremely Low
<30% of Median
Income
<$27,750
2,465* 19.5%
Very Low Income
31-50% of
Median Income
$27,751 -
$41,400
Low Income
51-80% of
Median Income
$41,401 -
$66,200 1,548 12.2%
Moderate Income
81-120% of
Median Income
$66,201 -
$102,000 2,572 20.3%
Above Moderate
Income
>120% of
Median Income
>$102,000 6,088 48.0%
Total RHNA 12,673 100%
HCD 2022 Median Income for a household of four in San Joaquin County:
$85,000
*For purposes of the Housing Element, it is assumed that 50 percent of the City’s RHNA allocation of very low-income units represents the additional housing needed to be provided for extremely low-income households.
Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development, State Income Limits for San Joaquin County, 2022; San Joaquin County Subregion 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Final Methodology
Employment
Table HE-9 shows the top employers in the City of
Stockton in 2021 by number of employees. The top
employers in Stockton were the Stockton Unified School
District, St. Joseph’s Medical Center, and Amazon. Table HE-10 shows industry employment by major classification for Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California in
2020. Whether living in Stockton or elsewhere in the
county or state, the most common industry of
employment was Educational and Health Services (22.0
percent in Stockton, 21.0 percent in San Joaquin County and California. In Stockton and San Joaquin County, this was followed by Retail Trade (12.0 percent), while the
second most common industry of employment statewide
was Professional, Scientific, and Management, and
Administrative, and Waste Management Services (14.0
percent).
Table HE-9: Top Employers in the City of
Stockton
City of Stockton, 2021
EMPLOYERS NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES
Stockton Unified School District 5,205
St. Joseph’s Medical Center 4,600
Amazon 2,100
City of Stockton 2,099
San Joaquin County 2,000
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 1,550
Lincoln Unified School Distinct 1,212
Kaiser Permanente 1,065
University of the Pacific 1,021
San Joaquin Delta College 1,007
Total 21,859
Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, City of Stockton, 2021
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1067
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-11
Table HE-10: Employment by Industry
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Jobs by Place of Employment
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and
Hunting, and Mining 5,010 3.9% 14,472 4.5% 394,290 2.1% Construction 9,207 7.1% 27,114 8.5% 1,190,537 6.4%
Manufacturing 10,425 8.1% 30,223 9.5% 1,676,497 9.0%
Wholesale Trade 3,679 2.9% 9,655 3.0% 514,234 2.8%
Retail Trade 15,650 12.1% 37,996 11.9% 1,942,421 10.4%
Transportation, Warehousing, and
Utilities 12,342 9.6% 27,176 8.5% 1,028,818 5.5%
Information 1,358 1.1% 4,015 1.3% 542,674 2.9%
Financial Activities 5,690 4.4% 14,579 4.6% 1,118,253 6.0% Professional, Scientific, and
Management, and Administrative,
and Waste Management Services
10,947 8.5% 30,877 9.7% 2,581,266 13.8%
Educational and Health Services 28,702 22.3% 65,614 20.5% 3,960,265 21.2% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation,
and Accommodation and Food
Services
11,358 8.8% 25,917 8.1% 1,894,858 10.2%
Other Services 7,090 5.5% 15,573 4.9% 952,302 5.1%
Public Administration 7,494 5.8% 16,597 5.2% 850,479 4.6% Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020) Table HE-11 illustrates average annual unemployment
rates in Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California
from January 2010 to August 2022. Throughout the
timeline, the unemployment rate in Stockton and San
Joaquin County has been consistently higher than
statewide, with Stockton’s rate slightly higher than the county’s rate. Overall, the unemployment rate in
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California steadily
decreased by an average of 8.0 percent from January
2010 to August 2022. In August 2022, 9.7 percent of
Stockton residents and San Joaquin County residents
were unemployed, which was approximately twice the
statewide unemployment rate (4.1 percent).
Table HE-11: Unemployment Rate
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, January
2010 to August 2022
YEAR STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN
COUNTY CALIFORNIA
2010 18.1% 16.9% 12.5%
2011 17.7% 16.5% 11.9%
2012 15.7% 14.6% 10.5%
2013 13.4% 12.5% 9.0%
2014 11.5% 10.7% 7.6%
2015 9.7% 8.9% 6.3%
2016 9.1% 8.2% 5.5%
2017 8.1% 7.0% 4.8%
2018 7.1% 6.1% 4.3%
2019 7.0% 6.0% 4.1%
2020 13.2% 11.6% 10.2%
2021 10.0% 8.7% 7.3%
20221 9.7% 9.7% 4.1%
Note: Rates shown are a percentage of the labor force.
1 August 2022.
Source: Employment Development Department; Unemployment Rate (2010-2021), 2022.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1068
BR-12 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
PROJECTIONS
SJCOG produces projections of population and
employment for the cities in San Joaquin County,
including Stockton. SJCOG’s most recent projections,
released in 2016, cover the period from 2020 to 2045.
Table HE-12 shows SJCOG’s population and
employment estimates using 2015 as the base year with
population and employment projections through 2045.
As shown in Table HE-12, Stockton’s population is
projected to increase at an average annual rate of 1.4
percent from 329,729 in 2020 to 463,445 in 2045 (total
increase of 40.6 percent). The report was released in
2016 and does not account for the loss of jobs from the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the report,
employment growth in Stockton is projected to occur at a lower rate than population growth. The number of jobs is projected to increase at an average rate of 1.2 percent each year from 121,350 jobs in 2020 to 158,946 in
2045 (total increase of 31.0 percent). The ratio of jobs per capita is projected to decline slightly from 0.4 jobs per person estimated in 2020 to 0.3 jobs per person
estimated in 2045.
Table HE-12: Population and Employment
Projections
Stockton, 2015 - 2045
YEAR
POPULATION EMPLOYMENT JOBS/
POPULATION
RATIO
HOUSEHOLDS AAGR JOBS AAGR
2015 309,919 - 112,225 - 0.4
2020 329,729 1.3% 121,350 1.6% 0.4
2025 352,239 1.4% 128,522 1.3% 0.4
2030 374,939 1.3% 136,280 1.2% 0.4
2035 401,961 1.4% 144,228 1.2% 0.4
2040 432,627 1.5% 151,979 1.1% 0.4
2045 463,445 1.4% 158,946 0.9% 0.3
Source: Center for Business and Policy Research 2015 to 2045 Population, Household, Employment Update, 2016.
HOUSEHOLD
CHARACTERISTICS AND
HOUSING SUPPLY
This section provides an analysis of household
characteristics and housing supply. The first section
analyzes household characteristics, such as household
population, composition, size, tenure, and overcrowding.
The second section analyzes the city’s housing inventory and supply, including a discussion of vacant units.
The US Census defines a household as consisting of all
the people who occupy a housing unit. A household
includes the related family members and all the unrelated people, if any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the housing unit. A person living
alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated people sharing a housing unit, such as partners or roomers, is also counted as a household. Data on households does
not include people living in group homes. The US Census defines group quarters as places where people live or stay in a group living arrangement that is owned or managed
by an organization providing housing and/or services for the residents. Group quarters include such places as
college residence halls, residential treatment centers, skilled nursing facilities, group homes, military barracks, prisons, and worker dormitories.
The US Census defines a family as a group of two or
more people (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together.
However, to facilitate fair housing, and remove
constraints (for example housing for people with
disabilities) under State Housing Element law, local
jurisdictions are required to define “family” in a manner that does not distinguish between related and unrelated persons and does not impose limitations on the number
of people that may constitute a family.
The US Census defines a family household as a
household maintained by a householder who is in a
family (as defined previously) and includes any unrelated people (unrelated subfamily members and/or secondary
individuals) who may be residing there. In US Census
data, the number of family households is equal to the
number of families. However, the count of family
household members differs from the count of family
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1069
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-13
members in that the family household members include
all people living in the household, whereas family
members include only the householder and his/her
relatives. In US Census data, a nonfamily household
consists of a householder living alone (a one-person
household) or where the householder shares the home
exclusively with people to whom he/she is not related.
Families often prefer single-family homes to
accommodate children, while single persons often
occupy smaller apartments or condominiums. Singleperson households often include seniors living alone or young adults.
HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
Household Population
Household population is an important measure for
establishing the number of persons residing in private
households. Persons in institutional or group quarters are not included in the count of household population.
According to the 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates (2016-
2020), as of 2020, Stockton had a total population of
319,188 comprising 95,236 households. The city had
an average of 3.20 persons per household.
Household Composition
The U.S. Census divides households into two different
categories, depending on their composition: family and
nonfamily. Family households are those consisting of two or more related persons living together and may also
include nonrelated individuals. Nonfamily households
include persons who live alone or in groups composed of unrelated individuals. As shown in Table HE-13, family
households have made up a larger share of the
population in Stockton and San Joaquin County than the
state average. In 2020, 72.5 percent of Stockton
households were family households compared to 74.7
percent countywide and 68.6 percent in the state. These proportions are very close to what they were in 2013 and 2000.
Table HE-13: Family and Nonfamily Households
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2000, 2013, and 2020
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
2000
Family Households 56,186 71.5% 134,708 74.2% 7,920,049 68.9% Nonfamily
Households 22,370 28.5% 46,921 25.8% 3,582,821 31.1%
Total Households 78,556 100.00% 181,629 100.00% 11,502,870 100.00% 2013
Family Households 66,226 73.3% 160,476 74.4% 8,603,822 68.6% Nonfamily
Households 24,146 26.7% 55,087 25.6% 3,938,638 31.4%
Total Households 90,372 100.00% 215,563 100.00% 12,542,460 100.00% 2020
Family Households 69,029 72.5% 172,583 74.7% 8,986,666 68.6% Nonfamily
Households 26,207 27.5% 58,509 25.3% 4,116,448 31.4%
Total Households 95,236 100.00% 231,092 100.00% 13,103,114 100.00% Source: 2000 U.S. Census, 2014 American Community Survey; 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Tenure
Tenure is a measure of the rates of homeownership in a
jurisdiction. Tenure for a type of unit and the number of bedrooms can help estimate demand for a diversity of
housing types. The owner versus renter distribution of a community’s housing stock influences several aspects of the local housing market. Residential stability is
influenced by tenure, with ownership housing typically
having a much lower turnover rate than rental housing.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1070
BR-14 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Home equity is the largest single source of household
wealth for most Americans. According to the National
Builders Association in 2021, on average, homeowners
had a median net worth of $255,000, which is
approximately 40 times the median net worth of renters
($6,300), which reflects the value of homeownership.
Table HE-14 shows rates of homeownership and renter
occupancy in Stockton in 2000, 2014, and 2020, and
San Joaquin County and California in 2020.
Homeownership rates in Stockton decreased from 51.6
percent in 2000 to 45.1 percent in 2014 following the
housing market crash and foreclosure crisis. Since then, it rebounded to 49.9 percent in 2020. However,
Stockton’s homeownership is lower than countywide
(57.7 percent) and statewide (55.3 percent) rates.
Table HE-14: Tenure
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2000, 2014, and 2020
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN
COUNTY CALIFORNIA
2000 2014 2020 2020 2020
NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Owner
Occupied 40,534 51.6% 42,962 45.1% 47,481 49.9% 133,381 57.7% 7,241,318 55.3% Renter
Occupied 38,022 48.4% 52,204 54.9% 47,755 50.1% 97,711 42.28% 5,861,796 44.7% Total
Units
78,556 100.0% 95,166 100.0% 95,236 100.0% 231,092 100.0% 13,103,114 100.0% Source: 2000 U.S. Census, 2014 American Community Survey; 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Overcrowding
U.S. Census Bureau standards define a housing unit as
overcrowded when the total number of occupants is
greater than one person per room, excluding kitchens,
porches, balconies, foyers, halls, half-rooms, or
bathrooms. For example, if there were more than five
people living in a home with five rooms (three bedrooms, living room, and dining room), it would be considered
overcrowded. Units with more than 1.5 persons per room
are considered severely overcrowded and should be
recognized as a significant housing problem.
Table HE-15 compares housing overcrowding data for
Stockton with data for San Joaquin County and
California. In 2020, 90.7 percent of Stockton’s
households had 1.0 or fewer persons per room with only
9.2 percent considered overcrowded or severely
overcrowded. Of all units in Stockton, 6.6 percent had
between 1.01 and 1.5 persons per room, and 2.6
percent were severely overcrowded with more than 1.51
persons per room. Overcrowding was slightly more of a
problem in Stockton in 2020 than countywide, where 5.6
percent of all households had more than 1.0 persons per room, and in California, where 8.2 percent of
households were considered overcrowded.
Overcrowding is typically more of a problem in rental
units than owner-occupied units. Only 6.0 percent of
Stockton’s owner households were overcrowded, while
12.4 percent of renter households were overcrowded in
2020. Countywide, 2.9 percent of owner households and
12.0 percent of renter households were overcrowded.
Statewide, overcrowding was also greater among renter
households (13.2 percent) compared to owner
households (4.2 percent).
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1071
EXISTING HOUSING NEEDS 2-15
Table HE-15: Overcrowding
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Owner-Occupied (persons per room)
1.0 or less 44,601 93.9% 219,709 97.1% 6,938,861 95.8%
Overcrowded 1.01 to 1.5 2,058 4.3% 4,980 2.2% 223,040 3.1% Severely Overcrowded 1.51 or more 822 1.7% 1,586 0.7% 79,417 1.1% Total 47,481 100.0% 226,275 100.0% 7,241,318 100.0%
Renter-Occupied (persons per room)
1.0 or less 41,814 87.6% 86,044 88.1% 5,088,515 86.8%
Overcrowded 1.01 to 1.5 4,270 8.9% 8,098 8.3% 457,713 7.8% Severely Overcrowded 1.51 or more 1,671 3.5% 3,569 3.7% 315,568 5.4% Total 47,755 100.0% 97,711 100.0% 5,861,796 100.0%
Total Occupied Housing Units (persons per room)
1.0 or less 86,415 90.7% 305,753 94.4% 12,027,376 91.8% Overcrowded 1.01 to 1.5 6,328 6.6% 13,078 4.0% 680,753 5.2% Severely Overcrowded 1.51 or more 2,493 2.6% 5,155 1.6% 394,985 3.0% Total 95,236 100.0% 323,986 100.0% 13,103,114 100.0%
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020) Household Size
Table HE-16 shows average household size by tenure for
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California in 2020.
Stockton had a greater percentage (21.2 percent) of
large households (five or more members) than
countywide (19.6 percent) and in California (13.8
percent). Relative to the state, Stockton and San Joaquin County had a much greater percentage of large, renteroccupied households (21.8 percent and 21.0 percent compared to 13.8).
Table HE-17 shows the number of bedrooms per housing
unit by tenure in Stockton, San Joaquin County, and
California in 2020. As shown in the table, 63.8 percent of all housing units in Stockton contained three or more bedrooms in 2020. This is slightly lower than the
percentage of units with three or more bedrooms
countywide (68.5 percent) and higher than California
(56.0 percent).
Renter-occupied units typically have a smaller number of bedrooms than owner-occupied units. This was the case
in Stockton in 2020, where 85.2 percent of owneroccupied units had three or more bedrooms, compared to only 42.5 percent of renter-occupied units. The
percentage of renter-occupied units in Stockton with three of more bedrooms was lower than the percentage
countywide (44.6 percent) but higher than California
(27.8 percent).
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1072
2-16 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Table HE-16: Household Size by Tenure
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Owner Occupied
1 Person 9,617 20.3% 24,428 18.3% 1,416,913 19.6%
2-4 Persons 28,151 59.3% 84,113 63.1% 4,822,685 66.6%
5 Persons or more 9,713 20.5% 24,840 18.6% 1,001,720 13.8% Total 47,481 100.0% 133,381 100.0% 7,241,318 100.0%
Renter Occupied
1 Persons 11,557 24.2% 22,175 22.7% 1,697,906 29.0%
2-4 Persons 25,766 54.0% 55,055 56.3% 3,356,092 57.3%
5 Persons or more 10,432 21.8% 20,481 21.0% 807,798 13.8% Total 47,755 100.0% 97,711 100.0% 5,861,796 100.0%
All Households
1 Person 21,174 22.2% 46,603 20.2% 3,114,819 23.8%
2-4 Persons 53,917 56.6% 139,168 60.2% 8,178,777 62.4%
5 Persons or more 20,145 21.2% 45,321 19.6% 1,809,518 13.8% Total 95,236 100.0% 231,092 100.0% 13,103,114 100.0%
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020) Table HE-17: Number of Bedrooms by Tenure
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Owner Occupied
No bedroom 328 0.7% 699 0.5% 50,963 0.7%
1 bedroom 388 0.8% 1,589 1.2% 173,846 2.4%
2 bedrooms 6,294 13.3% 16,453 12.3% 1,307,148 18.1%
3 bedrooms 22,332 47.0% 62,621 46.9% 3,228,533 44.6%
4 bedrooms 13,829 29.1% 40,609 30.4% 1,964,487 27.1%
5 or more bedrooms 4,310 9.1% 11,410 8.6% 516,341 7.1%
Total 47,481 100.0% 133,381 100.0% 7,241,318 100.0%
Renter Occupied
No bedroom 2,737 5.7% 4,582 4.7% 496,503 8.5%
1 bedroom 8,255 17.3% 14,839 15.2% 1,512,885 25.8%
2 bedrooms 16,491 34.5% 34,668 35.5% 2,220,822 37.9%
3 bedrooms 14,035 29.4% 30,493 31.2% 1,189,552 20.3%
4 bedrooms 5,501 11.5% 11,472 11.7% 372,132 6.3%
5 or more bedrooms 736 1.5% 1,657 1.7% 69,902 1.2%
Total 47,755 100.0% 97,711 100.0% 5,861,796 100.0%
All Occupied Housing Units
No bedroom 3,065 3.2% 5,281 2.3% 547,466 4.2%
1 bedroom 8,643 9.1% 16,428 7.1% 1,686,731 12.9%
2 bedrooms 22,785 23.9% 51,121 22.1% 3,527,970 26.9%
3 bedrooms 36,367 38.2% 93,114 40.3% 4,418,085 33.7%
4 bedrooms 19,330 20.3% 52,081 22.5% 2,336,619 17.8%
5 or more bedrooms 5,046 5.3% 13,067 5.7% 586,243 4.5%
Total 95,236 100.0% 231,092 100.0% 13,103,114 100.0%
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020) Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1073
EXISTING HOUSING NEEDS 2-17
Average household size is a function of household
population (group quarters population is not counted)
divided by the number of occupied housing units. Table
HE-18 shows the average household size for Stockton,
San Joaquin County, and California. The average
number of persons per household in Stockton increased
slightly from 3.02 in 2000 to 3.17 in 2012 to 3.20 in
2020. The average household sizes in Stockton in 2020
were similar to those countywide (3.18) during this time period, and slightly larger than the statewide average
(2.94). Both Stockton and San Joaquin County had
greater average household sizes in 2020 for owneroccupied households (3.23 and 3.18) compared to renter-occupied households (3.16 and 3.17).
Table HE-18: Average Household Size by Tenure
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2000, 2012, and 2020 TENURE
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
2000 2012 2020 2000 2012 2020 2000 2012 2020
All Households 3.02 3.17 3.20 3 3.14 3.18 2.87 2.94 2.94 Owner Occupied 3.01 3.14 3.23 2.98 3.07 3.18 2.95 2.98 3.01 Renter Occupied 3.03 3.2 3.16 3.03 3.23 3.17 2.78 2.88 2.85 Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey; 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census; 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Based on the information regarding housing units and
household sizes, Stockton has a greater need for large
housing units than the county and state. Stockton had a larger average household size, smaller housing units, and higher overcrowding rates than the county and state in
2020.
HOUSING INVENTORY AND SUPPLY
Housing Units
Table HE-19 compares housing stock data by structure
type for Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California in 2014 and 2020. The table shows the total housing stock
in each area according to the type of structures in which units are located. Single-family detached housing units accounted for the majority of housing in Stockton in
2020. At 67.1 percent of the total housing stock, singlefamily detached units in Stockton made up a much larger share of the total than in the state overall, where only
57.7 percent of all units are single-family detached units.
From 2014 to 2020, 2,649 single-family detached units
were built in Stockton, representing 3.7 percent change for all new single-family residential units constructed. The majority of new home construction occurred prior to the recession from 2000 to 2007. According to the HCD
Data Dashboard from January 1, 2016, to April 13,
2021, only 888 residential building permits were issued.
Multifamily housing complexes with five or more units
make up the next-largest segment of Stockton’s housing
stock, comprising 17.7 percent (18,043 units) of the total in 2020. Between 2014 and 2020, only 61 units were
built in multifamily complexes with five or more units.
Between 2014 and 2020, the number of mobile homes
in the city increased, and the overall share of mobile
homes as a percentage of the entire housing stock stayed the same at 1.1 percent for 2014 and 2020.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1074
BR-18 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Table HE-19: Housing Units by Type
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2014 and 2020
YEAR TOTAL
UNITS
SINGLE-FAMILY MULTIFAMILY MOBILE
HOMES
BOAT, RV,
DETACHED ATTACHED 2 TO 4 5 PLUS VAN, ETC.
Stockton
2014
# 100,025 64,841 7,058 9,036 17,982 1,108 -
% 100.0% 64.8% 7.1% 9.0% 18.0% 1.1% -
2020
# 101,954 68,412 6,136 8,180 18,043 1,161 22
% 100.0% 67.1% 6.0% 8.0% 17.7% 1.1% 0.0%
San Joaquin County
2014
# 236,943 179,059 12,279 14,862 29,158 8,585 -
% 100.0% 72.6% 5.2% 6.3% 12.3% 3.6% -
2020
# 245,192 181,875 10,990 14,045 30,024 8,074 184
% 100.0% 74.2% 4.5% 5.7% 12.2% 3.3% 0.1%
California
2014
# 13,845,281 8,038,217 972,976 1,119,175 3,154,907 560,000 - % 100.0% 58.1% 7.0% 8.1% 22.8% 4.0% -
2020
# 14,210,945 8,206,621 1,009,488 1,113,840 3,350,125 515,666 15,205 % 100.0% 57.7% 7.1% 7.8% 23.6% 3.6% 0.1%
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020) Occupancy/Vacancy Rates
Table HE-20 shows the occupancy and vacancy rates for
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California in 2000,
2010, and 2020. Stockton and San Joaquin County had
lower vacancy rates than the state average in 2000 until 2010, when all three jurisdictions increased to the 8 to 9 percent range. In 2020, the vacancy rates resumed the
vacancy trends, with the city and county having lower
rates than the state average.
Table HE-20: Occupancy/Vacancy
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2000, 2010, and 2020 2000 2010 2020
NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Stockton
Occupied Units 78,522 95.60% 90,605 90.90% 99,084 95.90% Vacant Units 3,603 4.4% 9,032 9.1% 4,234 4.1%
Total Housing Units 82,125 100.0% 99,637 100.0% 103,318 100.0% San Joaquin County
Occupied Units 181,629 96.00% 215,007 92.00% 247,542 95.74% Vacant Units 7,531 4.0% 18,748 8.0% 11,024 4.3%
Total Housing Units 189,160 100.0% 233,755 100.0% 258,566 100.0% California
Occupied Units 11,502,870 94.20% 12,577,498 91.90% 13,612,650 93.34% Vacant Units 711,679 5.8% 1,102,583 8.1% 971,348 6.7%
Total Housing Units 12,214,549 100.0% 13,680,081 100.0% 14,583,998 100.0% Source: Department of Finance, E5, 2021-2022.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1075
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-19
Table HE-21 provides details on the vacancy rates of
different housing types for Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California in 2020.
Table HE-21: Vacant Units by Type
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
VACANCY STATUS
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
For rent 2,455 2.6% 3,792 1.6% 227,993 1.7%
For sale only 411 0.4% 1,161 0.5% 77,702 0.6%
Sold, not occupied 380 0.4% 1,219 0.5% 53,437 0.4%
Rented or sold; not
occupied 350 0.4% 741 0.3% 54,898 0.4%
For seasonal, recreational,
or occasional use 455 0.5% 1,535 0.7% 378,023 2.9%
For migrant workers 0 0.0% 117 0.1% 3,326 0.0%
Other vacant 2,667 2.8% 5,535 2.4% 312,452 2.4%
Total Vacant 6,718 7.1% 14,100 6.1% 1,107,831 8.5%
Total Units 95,236 100.0% 231,092 100.0% 13,103,114 100.0% Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020) Housing Conditions
The U.S. Census provides limited data that can be used
to infer the condition of Stockton’s housing stock. For example, the Census reports on whether housing units
have complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. A very
small percentage of all housing units in Stockton lack
complete plumbing or kitchen facilities (see Table HE22), although a greater percentage of renter-occupied housing units lack these facilities compared to owneroccupied housing units.
Since housing stock age and condition are generally
correlated, one Census variable that provides an
indication of housing conditions is the age of a
community’s housing stock. As shown in Table HE-22,
approximately two-thirds of Stockton’s homes were built over 30 years ago. As of 2020, about 1.9 percent of
Stockton’s housing stock was built after 2010 and
another 17.4 percent of the housing stock was built
between 2000 and 2009.
Table HE-22 also shows the number and percentage of
units lacking complete plumbing facilities and units
lacking complete kitchen facilities. These rates were
similar in Stockton as compared with San Joaquin County and California. In all three locations, rental units were more likely to lack complete plumbing or kitchen
facilities, as compared with ownership units. This trend points to the need for home improvement programs
focused on rental properties.
Based on an early 2023 survey of former redevelopment
areas and opportunity zones, the City estimates that
approximately 2,900 (or 4%) of homes are blighted and
in need replacement citywide.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1076
BR-20 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Table HE-22: Age of Housing Stock and Housing Stock Conditions by Tenure Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Owner-Occupied Housing Units
Built 2010 or later 974 2.1% 8,442 6.3% 272,900 3.8%
Built 2000 to 2009 11,499 24.2% 31,320 23.5% 924,495 12.8% Built 1990 to 1999 7,461 15.7% 21,185 15.9% 811,147 11.2% Built 1980 to 1989 6,335 13.3% 19,343 14.5% 1,068,601 14.8% Built 1970 to 1979 7,610 16.0% 17,051 12.8% 1,175,870 16.2% Built 1960 to 1969 3,520 7.4% 10,408 7.8% 906,490 12.5% Built 1950 to 1959 3,966 8.4% 11,995 9.0% 1,077,380 14.9% Built 1940 to 1949 2,743 5.8% 6,315 4.7% 430,809 5.9%
Built 1939 or earlier 3,373 7.1% 7,322 5.5% 573,626 7.9% Total 47,481 100.0% 133,381 100.0% 7,241,318 100.0%
Units Lacking Complete Plumbing
Facilities 74 0.2% 342 0.3% 17,434 0.2%
Units Lacking Complete Kitchen
Facilities 135 0.3% 658 0.5% 36,908 0.5%
Renter-Occupied Housing Units
Built 2010 or later 858 1.8% 3,374 3.5% 256,413 4.4%
Built 2000 to 2009 5,082 10.6% 12,571 12.9% 508,460 8.7% Built 1990 to 1999 5,787 12.1% 12,027 12.3% 637,220 10.9% Built 1980 to 1989 7,231 15.1% 15,380 15.7% 898,705 15.3% Built 1970 to 1979 10,368 21.7% 18,071 18.5% 1,114,211 19.0% Built 1960 to 1969 5,767 12.1% 11,573 11.8% 834,432 14.2% Built 1950 to 1959 5,008 10.5% 10,681 10.9% 689,973 11.8% Built 1940 to 1949 3,357 7.0% 5,964 6.1% 332,220 5.7%
Built 1939 or earlier 4,297 9.0% 8,070 8.3% 590,162 10.1% Total 47,755 100.0% 97,711 100.0% 5,861,796 100.0%
Units Lacking Complete Plumbing
Facilities 323 0.7% 467 1.0% 23,476 0.4%
Units Lacking Complete Kitchen
Facilities 1,012 2.1% 1,905 4.0% 128,184 2.2%
Total Occupied Housing Units
Built 2010 or later 1,832 1.9% 11,816 5.1% 529,313 4.8% Built 2000 to 2009 16,581 17.4% 43,891 19.0% 1,432,955 12.9% Built 1990 to 1999 13,248 13.9% 33,212 14.4% 1,448,367 13.1% Built 1980 to 1989 13,566 14.2% 34,723 15.0% 1,068,601 9.6% Built 1970 to 1979 17,978 18.9% 35,122 15.2% 1,175,870 10.6% Built 1960 to 1969 9,287 9.8% 21,981 9.5% 1,740,922 15.7% Built 1950 to 1959 8,974 9.4% 22,676 9.8% 1,767,353 15.9% Built 1940 to 1949 6,100 6.4% 12,279 5.3% 763,029 6.9%
Built 1939 or earlier 7,670 8.1% 15,392 6.7% 1,163,788 10.5% Total 95,236 100.0% 231,092 100.0% 11,090,198 100.0%
Units Lacking Complete Plumbing
Facilities 397 0.4% 809 0.4% 40,910 0.4%
Units Lacking Complete Kitchen
Facilities 1,147 1.2% 2,563 1.1% 165,092 1.5%
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020) Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1077
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-21
The Neighborhood Services Section of the Police
Department enforces codes, laws, and regulations for the abatement of substandard housing conditions and blight
issues. Code enforcement statistics from the
Neighborhood Services Section provide a sense of the
number of units that may need renovation, rehabilitation, or replacement in the city. As shown in Table HE-23, the Neighborhood Services Division processed 234,924
housing code enforcement cases over the past 17 years
at an average of about 14,683 cases each year. The
most common housing violations are deferred
maintenance issues like plumbing leaks,
worn/deteriorated materials, and lack of weather
protection. Others include structural problems, raw
sewage, exposed wiring, and other exterior housing
problems. The majority of housing cases usually take a
minimum of 45 days to resolve depending on the amount
and severity of the violations.
Table HE-23: Code Enforcement Cases
Stockton, Fiscal Year 2005/06-2021/22
FISCAL YEAR NUMBER OF CASES*
2005/06 13,866
2006/07 17,291
2007/08 19,522
2008/09 13,841
2009/10 12,703
2010/11 10,502
2011/12 10,102
2012/13 11,664
2013/14 14,190
2014/15 11,775
2015/16 13,138
2016/17 13,508
2017/18 16,285
2018/19 19,646
2019/20 12,320
2020/21 10,990
2021/22 13,581
Total 234,924
Note: *Includes addresses with graffiti consent forms on file Source: Police Department, Neighborhood Services Division, November 2022.
1 Statutory adjustments now include upper and lower caps for areas with low or high ratios of housing costs to income and, for each non-metropolitan county, a lower cap equal to its state’s non-metropolitan average. Estimates of the median family income and the official income cutoffs for each metropolitan area and non-metropolitan county are based on the most recent Decennial Census results and updated each year by HUD. Each base income cutoff is assumed to apply to a household of four, and official cutoffs are further adjusted by household size.
Housing Affordability
Housing is classified as “affordable” if households do not pay more than 30 percent of income for payment of rent
(including a monthly allowance for water, gas, and
electricity) or monthly homeownership costs (including
mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance). State law
(California Government Code Section 65583(a)(2))
requires “an analysis and documentation of household
characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including
overcrowding, and housing stock condition.” Identifying and evaluating existing housing needs are a critical
component of the housing element. This requires
comparison of resident incomes with the local cost of
housing. The analysis helps local governments identify
existing housing conditions that require addressing and households with housing cost burdens or unmet housing
needs. This section includes an analysis of housing cost burden, ability to pay for housing, and the cost of
housing.
The data in this section uses HUD’s Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) database. Income
groups are shown in the CHAS tabulation based on the
HUD-adjusted area median family income (AMI).
Housing Cost Burdens
This section provides an analysis of the proportion of
households “overpaying for housing.” An “excessive cost burden” is defined by HUD as gross housing costs
exceeding 30 percent of gross monthly income. A “severe cost burden” is defined as gross housing costs exceeding 50 percent of gross monthly income.
Income groups are based on the HUD-adjusted AMI. The
AMI is based on the Stockton Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA), encompassing all of San Joaquin County. In
1974, Congress defined “low income” and “very low
income” for HUD rental programs as incomes not
exceeding 80 and 50 percent, respectively, of the AMI,
as adjusted by HUD.1
Table HE-24 shows the CHAS special tabulation data
from the 2014-2018 ACS regarding the percentage of
households with an excessive housing cost burden
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1078
BR-22 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
(greater than 30 percent) and severe cost burden (greater than 50 percent) by income group and tenure for
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California.
As shown in Table HE-24, 41.8 percent of all households in Stockton had an excessive housing cost burden in
2018. This rate is slightly higher than countywide (37.2 percent) and in California (39.5 percent). In Stockton,
21.0 percent of households had a severe housing cost
burden in 2018 compared to 17.5 percent and 19.0
percent for San Joaquin County and California,
respectively. As would be expected, housing cost burdens were more severe for households with lower incomes.
Among lower-income households in Stockton (incomes
less than or equal to 80 percent of the AMI), 75.0 percent of households had an excessive housing cost burden in
2018 compared to 15.8 percent of non-lower-income
households. This rate of housing cost burden for lowerincome households is slightly higher in Stockton than in San Joaquin County (72.0 percent) and California (70.0
percent). This data points to the need for more affordable housing units in Stockton to meet the needs of lowerincome households.
Rates of housing cost burden were greater among lowincome renter households than among low-income owner households for Stockton, San Joaquin County, and
California. However, for non-lower-income renter
households, rates of housing cost burden were lower than those of non-lower-income owner-occupied households.
This trend was common across the city, county, and state.
In Stockton, 79.4 percent of low-income renter
households paid 30 percent or more of their monthly
incomes for housing costs in 2018, compared to 63.5
percent of low-income owner households. Among
moderate- and above moderate-income households, the
percentage of owner households with excessive housing
cost burdens was slightly higher than renter households (15.8 percent compared to 15.7 percent).
Table HE-24: Housing Cost Burden by Household Income Classification Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2014-2018
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
OWNERS RENTERS TOTAL OWNERS RENTERS TOTAL OWNERS RENTERS TOTAL Household Income <= 80% MFI (Low-Income Households)
Total Households 11,510 30,315 41,825 28,970 54,595 83,565 2,008,045 3,387,335 5,395,380 Cost
Burdened
>30%
Number 7,305 24,080 31,385 17,935 42,250 60,185 1,222,400 2,556,085 3,778,485 Percent 63.5% 79.4% 75.0% 61.9% 77.4% 72.0% 60.9% 75.5% 70.0% Severely
Cost
Burdened
>50%
Number 4,705 14,105 18,810 11,395 24,815 36,210 761,685 1,510,795 2,272,480 Percent 40.9% 46.5% 45.0% 39.3% 45.5% 43.3% 37.9% 44.6% 42.1% Household Income > 80% MFI (Moderate- and Above Moderate-Income Households) Total Households 33,720 19,645 53,365 97,130 46,035 143,165 5,077,390 2,492,665 7,570,055 Cost
Burdened
>30%
Number 5,325 3,090 8,415 15,995 8,195 24,190 916,480 419,965 1,336,445 Percent 15.8% 15.7% 15.8% 16.5% 17.8% 16.9% 18.1% 16.8% 17.65% Severely
Cost
Burdened
>50%
Number 920 265 1,185 2,615 835 3,450 161,640 34,230 195,870 Percent 2.7% 1.3% 2.2% 2.7% 1.8% 2.4% 3.2% 1.4% 2.6%
Total Households
Total Households 45,230 49,960 95,190 126,100 100,630 226,730 7,085,435 5,880,000 12,965,435 Cost
Burdened
>30%
Number 12,630 27,170 39,800 33,930 50,445 84,375 2,138,880 2,976,050 5,114,930 Percent 27.9% 54.4% 41.8% 26.9% 50.1% 37.2% 30.2% 50.6% 39.5% Severely
Cost
Burdened
>50%
Number 5,625 14,370 19,995 14,010 25,650 39,660 923,325 1,545,025 2,468,350 Percent 12.4% 28.8% 21.0% 11.1% 25.5% 17.5% 13.0% 26.3% 19.0% Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- CHAS (2014-2018).
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1079
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-23
Housing Cost and Affordability
Housing affordability can be inferred by comparing the
cost of renting or owning a home in Stockton with the
presumed maximum affordable housing costs for
households at different income levels. This information can provide a picture of who can afford what size and
type of housing. It can also indicate the type of
households that would likely experience overcrowding or overpayment.
Housing affordability is based on AMI. According to
HCD, the AMI for a four-person household in the San
Joaquin County was $85,000 in 2022. Income limits for
larger or smaller households were higher or lower,
respectively, and are calculated using a formula
developed by HCD (see Table HE-25).
The following section compares the cost limits for
affordable owner and rental housing by income limit as
defined by the California Health and Safety Code.2The
State income limits are used in affordable housing
programs and projects. Because above moderateincome households do not generally have problems locating affordable units, affordable housing is usually defined as units that are reasonably priced for low- and moderate-income households. The following list shows
the definition of housing income limits.
• Extremely Low-Income Household is one whose
combined income is between the floor set at the
minimum Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
and 30 percent of the AMI. A household of four
is considered to be extremely low-income in
Stockton if its combined income is $27,750 or
less for the year 2022.
• Very Low-Income Household is one whose
combined income is at or between 31 and 50
percent of the AMI. A household of four is
considered to be very low-income in Stockton if
its combined income is between $27,751 and
$41,400 for the year 2022.
• Low-Income Household is one whose combined
income is at or between 50 and 80 percent of
the AMI. A household of four is considered to be
low-income in Stockton if its combined income is
between $41,401 and $62,200 for the year
2022.
• Moderate-Income Household is one whose
combined income is at or between 81 and 120
percent of the AMI. A household of four is
considered to be moderate-income in Stockton if
its combined income is between $62,201 and
$102,000 for the year 2022.
• Above Moderate-Income Household is one that
whose combined income is above 120 percent
of the AMI. A household of four is considered to
be above moderate-income in Stockton if its
combined income exceeds $102,001 for the
year 2022.
Table HE-25: HCD Household Income Limits
San Joaquin County, 2022
INCOME CATEGORIES
PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD
1 2 3 4 5
Acutely Low (>30%) $8,950 $10,200 $11,500 $12,750 $13,750 Extremely Low-Income (30%) $17,400 $19,900 $23,030 $27,750 $32,470 Very Low-Income (50%) $29,000 $33,150 $37,300 $41,400 $44,750 Low-Income (80%) $46,350 $53,000 $59,600 $66,200 $71,500 Median-Income (100%) $59,500 $68,000 $76,500 $85,000 $91,800 Moderate-Income (120%) $71,400 $81,600 $91,800 $102,000 $110,150 Source: HCD Memorandum: May 13, 2022, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/grants-and-funding/inc2k22.pdf 2 Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5 establishes affordable housing cost, and Section 50053 establishes affordable rents.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1080
BR-24 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Table HE-26 shows the 2022 HCD-defined household
income limits for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and
moderate-income households in the Stockton MSA by the
number of persons in the household. It also shows
maximum affordable monthly rents and maximum
affordable purchase prices for homes. For example, a
three-person household was classified as low-income (80 percent of median) with an annual income of up to
$59,600 in 2022. A household with this income could
afford to pay a monthly gross rent (not including utilities) of up to $1,490 or could afford to purchase a house
priced at or below $243,455.
Table HE-26: Ability to Pay for Housing based on HCD Income Limits1 San Joaquin County, 2022
NUMBER OF PERSONS 1 2 3 4 5
Extremely Low-Income Households at 30% of 2022 Area Median Income Income Level $17,400 $19,900 $23,030 $27,750 $32,470
Max. Monthly Gross Rent 2 $435 $498 $576 $694 $812
Max. Purchase Price 3 $71,076 $81,288 $94,073 $113,354 $132,634 Very Low-Income Households at 50% of 2022 Area Median Income Income Level $29,000 $33,150 $37,300 $41,400 $44,750
Max. Monthly Gross Rent 2 $725 $829 $933 $1,035 $1,119
Max. Purchase Price 3 $118,460 $135,412 $152,364 $169,111 $182,795 Low-Income Households at 80% of 2022 Area Median Income Income Level $46,350 $53,000 $59,600 $66,200 $71,500
Max. Monthly Gross Rent 2 $1,159 $1,325 $1,490 $1,655 $1,788 Max. Purchase Price 3 $189,331 $216,495 $243,455 $270,415 $292,064 Median-Income Households at 100% of 2022 Area Median Income Income Level $59,500 $68,000 $76,500 $85,000 $91,800
Max. Monthly Gross Rent 2 $1,488 $1,700 $1,913 $2,125 $2,295 Max. Purchase Price 3 $243,046 $277,767 $312,488 $347,209 $374,986 Moderate-Income Households at 120% of 2022 Area Median Income Income Level $71,400 $81,600 $91,800 $102,000 $110,150
Max. Monthly Gross Rent 2 $1,785 $2,040 $2,295 $2,550 $2,754 Max. Purchase Price 3 $291,656 $333,321 $374,986 $416,651 $449,942 1 Incomes based on HCD’s 2022 San Joaquin County Median Family Income for four persons: $85,000. 2 Assumes that 30 percent of income is available for either: monthly rent, including utilities; or mortgage payment, taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners’ insurance.
3 Affordability estimates do not include utility costs.
Notes: Total affordable mortgage based on a 5 percent down payment, an annual 6.25 percent interest rate, 30-year mortgage, and monthly payment equal to 30 percent of income.
Source: HCD Memorandum: May 13, 2022, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/grants-and-funding/inc2k22.pdf Table HE-27 shows HUD-defined fair market rent levels
(FMR) for the Stockton MSA for 2022. In general, the
FMR for an area is the amount that would be needed to
pay the gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of privately owned, decent, safe, and sanitary rental housing of a
modest (non-luxury) nature with suitable amenities. FMRs are housing market-wide estimates of rents that provide opportunities to rent standard quality housing throughout the geographic area in which rental housing units are in competition. The rents are drawn from the distribution of rents of all units that are occupied by recent movers.
Adjustments are made to exclude public housing units,
newly built units, and substandard units.
HUD uses FMRs for a variety of purposes: FMRs
determine the eligibility of rental housing units for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments program; Section
8 Rental Certificate program participants cannot rent
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1081
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-25
units whose rents exceed the FMRs; and FMRs also serve
as the payment standard used to calculate subsidies
under the Rental Voucher program.
Comparing the current FMR levels to Table HE-27, a
three-person household classified as low-income
(between 51 and 80 percent of median) with an annual
income of up to $59,600 could afford to pay $1,490
monthly gross rent (not including utilities). The 2022 FMR for a two-bedroom unit is $1,137 which is affordable to the household, assuming such a unit was available in
Stockton. However, a three-person very low-income
household ($37,300) could afford to pay only $933,
which is below the 2022 FMR amount.
Since the FMR levels apply to the entire Stockton MSA
(i.e., San Joaquin County) residents of communities with higher rental rates are likely to find that there is a limited supply of rental units at the regional FMR levels. The lack of affordability would be even worse for the very lowincome household mentioned previously if the household has to spend more than the FMR amount to rent a unit in Stockton.
Table HE-27: HUD Fair Market Rent
Stockton MSA, 2022
BEDROOMS IN UNIT 2020 FMR
Studio $899
1 Bedroom $904
2 Bedrooms $1,137
3 Bedrooms $1,607
4 Bedrooms $1,847
Source: U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) User Data: 2022 FY FMR Geography Summary for San Joaquin County, California, 2022
Housing Values and Median Sales Price
Table HE-28 shows the median home values according
to 2016-2020 ACS, adjusted for inflation. The median
home value in Stockton was lower than the county and
state. The median home value in Stockton was 81.1
percent of the San Joaquin County median home value,
and 55.4 percent of the state median home value.
Table HE-29 shows the median home value in Stockton
in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020. The median
home value in Stockton increased most dramatically
between 1980 and 1990 (92.3 percent and between
2000 and 2010 (135.4 percent). In contrast, median
home value grew more slowly between 1990 and 2000
(10.1 percent) and between 2010 and 2020 (7.8
percent).
According to Redfin, as of November 2022, the median
sales price in Stockton was $420,000 for all home types.
Rental Costs
Table HE-30 contains data on an apartment rental survey conducted in October 2022 provided by Zillow. The
average rent for a three-bedroom, the most common unit
size in Stockton according to the rent survey, requires an annual household income of approximately $102,000 to
cover the $2,357 monthly rent. Based on the HCD
income limits, the average apartment is affordable to a moderate-income household of four or five persons (120
percent of the AMI).
Table HE-28: Median Home Value
CITY OF
STOCKTON
SAN JOAQUIN
COUNTY
CITY % OF
COUNTY CALIFORNIA CITY % OF STATE
Median Value
(Dollars) $298,200 $367,900 81.1% $538,500 55.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2016-2020 (5-year Estimates), Table B25077 Table HE-29: Median Housing Value Over Time (Owner-Occupied) 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Median Value (Dollars) of
Owner Occupied Homes $55,500 $106,700 $117,500 $276,600 $298,200 Percentage Change 92.3% 10.1% 135.4% 7.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980(ORG STF1), 1990(STF3), 2000(SF3); ACS 2006-2010, 2016-2020 (5-year Estimates), Table B25077 Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1082
BR-26 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Additionally, Zillow provides data on average median
rent for all home types. According to Zillow, the median rent for apartments and condos in the rental market in
Stockton is $1,483 with 97 available rentals as of
October 12, 2022. The price range for apartments is
between $1, 850 and $2,437. Stockton’s median rent
was 26.0 percent lower than the median rent in the
neighboring city of Lodi. The data demonstrates that
Stockton may have units affordable to lower-income
households; however, may need more rental housing,
particularly housing affordable to extremely low-income and very low-income households.
Table HE-30: Average Rental Rates
Stockton, October 2022
UNIT SIZE 2022
Studio $1,183
1-Bedroom $1,338
2-Bedroom $1,615
3-Bedroom $2,357
4- Bedroom $2,624
Average $1,823
Source: Zillow, October 2022.
SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
Within the general population of Stockton, there are
several groups of people who have special housing
needs. These needs can make it difficult for members of these groups to locate suitable housing. The following
subsections discuss the special housing needs of six
groups identified in State housing element law: the
elderly; persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. In addition to these six
groups, the section also discusses the housing needs of extremely low-income households and persons living with AIDS and related diseases. Where possible, estimates of the population or number of households in Stockton
belonging to each group are shown.
SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS
Seniors are defined as persons 65 years and older, while senior households are those households headed by a
person 65 years and older. Seniors often face unique
housing problems. While many may own their homes
outright, fixed retirement incomes may not always be
adequate to cover rising utility rates and insurance. Also, many elderly homeowners do not have sufficient savings
to finance the necessary repair costs. This is a situation commonly described as “house-rich and cash-poor.”
Table HE-31 shows information on the number of
seniors, the number of senior households, and senior
households by housing tenure in Stockton, San Joaquin
County, and California in 2020. Seniors represented 6.6 percent of the population in Stockton in 2020, compared to 6.9 percent of the population countywide, and 8.1
percent of the population in California. Because of
smaller household sizes, senior households as a
percentage of all households, is higher. Senior
households represented 21.6 percent of all households
in Stockton, 22.5 percent countywide, and 24.4 percent
in California. Senior households have a high
homeownership rate; 68.0 percent of senior households
in Stockton, 74.4 percent of senior households in San
Joaquin County, and 73.2 percent of senior households
in California were owner-occupied in 2020. Senior
households represented 29.5 percent of all owneroccupied households in Stockton and 13.8 percent of all renter households.
While some seniors may prefer to live in single-family
detached homes, others desire a smaller, more
affordable home with less upkeep, such as condos,
townhouses, apartments, or mobile homes. In general,
most senior households consist of a single elderly person living alone, or a couple. Housing developments for
senior households should contain greater proportions of smaller housing units than projects intended for the
general population.
Some seniors have the physical and financial ability to continue driving well into their retirement; however, those who cannot or choose not to drive must rely on alternative forms of transportation. This includes not only bus routes, rail lines, and ride-sharing programs, but also safe,
walkable neighborhoods. To accommodate transit
access in senior housing, it must be located near transit centers, and in neighborhoods that cater to pedestrians by providing well-lit, wide, shaded sidewalks, clearly
marked crosswalks, and longer walk signals at
intersections.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1083
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-27
Table HE-31: Senior Populations and Households
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Population
TOTAL POPULATION 311,103 - 751,615 - 39,346,023 -
Total Persons 65 years and older 20,606 6.6% 51,927 6.9% 3,198,850 8.1% Households
TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 95,236 100.0% 231,092 100.0% 13,103,114 100.0% Owner 47,481 49.9% 133,381 57.7% 7,241,318 55.3%
Renter 47,755 50.1% 97,711 42.3% 5,861,796 44.7%
Senior-Headed Households 20,606 100.0% 51,927 100.0% 3,198,850 100.0% Owner 14,012 68.0% 38,627 74.4% 2,340,689 73.2%
Renter 6,594 32.0% 13,300 25.6% 858,161 26.8%
Seniors as % of all Households - 21.6% - 22.5% - 24.4%
% of Owner households
- 29.5% - 29.0% - 32.3%
headed by a senior
% of Renter households
- 13.8% - 13.6% - 14.6%
headed by a senior
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020) As shown in Table HE-32, senior households tend to have lower incomes, as compared with all households
throughout California, including in San Joaquin County
and Stockton. Senior households earning less than
$25,000 comprise 29.6 percent of all households in
Stockton, 26.3 percent of all households countywide,
and 24.0 percent of all households statewide.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1084
BR-28 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Table HE-32: Senior Household Income Distribution
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
INCOME
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS ALL HOUSEHOLDS SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS ALL HOUSEHOLDS SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS ALL HOUSEHOLDS
NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE Less than
$25,000 6,102 29.6% 19,539 20.5% 13,667 26.3% 38,609 16.7% 767,317 24.0% 2,031,760 15.5% $25,000-
$39,999 3,259 15.8% 13,928 14.6% 7,516 14.5% 28,083 12.2% 436,153 13.6% 1,369,810 10.5% $40,000-
$59,999 3,133 15.2% 15,467 16.2% 8,868 17.1% 34,620 15.0% 456,669 14.3% 1,720,812 13.1% $60,000-
$99,999 3,947 19.2% 21,835 22.9% 10,525 20.3% 53,415 23.1% 635,254 19.9% 2,779,019 21.2% $100,000
or more
4,165 20.2% 24,467 25.7% 11,351 21.9% 76,365 33.0% 903,457 28.2% 5,201,713 39.7% Total 20,606 100.0% 95,236 100% 51,927 100.0% 231,092 100% 3,198,85
0 100.0% 13,103,114 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B19037 Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1085
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-29
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Table HE-33 shows information from the 2020 ACS 5-
Year Estimates (2016-2020) on the disability status and types of disabilities by age group for persons five years and older in Stockton, San Joaquin County, and
California. As shown in the table, 14.6 percent of the
total population in Stockton five years and older had one or more disabilities in 2020, compared 13.3 percent
countywide, and 8.0 percent in California. In terms of the three age groups shown in the table, 5.3 percent of the city’s population 5 to 17 years of age, 12.5 percent of the population 18 to 64 years of age, and 40.7 percent
of seniors (65 years and older) had one or more
disabilities in 2020. The percentage of individuals with a disability is higher for all three age groups in Stockton compared to San Joaquin County and California.
Table HE-33 also provides information on the nature of
these disabilities. The total number of disabilities shown for all age groups in Stockton (85,544) exceeds the
number of persons with disabilities (41,707) because a
person can have more than one disability. Among
school-age children, the most frequent disability was
cognitive (48.6 percent). For persons ages 18 to 64
years, the most frequent disabilities were ambulatory
(27.4 percent), cognitive (23.2 percent), and
independent living (20.8 percent). Finally, for seniors, ambulatory and independent living disabilities were the most frequent (29.2 and 21.6 percent, respectively).
Table HE-33: Disability Status and Types of Disabilities by Age Group, Persons Five Years and Older
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Population 5 to 17 years
Persons age 5 to 17 years 63,462 - 150,947 - 6,534,036
Persons age 5 to 17 years with a
disability 3,377 5.3% 6,768 4.5% 289,883 4.4%
Total disabilities tallied 4,628 100.00% 9,008 100.0% 407,003 100.0% Hearing 343 7.4% 582 6.5% 33,872 8.3%
Vision 555 12.0% 925 10.3% 51,363 12.6%
Cognitive 2,250 48.6% 4,823 53.5% 215,338 52.9%
Ambulatory 597 12.9% 1,024 11.4% 35,249 8.7%
Self-Care 883 19.1% 1,654 18.4% 71,181 17.5%
Population 18 to 64 years
Persons age 18 to 64 years 185,547 - 444,781 - 27,586,271 Persons age 18 to 64 years with
a disability 23,155 12.5% 48,181 10.8% 1,944,580 7.0%
Total disabilities tallied 44,809 100.0% 90,284 100.0% 3,525,445 100.0% Hearing 3,348 7.5% 8,351 9.2% 356,388 10.1%
Vision 4,879 10.9% 9,751 10.8% 374,002 10.6%
Cognitive 10,398 23.2% 20,549 22.8% 844,846 24.0%
Ambulatory 12,287 27.4% 23,972 26.6% 855,712 24.3%
Self-Care 4,581 10.2% 8,956 9.9% 360,887 10.2%
Independent Living 9,316 20.8% 18,705 20.7% 733,610 20.8% Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1086
BR-30 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Population 65 years and over
Persons 65 years and over 37,277 - 92,839 - 5,548,424 - Persons 65 years and over with
a disability 15,175 40.7% 36,490 39.3% 920,600 16.6%
Total disabilities tallied 36,107 100.0% 82,261 100.0% 4,294,971 100.0% Hearing 5,663 15.7% 14,391 17.5% 744,976 17.3%
Vision 3,235 9.0% 6,628 8.1% 343,295 8.0%
Cognitive 4,899 13.6% 9,967 12.1% 525,785 12.2%
Ambulatory 10,558 29.2% 25,007 30.4% 1,227,804 28.6%
Self-Care 3,943 10.9% 9,289 11.3% 532,511 12.4%
Independent Living 7,809 21.6% 16,979 20.6% 920,600 21.4% Total Population 5 years and over
Persons 5 years and over 286,286 - 688,567 - 39,668,731 - Persons 5 years and over with a
disability 41,707 14.6% 91,439 13.3% 3,155,063 8.0%
Total disabilities tallied 85,544 100.0% 181,553 100.9% 8,298,600 100.0% Hearing 9,354 10.9% 23,324 12.8% 1,135,236 13.7%
Vision 8,669 10.1% 17,304 9.5% 768,660 9.3%
Cognitive 17,547 20.5% 35,339 19.5% 1,585,969 19.1%
Ambulatory 23,442 27.4% 50,003 27.5% 2,118,765 25.5%
Self-Care 9,407 11.0% 19,899 11.0% 964,579 11.6%
Independent Living 17,125 20.0% 37,338 20.6% 1,725,391 20.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020).
Persons with disabilities in Stockton have different
housing needs depending on the nature and severity of
the disability. Physically disabled persons generally
require modifications to their homes such as wheelchair ramps, elevators, wide doorways, and modified fixtures
and appliances. If a disability prevents a person from
driving, then access to public transportation is particularly important. If a disability prevents an individual from
working or limits income, then the cost of housing and
the costs of modifications are likely to be even more
challenging. Those individuals with severe physical or
mental disabilities may also require supportive housing, nursing facilities, or care facilities. In addition, many persons with disabilities rely solely on Social Security Income, which is insufficient for market-rate housing.
The City of Stockton has adopted the 2022 California
Existing Building Code, including Title 24 regulations
dealing with accessibility for persons with disabilities.
Newer housing shall meet minimum standards for access
for persons with disabilities. One of the key needs for persons with disabilities is assistance in retrofitting older homes.
Persons with Developmental Disabilities
According to Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, “developmental disability” means a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual.
It includes intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy,
epilepsy, and autism. This term also includes disabling conditions found to be closely related to intellectual
disability or to require treatment similar to that required for individuals with intellectual disabilities but does not include other conditions that are solely physical in nature.
Many developmentally disabled persons can live and
work independently within a conventional housing
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1087
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-31
environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided.
The most severely affected individuals may require an
institutional environment where medical attention and
physical therapy are provided. Because developmental
disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is
the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult. As described above, people living with a developmental
disability can live in various types of housing, and often face a lack of truly integrated, community-based options.
Such options include:
• Rent-subsidized affordable housing, with services
if necessary, accessible, close to transit and
community.
• Housing Choice Voucher with housing
navigation supports. Few regional centers
contract with housing navigators – but people
with specialized training to help place individuals
in housing can be critical.
Overall, individuals with developmental disabilities
should have choice to live in the most integrated, nonsegregated settings possible. While substantially less preferable, the following may also be appropriate:
Licensed and unlicensed modified single Family homes
or housing specially modified for the medically fragile (SB 962 Homes).
According to the California Department of
Developmental Services, as of April 2022, the Valley
Mountain Regional Center served 16,443 residents with
developmental disabilities in the region and 5,387
residents in Stockton. Of the total in the region, 54.7 percent of disabled persons are under the age of 18, and
45.3 percent are 18 or older (Table HE-34). A significant number of developmentally disabled Stockton residents
receiving services from the Valley Mountain Regional
Center lived in group home facilities (10.2 percent of
adults). Most developmentally disabled individuals lived at home (76.8 percent). Many developmentally disabled
persons are able to live and work independently.
However, more severely disabled individuals require a
group living environment with supervision, or an
institutional environment with medical attention and
physical therapy. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first housing issue for the
developmentally disabled is the transition from living with a parent/guardian as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.
Table HE-34: Developmental Disability by
Age Group
Stockton1, April 2022
AGE GROUP NUMBER PERCENTAGE
00-17 years 2,946 54.7%
18 years 2441 45.3%
Total 5,387 100.00%
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, April 2022.
LARGE FAMILIES/HOUSEHOLDS
HUD defines a large household or family as consisting of five or more members. The most critical housing need of large families is access to larger housing units with more bedrooms than a standard two- or three-bedroom
dwelling. Multifamily rental housing units typically provide one or two bedrooms and not the three or more
bedrooms that are required by large families. As a result, the large families that are unable to rent single-family homes may be overcrowded in smaller units. In general,
housing for families should provide safe outdoor play
areas for children and should be located to provide
convenient access to schools and childcare facilities.
Table HE-35 shows the number and share of large
households in Stockton, San Joaquin County, and
California in 2020. As shown in the table, 20.5 percent of all households in Stockton had five or more persons.
Large households made up 20.5 percent of all owneroccupied households and 21.8 percent of all renter households in Stockton in 2020. The percentage of large households among all households in Stockton was larger
than the percentages countywide (19.6 percent) and in
California (13.8 percent).
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1088
BR-32 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Table HE-35: Large Households
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT
Owner-Occupied
Less than 5 Persons 37,768 79.5% 108,541 81.4% 6,239,598 86.2% 5+ Persons 9,713 20.5% 24,840 18.6% 1,001,720 13.8%
TOTAL 47,481 100.0% 133,381 100.0% 7,241,318 100.0%
Renter-Occupied
Less than 5 Persons 37,323 78.2% 77,230 79.0% 5,053,998 86.2% 5+ Persons 10,432 21.8% 20,481 21.0% 807,798 13.8%
TOTAL 47,755 100.0% 97,711 100.0% 5,861,796 100.0%
All Households
Less than 5 Persons 75,091 78.8% 185,771 80.4% 100.0% 86.2% 5+ Persons 20,145 21.2% 45,321 19.6% 1,809,518 13.8%
TOTAL 95,236 100.0% 231,092 100.0% 13,103,114
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)
FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
Table HE-36 compares the number of female-headed
households with children and poverty rates in Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California in 2020. Stockton
has a greater proportion of single female-headed
households with children under the age of 18 (8.1
percent of all households) compared to countywide (5.8
percent) and statewide (4.7 percent). Among all
households below the poverty level, female-headed
households account for a greater proportion in Stockton (28.9 percent) in comparison to San Joaquin County as
a whole (25.6 percent) and California (21.5 percent).
Table HE-36: Female-Headed Households
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Householder Type
Total Households 95,236 100.00% 231,092 100.00%
13,103,11
4 100.00%
Female-Headed Households 28,814 30.3% 58,087 25.14% 3,430,426 26.2% Female-Headed Households with
Children <18 Years 7,715 8.1% 13,427 5.8% 615,734 4.7%
Poverty Status
Total Households Below Poverty Level 9,432 13.7% 18,652 10.8% 806,599 9.0% Female-Headed Households Below
Poverty Level 5,239 28.9% 8,916 25.6% 364,236 21.5%
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020) Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1089
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-33
Female-headed households generally have lower
incomes because there is only one potential wage earner.
Individuals in this special-needs group often have more difficulties finding adequate, affordable housing than
families with two adults. Female-headed households with small children may need to pay for childcare, which
further reduces disposable income. This special-needs
group will benefit generally from expanded affordable
housing opportunities. More specifically, the need for
dependent care also makes it important that housing for single-headed families be located near childcare
facilities, schools, youth services, and medical facilities.
FARMWORKERS
Farmworkers are an essential component of Stockton’s
economy. Determining the number of farmworkers in a
region is difficult due to the variability of the definitions used by government agencies and other characteristics of the farming industry, such seasonal workers who migrate from place to place. The 2016-2020 ACS estimates that
5,010 residents within the City of Stockton work in
agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, or mining. A source of information on the number of families with
school-age children is the San Joaquin County Office of Education (SJOE). According to the SJOE Department of
Migrant Education, as of 2023, there are 885 migrant
students in Stockton. However, not all farmworkers in
Stockton have school-age children, and not all schoolage children from migrant farmworker families are enrolled in the migrant education program.
Another source is the U.S. Census of Agriculture, which is conducted every five years and gives the most recent estimate on the number and type of farmworkers in San
Joaquin County. The most recent U.S. Census of
Agriculture data is from 2017. The Census has shown
changes in the farmworker population over time. In
2012, 24,872 farmworkers were employed in the county.
In 2017, 19,741 farmworkers worked in San Joaquin
County, which is a significant decrease from 2012. The
Agriculture census counted 1,707 farms countywide.
Countywide, as of 2017 the majority of farmworkers were seasonal, with 59.5 percent of farmworkers working less than 150 days per year. The remaining 40.5 percent
were permanent farmworkers that worked 150 or more
days each year. Housing conditions for migrant
farmworkers are substantially different from the housing conditions of permanent residents employed full-time or part-time in agriculture. Since migrant farmworkers
frequently move locations, they are typically renters. The Community and Labor Center at UC Merced published a
report in 2022 titled “Farmworker Health in California” (FWHS). Several farmworker affiliated organizations
across Central California participated in this survey.
According to the report, 92 percent of the participants rented and resided in single-family homes (55 percent)
and about one third of participants lived in apartments (31 percent).
Additionally, migrant farmworkers earn a low income.
This forces the farmworking community to compete for
the lowest-cost housing, which is typically substandard.
According to the FWHS report, farmworkers generally
experience substandard housing that often require repairs or suffer from poor ventilation in older homes,
apartments, mobile homes, motels, garages and other
similar spaces, that put farmworkers at higher risk for respiratory illnesses. The report also discusses that 24 percent of surveyed farmworkers reported very bad “poor taste of water” and 13 percent reported “bad” taste of
water. Additionally, 1 out of three farmworkers
experienced difficulty keeping their home cool or warm.
Lastly, more than 10 percent of surveyed farmworkers
encountered mold, water damage and water leaks. Most
rental units available to migrant farmworkers are small; however, most farmworking families are above average
in size. To afford the high rents that result from low
vacancy rates, particularly at the height of the migrant worker season in the county, migrant workers often share rooms and housing units. Surveyed farmworkers
reported living in overcrowded households with one
fourth of respondents (29 percent) reporting six or more persons per unit and more than half (55 percent)
reporting two persons (including themselves) slept in their room. As a result, substandard housing, affordability and overcrowding are critical issues among this special-needs group. The San Joaquin County Housing Element
contains numerous policies and programs to address the
needs of farmworkers. A major policy approach in San
Joaquin County is to encourage farmworker housing in
the unincorporated county’s agricultural zones. This
reduces farmworkers’ commute times, decreases
transportation expenses, and provides more affordable
housing options. While the City supports the efforts to provide farmworker housing, it is primarily the County’s role to provide this housing. The City has included
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1090
BR-34 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Program 28 to continue to work with the County and via
Program 17 will ensure the Development Code is up to
date to allow employee housing including housing for
farmworkers consistent with State law. In addition,
Programs 11, 12, 16, 22, 23, and 30 commit to other
actions to support developing new homes and
rehabilitating existing homes for farmworkers, along with prioritizing outreach and programs for farmworkers.
The decline in grower-provided worker shelter resulted in the State government directing resources to farmworker
housing through State-owned and local governmentoperated migrant labor camps. The Housing Authority of San Joaquin County operates three of these State-owned
migrant camps totaling 220 units. This housing is
available annually from May through the end of October.
Day care centers are provided for farmworkers, as well as services from the Employment Development Department,
the Social Security Administration, and education and
health care services. During the off-season, one of the migrant camps in French Camp is also used as a cold
weather overflow homeless shelter for families (from midDecember through mid-March).
PERSONS IN NEED OF EMERGENCY
SHELTER
Homelessness is a continuing concern in California. Most families become homeless because they are unable to
afford housing in a particular community. Nationwide,
about half of those experiencing homelessness over the
course of a year are single adults. Most enter and exit the system fairly quickly. The remainder essentially lives in the homeless assistance system, or in a combination of
shelters, hospitals, on the streets, or in jails and prisons.
There are also single homeless people who are not
adults, including runaway and “throwaway” youth
(children whose parents will not allow them to live at
home).
The housing needs of homeless persons are more difficult to measure and assess than those of other population
subgroups. Since these individuals have no permanent
address, they are not likely to be counted in the Census.
The most recent information available on homeless
individuals is a “point-in-time” (PIT) count that was
conducted by the San Joaquin County Community
Development Department and the Central Valley Low
Income Housing Corporation in late January 2022
(Table HE-37). The PIT count was conducted in the cities of Stockton, Tracy, Lodi, and Manteca because the
majority of homeless services are provided in these larger cities.
The 2022 PIT count reports a total of 2,319 individuals experiencing homelessness in San Joaquin County –
about an 18.0 percent increase from the 2015 PIT count.
While the results suggest there has been an increase in the number of unsheltered homeless, the increase may
also be a result of a more complete and rigorous
unsheltered count. Of the total 2,319 individuals, 41.6 percent were sheltered, while 58.4 percent (1,355
persons) were unsheltered. Data collected for City of
Stockton was more limited (only unsheltered persons were surveyed) but did include the figure for unsheltered
individuals of 893 persons. In Stockton, a majority of the unsheltered persons were Caucasian (63%) with the
second largest ethnic group of Black or African-American (25.5%). Most people had been homeless for one year
or more (83%) and Stockton was the location they were
first homeless (82%). Countywide, among the total
homeless persons counted, 38.4 percent were
unsheltered males and 19.8 percent were unsheltered
females. The majority of persons counted were
Caucasian (63.1 percent) and 24 years or older (81.7
percent). A total of 329 persons ages 18 years or younger were counted (14.2 percent). Adults with serious mental illness accounted for 24.5 percent of the total homeless persons counted. Chronically homeless persons made up
34.9 percent of the total. These figures demonstrate the typical demographics of a homeless individual in San
Joaquin County is a single, Caucasian male age 24 years or older. The City relied on the Stockton Local
Homelessness Action Plan (LHAP) and the region’s San
Joaquin Continuum of Care (CoC) for data which rely on
the Point in Time (PIT) metric based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) criteria for
funding. Staff also contacted the following local homeless experts for what metric they use to calculate the homeless population in Stockton and the region.
• Melanie Estarziau, Stockton’s Homeless Strategic
Initiatives Manager
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1091
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-35
• Jon Mendelson, Executive Director Central Valley
Low Income Housing Corporation (Local
Homeless Provider)
While each representative indicated the 2022 PIT metric has some faults and that there are lots of different ways to calculate homeless populations (sheltered/unsheltered and city/county), they agreed that the 2022 PIT number
represented in the Housing Element was accurate with
what their data shows for unsheltered homeless
population in Stockton in a day. They both indicated there are lots of data sources and metrics in the area so it
would not be difficult to select a different metric that would conflict with another.
Table HE-37: Homeless Population Survey
SHELTERED UNSHELTERED TOTAL
NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
City of Stockton
Total Persons Data not collected 893 - 893 -
Gender
Female Data not collected - 35% - 35%
Male Data not collected - 65% - 65%
Gender Non-Conforming (i.e., not
exclusively male or female)
Data not collected - 0% - 0%
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino Data not collected - 31% - 31%
Non-Hispanic/Latino Data not collected - 69% - 69%
Race
Caucasian Data not collected - 63% - 63%
Black or African-American Data not collected - 25.5% - 25.5% Asian Data not collected - 3% - 3%
American Indian or Alaska Native Data not collected - 2% - 2% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander
Data not collected - 0.5% - 0.5%
Multiple Races Data not collected - 6% - 6%
Specified Age Groups
18 to 24 years Data not collected - 2% - 2%
Age 62 or older Data not collected - 10% - 10%
Family Type/Other
Substance Use Issue Data not collected - 33% - 33%
Mental Health Issue Data not collected - 36% - 36%
Veteran Data not collected - 6% - 6%
Pet Owner Data not collected - 44% - 44%
Medical Insurance Data not collected - 73% - 73%
Income
Cash Income Data not collected - 39% - 39%
Non-Cash Benefits Data not collected - 53% - 53%
Length of Time Homeless
Less than 3 months Data not collected - 6% - 6%
Less than 6 months Data not collected - 4% - 4%
Less than a year Data not collected - 6% - 6%
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1092
BR-36 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
SHELTERED UNSHELTERED TOTAL
NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
One year or more Data not collected - 83% - 83%
Chronically Homeless Data not collected - 49% - 49%
Location First Homeless
This community Data not collected - 82% - 82%
Other in San Joaquin County Data not collected - 5% - 5% Outside San Joaquin County Data not collected - 13% - 13% San Joaquin County
Total Households and Persons
Total Households 637 32.0% 1,355 68.0% 1,992 100.0%
TOTAL PERSONS 964 41.6% 1,355 58.4% 2,319 100.0%
Gender
Female 432 18.6% 459 19.8% 891 38.4%
Male 530 22.9% 891 38.4% 1,421 61.3%
Gender Non-Conforming (i.e., not
exclusively male or female) 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.1%
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino 315 13.6% 411 17.7% 726 31.3%
Non- Hispanic/Latino 649 28.0% 944 40.7% 1,593 68.7%
Race
Caucasian 533 23.0% 930 40.1% 1,463 63.1%
Black or African-American 248 10.7% 271 11.7% 519 22.4% Asian 31 1.3% 35 1.5% 66 2.8%
American Indian or Alaska Native 26 1.1% 23 1.0% 49 2.1% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander 19 0.8% 7 0.3% 26 1.1%
Multiple Races 107 4.6% 89 3.8% 196 8.5%
Age
18 years or younger 328 14.1% 1 0.0% 329 14.2%
18 to 24 years 64 2.8% 32 1.4% 96 4.1%
24 years and older 572 24.7% 1,322 57.0% 1,894 81.7%
Family Type
Persons in households with at least
one adult and one child 487 21.0% 0 0.00% 487 21.0%
Persons in households with only
children 2 0.1% 1 0.04% 3 0.1%
Persons in households without
children 475 20.5% 1,354 58.4% 1,829 78.9%
Adults with Serious Mental Illness 118 5.1% 449 19.4% 567 24.5% Substance Use Disorder 162 7.0% 440 19.0% 602 26.0%
Victims of Domestic Violence 22 0.9% 10 0.4% 32 1.4%
Persons with HIV/AIDS 1 0.0% 9 0.4% 10 0.4%
Veterans 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0%
Chronically Homeless 153 6.6% 656 28.3% 809 34.9%
1 These statistics are self-reported and are typically underreported.
Source: San Joaquin Continuum of Care PIT Count, June 2022.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1093
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-37
The City of Stockton participates in the Continuum of
Care (CoC), which is a comprehensive, three-fold
approach, to meets the needs of the City’s homeless. The first tier is emergency shelter and short-term housing, the second tier is transitional housing, and the third tier is permanent affordable housing. To address the problem
of homelessness effectively, the City uses a
comprehensive approach that combines these shelter
and housing facilities with support services to address the needs of each of the sub-populations within the homeless population. Treatment of mental illness and substance
abuse, counseling and protection for domestic violence
victims, the provision of job training, and intensive case management are critical to reducing homelessness. The
goal of a comprehensive homeless service system is to
ensure that homeless individuals and families move from homelessness to self-sufficiency, permanent housing, and independent living.
In addition, the City works with San Joaquin County in
administering the Shelter Plus Care Program to provide
special supportive housing for persons with disabilities and for homeless individuals. City staff meets on a
regular basis with staff of other local agencies to identify local issues and discuss appropriate programming of
services for homeless persons and those individuals with special needs. The Shelter Plus Care Program is designed to provide housing and supportive services on a longterm basis for homeless persons with disabilities, primarily those with serious mental illnesses, chronic problems with alcohol and/or drugs, AIDS, or related diseases who are living in places not intended for human habitation or in emergency shelters.
Overnight and Emergency Shelters
Table HE-38 summarizes overnight and emergency
shelter facilities available in San Joaquin County,
including Stockton, the bed capacity, and the
characteristics of clients they serve. The majority of
facilities serve unaccompanied males and females, adult couples without children, and single-parent and twoparent families. The Women’s Center – Youth and Family Services (YFS) Safe House is the only shelter that
specifically serves unaccompanied youth under 18.
Stockton Shelter for the Homeless (SSH) and Gospel
Center Rescue Mission (GCRM) have the greatest
capacity at 357 and 240 beds, while the remaining
shelters have an average capacity of 30 beds.
Table HE-38: Overnight and Emergency Facilities
San Joaquin County, 2022
FACILITY/PROVIDER LOCATION DESCRIPTION
Gospel Center Rescue
Mission (GCRM) Stockton
GCRM operates an emergency shelter for up to 100 homeless men, women, and children.
GCRM also operates a Recuperative Care Program (RCP) that provides 24-hour shelter beds for people who are too well to be in the hospital, but too sick to recuperate on the streets.
The RCP has up to 50 beds.
Stockton Shelter for the
Homeless (SSH) Stockton
SSH provides temporary shelter for single adults and families. The shelter can house up to 357 people in its two facilities and HOPW (Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids) homes. The shelter assists clients in obtaining permanent housing.
Women’s Center -
Youth and Family
Services, Safe House
Stockton
Safe House offers up to 21 days of shelter and supportive services for runaway, throwaway, and homeless youth ages 12-17. This facility can assist up to 10 youth at a given time plus their children.
Haven of Peace French
Camp
The Haven of Peace is a two-week shelter for women and their children with the capacity to house 35 individuals, including both adults and children. The shelter offers management, a variety of classes to residents such as life skills, parenting, budgeting, and computer classes.
Residents are referred to other agencies for assistance with domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health, and other issues. There is a possibility of extending the stay for up to six months if residents work with their case manager and are reaching goals toward achieving self-sufficiency.
Hope Family Shelter Manteca The Hope Family Shelter can house 8 families. Food, clothing, utilities, and counseling are provided.
Raymus House (Hope
Family Shelter) Manteca
An emergency shelter that services up to 10 families consisting of women and children who have been displaced for up to 60-90 days. Women may bring their children, girls ages 0-18 and boys 0-12.
Hope Harbor Shelter Lodi
Hope Harbor is the largest shelter in Lodi, which can accommodate women with children, men, and single-family units. It is also the only shelter in the area that can house single fathers with children. Clients may stay 56 nights per calendar year with an option for a 28- day extension should they enter into case management.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1094
BR-38 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
FACILITY/PROVIDER LOCATION DESCRIPTION
Lodi House Lodi Lodi House is a shelter for women and their children. The facility houses approximately seven adults and their children.
McHenry House Tracy
The McHenry House provides shelter and meals for single women, women with children, and couples, up to 18 people for a maximum stay of 15 days. The shelter typically serves seven families at a time.
Women’s Center -
Family and Youth
Services, Serenity
House
Tracy
Serenity House is an emergency shelter for battered women and their children. Serenity House offers a comprehensive 60-day program with the capacity to serve up to 12 women and their children at a given time.
Source: PlaceWorks; contacted agency or facility, October 2022.
Transitional Housing
For many, transitional housing, long-term rental
assistance, and/or greater availability of low-income
rental units are also needed. Transitional housing is
usually in buildings configured as rental housing
developments but operate with State programs that
require the unit to be cycled to other eligible program recipients after some predetermined amount of time.
Supportive housing has no limit on length of stay and is linked to on-site or off-site services that assist the resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health
status, and maximizing his or her ability to live well and work in the community.
Transitional housing programs provide extended shelter
and supportive services for homeless individuals and/or families with the goal of helping them live independently and transition into permanent housing. Some programs
require that the individual/family transition from a shortterm emergency shelter. The length of stay varies considerably by program but is generally longer than two weeks and can last up to 60 days or more. In many cases, transitional housing programs will provide services for up to two years or more. The supportive services may be
provided directly by the organization managing the
housing or by other public or private agencies in a
coordinated effort with the housing provider. Transitional housing/shelter is generally provided in apartment-style facilities with a higher degree of privacy than short-term homeless shelters, may be provided at no cost to the
resident, and may be configured for specialized groups
within the homeless population, such as people with
substance abuse problems, mental illness, victims of
domestic violence, veterans, or those with AIDS/HIV.
There are several transitional or supportive housing
programs offered in San Joaquin County, mostly in the
city of Stockton. As shown in Table HE-39, transitional and permanent supportive housing programs are being
provided by Central Valley Low Income Housing
Corporation (CVLIHC), New Directions, Women’s Center
– Youth and Family Services, Gospel Center Rescue
Mission, Dignity’s Alcove, Stockton Shelter for the
Homeless, Lutheran Social Services, and HOPE Family
Shelter.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1095
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-39
Table HE-39: Transitional and Permanent Supportive Housing San Joaquin County, 2022
FACILITY/PROVIDER LOCATION DESCRIPTION
Central Valley Low Income
Housing Corporation (CVLIHC)
Stockton and
various locations
throughout the
county
CVLIHC provides transitional housing for homeless families with children.
CVLIHC operates a scattered site program throughout San Joaquin County with participants having the primary responsibility for the units where they live. The program provides 196 units. CVLIHC also provides permanent supportive housing to homeless individuals with a disability, and preference is given to those who are chronically homeless. Two of the sites can serve both individuals and households with children, and the other two can only serve single adults.
Housing sites are scattered throughout San Joaquin County and provide a total of 356 units.
Dignity’s Alcove Stockton
Dignity’s Alcove provides 24-month transitional and recovery housing for up to 47 homeless veterans at one time. The comprehensive program includes client assessment, case management, drug and alcohol education, communications training, and more.
Lodi House Lodi Lodi House has a transitional housing program for women and their children.
The facility houses approximately seven adults and their children.
Gospel Center Rescue Mission
(GCRM) Stockton
GCRM provides the New Life Program (NLP), a residential addiction treatment program for men, women, and families at the Gospel Center Rescue Mission.
There is a max capacity of 40 men and 200 women and children.
Lutheran Social Services’
Project HOPE Stockton
Lutheran Social Services’ Project HOPE program provides permanent housing and supportive services to homeless emancipated foster youth. The program has capacity for 34 individuals and their children.
New Directions Stockton
New Directions provides housing and supportive services for homeless adults who have an active substance abuse problem. New Directions has separate programs and facilities for men and women on the same campus. The total capacity is approximately 75 participants. New Directions provides 24 beds.
Stockton Shelter for the
Homeless, Holman House Stockton
Operated by the Stockton Homeless Shelter, the Holman House provides emergency shelter, transitional housing assistance, and supportive services for persons living with HIV/AIDS. Holman House has a max capacity of 10 beds.
Women’s Center - Youth and
Family Services, DAWN House Stockton
DAWN House is a shelter for abused women and their children. This facility houses approximately 42 adults and children. The length of stay is normally 30 to 60 days.
Women’s Center - Youth and
Family Services, Opportunity
House Transitional Living
Program
Stockton
Opportunity House Transitional Living Program provides up to 21 months of shelter and supportive services to prepare runaway, throwaway, and homeless youth for independent living. The program serves youth ages 18-21 and emancipated youth ages 16-17 years old. The program can assist 8 people at a time.
HOPE Family Shelter Manteca
Building HOPE provides transitional housing and services to homeless families.
The project serves 8 families at a time. The families can live in the facility for up to 2 years while paying a fixed rent at 30 percent of family income and receiving employment assistance.
Town Center Studios Stockton Town Center Studios is 40 units of housing for persons who are chronically homeless.
Source: PlaceWorks; contacted agency or facility, October 2022 Summary of Emergency Shelter and
Transitional/Permanent Supportive Housing
Capacity
Table HE-40 summarizes homeless facilities in Stockton
including bed capacity and the characteristics of clients they serve. The majority of facilities serve unaccompanied males and females, adult couples without children, and
single-parent and two-parent families. Overall, the
Stockton facilities listed in Table HE-40 have the capacity for 1,172 persons at a given time.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1096
BR-40 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Table HE-40: Emergency and Transitional/Permanent Supportive Shelter Provider Capacities
Stockton, 2022
FACILITY NAME HOMELESS BENEFICIARIES BED CAPACITY
Berkley Food and Housing Project
Adult Couples with Children
21 Unaccompanied Females
Unaccompanied Males
Single Parent Families
Catholic Charities - 1
Children’s Home Unaccompanied Male Youth Under 18
Unaccompanied Female Youth Under 18 12
Central Valley Low Income Housing Corporation
Adult Couples without Children
5521
Single-Parent Families
Two-Parent Families
Unaccompanied Females
Unaccompanied Males
Dignity’s Alcove
Unaccompanied Males
22 Unaccompanied Females
Gospel Center Rescue Mission
Unaccompanied Males
Unaccompanied Females 272
Single-Parent Families
Haven of Peace Unaccompanied Females (with children) 35 Hope Ministries
Unaccompanied Females (with children)
126
Adult Couples without Children
Lodi House Unaccompanied Females (with children) 36
Lutheran Social Services’ Project HOPE
Single-Parent Youth
34 (plus their children) Unaccompanied Female Youth Under 18 Unaccompanied Male Youth Under 18
New Directions
Unaccompanied Females
24 Unaccompanied Males
Manteca - 50
Mary Magdalene
Single-Parent Families
Adult Couples with Children 11
Unaccompanied Females
McHenry House
Single-Parent Families
30 Adult Couples with Children
Ready to Work
Unaccompanied Females
48 Unaccompanied Males
Salvation Army-Lodi
Single-Parent Families
Single-Parent Families 115
Adult Couples with Children
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1097
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-41
FACILITY NAME HOMELESS BENEFICIARIES BED CAPACITY
Stockton Shelter for the Homeless
Unaccompanied Females
320
Unaccompanied Males
Single-Parent Families
Two-Parent Families
Adult Couples without Children
Stockton Shelter for the Homeless, Holman
House
Unaccompanied Females
10 Unaccompanied Males
Town Center Studios Stockton
Town Center Studios is
40 units of housing for
persons who are
chronically homeless.
Tracy Community Connection Center Unaccompanied Females 12 Women’s Center - Youth and Family Services,
DAWN House, and Serenity House
Single-Parent Families
35 Unaccompanied Females
Women’s Center - Youth and Family Services,
Safe House
Unaccompanied Female Youth Under 18
8 (plus their children) Unaccompanied Male Youth Under 18 Single-Parent Youth
WestCare California
Unaccompanied Females
16 Unaccompanied Males
Women’s Center – Youth and Family Services,
Opportunity House Transitional Living Program
Unaccompanied Females
16 Unaccompanied Males
Unaccompanied Female Youth Under 18
Unaccompanied Male Youth Under 18
Note: 1 Total bed capacity in Stockton is estimated based on roughly 60 percent of CVLIHC’s transitional housing units are located at an address with a Stockton zip code. Regarding CVLIHC’s permanent supportive housing units, roughly 90 percent of the units have a Stockton zip code. “(-)” data not available
Source: PlaceWorks; contacted agency or facility, October 2022.
PERSONS DIAGNOSED WITH AIDS
AND RELATED DISEASES
According to the California Department of Public Health, as of April 21, 2022, there have been 1,471 reported
cases of AIDS since the onset of the disease in the county in the 1980s. Through the Housing Opportunities for
Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program, federal funds are
allocated to the State and the County for the purpose of assisting people living with the disease in securing
permanent and affordable housing. Through San
Joaquin County Public Health Services, Stockton Shelter uses HOPWA funds to purchase and run transitional
houses for AIDS-infected persons who are homeless or
having financial difficulties. Residents can stay in
transitional housing for up to 18 months while they secure a job, home, or SSI benefits. Within the city, Stockton Shelter administers one transitional house, with capacity for 10 individuals, and five condominiums for families of three to four people. In addition to transitional housing, Stockton Shelter also provides emergency assistance for people who cannot afford their housing payments due to
a health emergency or high health-care costs.
According to area health care providers, additional
housing needs for people with AIDS and HIV include
more emergency housing assistance, funding to cover
first- and last-month’s rent, low-cost housing for
individuals such as residential hotels, and assisted living for persons in the middle- to late-stages of the disease.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1098
BR-42 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS
Extremely low-income (ELI) households are defined as
those households with incomes under 30 percent of the
AMI. Extremely low-income households typically consist
of minimum-wage workers, seniors on fixed incomes,
disabled individuals, and farmworkers. This income
group is likely to live in overcrowded and substandard
housing conditions. This group of households has specific housing needs that require greater government subsidies and assistance, housing with supportive services, singleroom occupancy (SRO), shared housing, and/or rental subsidies or vouchers. In recent years, rising rents, higher income and credit standards imposed by landlords, and
insufficient government assistance has exacerbated the
problem. Without adequate assistance, this group has a
high risk of homelessness.
In Stockton, a household of three persons with an income of $23,030 in 2022 would qualify as an extremely lowincome household. Table HE-41 shows the number of extremely low-income households and their housing cost
burden in Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California
in 2018. As shown in the table, Stockton had a higher
percentage (14.0 percent) of extremely low-income
households than countywide (10.3 percent), although
slightly less than the state (14.1 percent). Following the statewide and countywide trends, the city had a larger
proportion of extremely low-income renter households
(21.4 percent) than countywide (16.8 percent) and a
slightly smaller proportion than the state (22.5 percent).
Stockton had a similar proportion of extremely lowincome owner households (5.9 percent) than countywide (5.1 percent) and less than California (7.2 percent).
Generally, households that pay more than 30 percent of
their income on housing costs are considered to be
overpaying for housing or cost burdened, while
households that pay 50 percent or more are considered
to be severely overpaying or severely cost burdened.
In Stockton, 82.5 percent of extremely low-income
households had a moderate housing cost burden (> 30
percent or more) and 73.1 percent had a severe (>50
percent or more) housing cost burden. This was slightly higher than the cost burdens of extremely low-income
households in the county and state. Extremely lowincome renters in Stockton had a much higher incidence (84.2 percent) of a moderate housing cost burden than
owners (75.7 percent) and 74.8 percent of renters had a severe cost burden compared to 66.4 percent of owners.
This information suggests that there is a need for
affordable rental units for extremely low-income residents in Stockton.
Table HE-41: Housing Cost Burden of Extremely Low-Income Households Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2018
STOCKTON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA
OWNERS RENTERS TOTAL OWNERS RENTERS TOTAL OWNERS RENTERS TOTAL Number of ELI
households
2,650 10,695 13,345 6,455 16,950 23,405 509,410 1,324,385 1,833,795 Number of
total
households
45,230 49,960 95,190 126,095 100,630 226,725 7,085,435 5,880,000 12,965,43 5 % of total
households 5.9% 21.4% 14.0% 5.1% 16.8% 10.3% 7.2% 22.5% 14.1% Number w/
cost burden >
30%
2,005 9,000 11,005 4,950 13,810 18,760 380,295 1,060,070 1,440,365 % w/ cost
burden > 30% 75.7% 84.2% 82.5% 76.7% 81.5% 80.2% 74.7% 80.0% 78.5% Number w/
severely cost
burden > 50%
1,760 8,000 9,760 4,295 12,480 16,775 316,175 913,810 1,229,985 % w/ severely
Cost Burden >
50%
66.4% 74.8% 73.1% 66.5% 73.6% 71.7% 62.1% 69.0% 67.1%
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -CHAS (2014-2018).
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1099
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-43
PRESERVING AT-RISK
UNITS
Over the past several decades, hundreds of thousands of affordable rental housing units have been constructed in California with the assistance of federal, state, and local funding (loans or grants) that restricted rents and
occupancy of units to low-income households for
specified periods of time. Once these restrictions expire, a property owner may charge market rents. Low-income
occupants are often displaced when rents rise to market levels.
State law requires that housing elements include an
inventory of all publicly assisted multifamily rental
housing facilities within the local jurisdiction and note those that are at risk of conversion to uses other than lower-income residential within 10 years of the beginning of the housing element planning period, which is
December 31, 2023, so before December 31, 2033.
California Government Code requires that owners of
federally assisted properties provide notice of intent to convert their properties to market rate and provide
information and options to tenants. The details about the requirements are included in Program 21.
Table HE-42 shows the assisted housing facilities in
Stockton, including those that are considered “at risk.” There are four affordable housing facilities with a total of 392 units at risk of conversion before December 31,
2033: Steamboat Landing Apartments, Filipino Center,
Villa de San Joaquin, and Inglewood Gardens (Table HE42).
Table HE-42: Federally Subsidized Rental Facilities At-Risk Stockton, 2023-2031
FACILITY NAME ADDRESS AFFORDABLE
UNITS
TOTAL
UNITS
TARGET
GROUP
FUNDING
SOURCE
EXPIRATION OF
AFFORDABILITY
Delta Plaza Apts. 702 N. San Joaquin
Street 29 30 Seniors LIHTC; HCD; Local 2047
Kentfield Apartments 4545 Kentfield Rd. 89 90 Large Family LIHTC; Local 2064 Town Center Studios 1604 N. Wilson Way 39
Homeless and
At-Risk of
Homelessness
HCD 2075
Sierra Vista I
Apartments Viva Plaza 114 115 Large Family LIHTC 2071
Sierra Vista II
Apartments 1520 Eleventh Street 99 100 Large Family LIHTC 2072 Gleason Park 411 South Stanislaus
Street 92 93 Large Family LIHTC 2065
Plymouth Place 1320 N. Monroe St 65 65 Senior LIHTC; HUD 2075 Casa de Esperanza 2260 S. Netherton
Ave. 69 70 Large Family LIHTC; USDA 2068
Westgate Townhomes 6119 Danny Drive 39 40 Large Family LIHTC 2068 Bradford Apartments 1020 Rosemarie
Lane 29 30 Large Family LIHTC 2069
Liberty Square 804 N. Hunter Street 72 74 Large Family LIHTC; HCD 2073 Santa Fe Townhomes 639 West Worth
Street 30 31 Large Family LIHTC; HCD 2072
Grand View Village 228 N. Hunter Street 74 75 Large Family LIHTC 2074 Main Street
Manor/Almond View 648 East Main Street 71 72 SRO LIHTC; Local 2048 Cambridge Court 6507 Danny Drive 130 132 Large Family LIHTC; Local 2050 Pacific Pointe
Apartments (fka
Stockton Gardens
Apartments)
1025 Rose Marie
Lane 79 80 Non Targeted LIHTC 2052
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1100
BR-44 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
FACILITY NAME ADDRESS AFFORDABLE
UNITS
TOTAL
UNITS
TARGET
GROUP
FUNDING
SOURCE
EXPIRATION OF
AFFORDABILITY
Granite Ridge
Apartments (fka
Stockton Terrace
Apartments)
246 Iris Avenue 79 80 Non Targeted LIHTC 2052
Quan Ying Senior
Apartments
301 South San
Joaquin Street 20 20 Seniors LIHTC; Local 2052
Delta Village
Apartments
1625 Rosemarie
Lane 79 80 Non Targeted LIHTC 2053
Emerald Pointe
Townhomes 9537 Kelley Dr 18 19 Large Family LIHTC; Local 2053 Ladan Apartments (Site
A)
402 S. San Joaquin
St. 10 10 Large Family LIHTC; Local 2057
Diamond Cove II
Apartments
5506 Tam O Shanter
Dr 39 40 Large Family LIHTC 2058
Valle Del Sol
Townhomes
4701 East
Farmington Road 74 76 Large Family LIHTC; USDA; HCD 2059 Church Street Triplex 418 E Church St 3 3
Working
families Local 2062
Marquis Place
Apartments
5315 Carrington
Circle 20 21 Large Family LIHTC; Local 2062
Wysteria 1921 Pock Lane 64 65 Large Family LIHTC 2063
Hotel Stockton 133 E. Weber
Avenue 155 156 SRO LIHTC; Local 2064
Villas de Amistad 601 E. Main Street 89 91 SRO LIHTC; HCD; Local 2065
Vintage Plaza (Site A) 336 California St. 17 18 Large Family LIHTC 2065 Community of All
Nations 2172 Dockery Court 73 75 Large Family LIHTC; HUD; CalHFA; Local 2066 Cal Weber 40
Apartments 512 E. Weber Ave 39 40 Large Family LIHTC 2068 Zettie Miller's Haven 1545 Rosemarie
Lane 81 82
Developmentall
y Disabled,
Mental Illness,
Chronic illness
LIHTC; CalHFA 2069
Franco Center
Apartments 144 Mun Kwok Ln 111 112 Senior LIHTC; HUD 2069 Diamond Cove
Townhomes
5358 Carrington
Circle 59 60 Large Family LIHTC; Local 2069
Village East Apartments 2501 E. Lafayette
Street 187 189 Non-Targeted LIHTC; HUD 2070
Polo Run Family
Apartments 8165 Palisades Drive 315 318 Large Family LIHTC 2070 Hampton Square
Apartments
819 E. Hammer
Lane 184 186 Large Family LIHTC; Local 2070
Medici Artist Lofts 242 North Sutter
Street 27 34 Large Family LIHTC 2071
Casa Manana 3700 North Sutter
Street 161 163 Senior LIHTC; HUD 2074
Sonora Square 2 E. Sonora Street 37 38 Special Needs LIHTC 2075 Steamboat Landing
Apartments 25 S Commerce St 150 151 Senior HUD 2022
Filipino Center 6 W. Main St 128 128 Family HUD 2025
Villa de San Joaquin 324 East Jackson
Street 30 30 Family USDA 2026
Inglewood Gardens 6433 Inglewood Ave 84 84 Senior HUD 2033 Stockton Silvercrest 123 N. Stanislaus St 82 83 Senior HUD 2036 Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1101
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-45
FACILITY NAME ADDRESS AFFORDABLE
UNITS
TOTAL
UNITS
TARGET
GROUP
FUNDING
SOURCE
EXPIRATION OF
AFFORDABILITY
Park Village
Apartments 3830 Alvarado Ave 207 208 Family HUD; Local 2037 Hammer Lane Village 210 E Iris Ave. 130 130 Senior HUD 2038 Filipino Community
Building of Stockton 443 East Sonora St 68 69 SRO LIHTC; Local 2050 Dewey Apartments 507 N. Pilgrim St 10 10 Family HUD; Local 2051 Charleston Place
Apartments
1515 E. Bianchi
Road 80 82 Large Family LIHTC; Local 2052
Grant Village
Townhomes 2040 Grant Street 39 40 Large Family LIHTC; Local 2059 Montecito Townhomes 1339 Kingsley
Avenue 69 70 Large Family LIHTC; Local 2062
Villa Monterey
Apartments 4707 Kentfield Road 44 45 Large Family LIHTC; Local 2064 Winslow Village
Apartments
5926 Village Green
Drive 39 40 Special Needs LIHTC; HCD; Local 2064
Inglewood Oaks
Apartments 7007 Inglewood Ave 64 64 Family/Individual CalHFA 2072 Anchor Village 601 N. Hunter Street 50 51
Veterans at risk
of homeless,
mentally ill
individuals,
families/
individuals
LIHTC;
CalHFA; HCD 2074
Total Units At-Risk 392
Source: California Housing Partnership Corporation, 2022.
At-Risk Housing
Affordable housing options for most lower-income
households are limited primarily to rental housing.
Therefore, preserving the existing affordable rental
housing stock is an important goal for Stockton. Most
affordable rental housing units in the city were achieved through subsidy contracts and deed
restrictions/affordability covenants in exchange for
construction and mortgage assistance. From time to time, restricted units lose their affordability controls and revert to market-rate units. For instance, development facilities are typically considered at-risk due to: (1) the prepayment provisions of HUD-insured mortgage loans; (2) expiration of Section 8 and Section 236 contracts; and (3)
expiration of restrictions on mortgage revenue bonds.
The following describes these conditions in detail.
• Prepayment of HUD loans. In the mid-1960s, the
federal government provided low-interest
financing or mortgage insurance to housing
developers in return for guaranteeing that rents
remain affordable to lower-income households.
After 20 years, the owners could prepay the
mortgages and lift their rent restrictions or
maintain the affordability controls until their
mortgages were paid.
• Section 8 Program. In the mid-1970s, the federal
government provided two approaches to
encouraging the production of affordable rental
housing. Under the Section 8 program, HUD
provided a 15- or 20-year agreement to provide
rental subsidies to property owners in return for
making the units affordable to very low-income
households. The income is typically the difference
between 30 percent of the household’s income
and a negotiated fair market rent for the area.
Due to expiring Section 8 contracts and
uncertainty of future Section 8 funds, the future of
an affordable complex receiving Section 8
funding is uncertain.
• Section 236 Program. The other federal
program, Section 236, provided rent subsidies in
the form of interest reduction, by which
multifamily housing could be produced. Two rent
schedules were used: market rent, based on a
market-rate mortgage; and basic rent, based on
a 1 percent mortgage. Tenants were required to
pay the basic rent of 25 percent of their income,
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1102
BR-46 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
with rent payments never to exceed the market
rents. Units were restricted to households that met
the low- and moderate-income limits established
for the program. The subsidized housing
moratorium imposed by President Nixon in
January 1973 brought an end to additional
Section 236 construction.
• Bond-Financed Facilities. State, county, and
local governments have the authority to issue taxexempt mortgage revenue bonds to provide below market-rate financing for rental housing
construction. State and federal law require that
multifamily facilities built with tax-exempt bond
proceeds set aside a portion of units as
affordable to lower-income households for a
specified period of time. The typical contractual
period is 10 to 15 years. After the term expires,
the property owners may rent the units at market
rates.
• In many communities, bond-financed facilities
typically convert to market rates. Over time, rent
levels increase in the community, and the
difference between market versus restricted rents
increases to the point that, unless additional
financial benefits are offered, property owners
have no incentive to maintain the units as
affordable.
PRESERVATION OPTIONS
State law also requires that housing elements include a comparison of the costs to replace the at-risk units
through new construction or to preserve the at-risk units.
Preserving at-risk units can be accomplished by
facilitating a transfer of ownership to a qualified
affordable housing organization, purchasing the
affordability covenants, and/or providing rental
assistance to tenants.
Acquisition and Rehabilitation
One method of ensuring long-term affordability of lowincome units is to transfer ownership to a qualified nonprofit or for-profit affordable housing organization.
This transfer would make the project eligible for
refinancing using affordable housing financing
programs, such as low-income housing tax credits and
tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds. These financing
programs would ensure affordability for at least 55 years.
Generally, rehabilitation often accompanies a transfer of ownership.
Table HE-43 shows the estimated costs to acquire and
rehabilitate the at-risk units. Acquisition costs are based on the 2023 assessed value of each property, and a perunit rehabilitation cost of $50,000 is assumed. The total estimated cost to acquire and rehabilitate all of the atrisk affordable housing facilities in Stockton (Steamboat Landing, Filipino Center, Inglewood Gardens, and Villa
de San Joaquin) is an estimated $42.2 million. This is
very likely an underestimate of the actual costs of
acquisition and rehabilitation since the assessed values are likely much lower than the market value for these
properties.
Table HE-43: Estimated Acquisition/
Rehabilitation Costs
Stockton, 2023
AT-RISK PROJECT
NUMBER
OF
UNITS
TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST
Steamboat Landing 150 $17,939,633
Filipino Center 128 $10,442,508
Inglewood Gardens 84 $9,688,647
Villa de San Joaquin 30 $4,104,987
Total 392 $42,175,775
Source: San Joaquin County Assessor’s Office, 2023
Rent Subsidy
Rent subsidies can also be used to preserve affordability of housing. Through a variety of funding sources, the City could potentially provide rental vouchers similar to those provided through the Housing Choice Vouchers Program
(formerly Section 8). The amount of a rent subsidy would be equal to the difference between the fair market value for a unit and the cost that would be affordable to a
lower-income household. Table HE-44 shows the
estimated rent subsidies required to preserve the
affordability of the at-risk units. Based on the assumptions shown in the table, it would cost the City an estimated $775,125 annually to subsidize rent for these units, or nearly $23,253,750 over 30 years.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1103
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT BR-47
Table HE-44: Estimated Cost to Subsidize Rents
Stockton, 2023
UNIT SIZE
AFFORDABLE RENT
FOR VERY LOWINCOME (50% AMI)
2022 FAIRMARKET
RENTS
MONTHLY
SUBSIDY PER
UNIT
ANNUAL
SUBSIDY PER
UNIT
TOTAL ATRISK UNITSTOTAL ANNUAL
SUBSIDY
Studio $725 $899 $174 $2,088 80 $167,040
1-BR $829 $904 $75 $903 223 $201,369
2-BR $933 $1,137 $205 $2,454 48 $117,792
3-BR $1,035 $1,607 $572 $6,864 37 $253,968
4-BR $1,119 $1,847 $728 $8,739 4 $34,956
Total 392 $775,125
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, State Income Limits for San Joaquin County, 2022. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) User Data Sets: 2022 FY FMR Geography Summary for San Joaquin County, California.
Replacement (New Construction)
Per-square-foot construction costs from recent approved facilities were used to estimate the cost of replacing the atrisk units if they were to convert to market-rate housing.
As shown in Table HE-45, the estimated cost to replace
the 392 at-risk units is about $92.3 million.
Table HE-45: Estimated Replacement Costs
Stockton, 2022
COST TYPE
PER-UNIT
ESTIMATED
COST
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
COST
Construction1 $192,252 $75,363,088
Land2 $1,604 $628,600
Building Permit Fee $1,306 $511,888
Plan Check Fee $548 $214,993
School District Fee $5,840 $5,840
Impact Fees3 $34,401 $13,344,048
Total $235,592 $92,351,899
Notes: Estimated cost per unit is based on a three-story residential building consisting of 27 one-bedroom units, including on-site work.
Unit costs assume each unit is 1,000 square feet.
1 The construction cost is based on $192.25 per square foot for a threestory complex and 1,000 square feet per unit sums to $192,252.78 2 The average land cost per acre is assumed to be $202,286. 3 Based on total fee estimates from Table HE-64.
Sources: Redfin and City of Stockton Master Fee Schedule, 2022-23.
Summary of At-Risk Analysis
In summary, the above analyses show the costs of the
different scenarios to be as follows:
• Acquisition and rehabilitation: $42,175,775
• Rent subsidy: $775,125 annually ($23,253,750
over 30 years)
• Replacement: $92,351,899
Regardless of the method, preserving affordability of the at-risk units is costly. While providing rent subsidies appears to be the least costly method, Section 8 funding availability is limited and currently (2023) there are more federal and state funding sources to rehabilitate existing or build new affordable housing units. However, it may
cost the City less to directly subsidize rent than assist in either the rehabilitation or replacement of the units.
Qualified entities to acquire at-risk properties and
maintain long-term affordability are nonprofit or for-profit organizations with affordable housing development and
managerial capacity. The following are organizations that can serve as qualified entities in San Joaquin County:
• ACLC, Inc.
315 N. San Joaquin Street
Stockton, CA 95202
(209) 466-6811
• Eskaton Properties, Inc.
5105 Manzanita Avenue
Carmichael, CA 95608
(916) 334-0810
• Housing Corporation of America
31423 Coast Highway, Ste. 7100
Laguna Beach, CA 92677
(323) 726-9672
• L + M Fund Management LLC
1879 Palmer Avenue
Westchester, NY 10552
(347) 393-3045
• ROEM Development Corporation
1650 Lafayette Circle
Santa Clara, CA 65050
(408) 984-5600
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1104
BR-48 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
• Rural California Housing Corp.,
3120 Freeboard Drive, Suite 201
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916) 414-4436
• Stockton Shelter for the Homeless,
P.O. Box 4803
Stockton, CA 95204
(209) 465-3612
• Volunteers of America National Services,
1108 34th Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95822
(916) 917-6848
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1105
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-49
ASSESSMENT OF
FAIR HOUSING 3
INTRODUCTION
Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requires that all housing
elements due on or after January 1, 2021, contain an
Assessment of Fair Housing consistent with the core
elements of the analysis required by the federal
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16, 2015. Under California law, AFFH means
“taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating
discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation
and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected
characteristics.”
California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii)
requires local jurisdictions to analyze racially or
ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing
needs, including displacement risk. Although this is the Housing Element for the City of Stockton, Government
Code Section 65583 (c)(9), (c)(10), and Section
8899.50, (a), (b), and (c) require all local jurisdictions to address patterns locally and regionally to compare
conditions at the local level to the rest of the region. To that end, the City of Stockton has prepared a local
assessment of fair housing.
This section is organized by fair housing topics. For each topic, the regional assessment is first, followed by the local assessment. Strategies to address the identified
issues are included throughout the section. Through
discussions with stakeholders and fair housing
advocates, and this assessment of fair housing issues,
the City of Stockton identified factors that contribute to fair housing issues. These contributing factors are in
Table HE-48, with associated actions to meaningfully
affirmatively further fair housing related to these factors.
Additional programs to affirmatively further fair housing are included in the Policy Document part of this Housing Element.
This section also includes an analysis of the Housing
Element’s sites inventory as compared with fair housing factors. The location of housing in relation to resources and opportunities is integral to addressing disparities in housing needs and opportunity and to fostering
inclusive communities where all residents have access to opportunity. This is particularly important for lowerincome households. AB 686 added a new requirement for housing elements to analyze the distribution of
projected units by income category, access to high
resource areas, and other fair housing indicators
compared to citywide patterns to understand how the
projected locations of units will affirmatively further fair housing.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1106
BR-50 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Various sources of information contribute to the
Housing Element. The San Joaquin Valley REAP’s
“Taking Stock: A Comprehensive Housing Report for the
San Joaquin Valley in 2022” provides a data package
that has been pre-approved by the State Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) and
serves as the primary data source for population and
household characteristics. Dates for data included in the San Joaquin Valley REAP data package may vary
depending on the selection of data that was made to
provide the best data on the topic. These datasets rely on data reported by American Community Survey (ACS),
California Department of Finance, California Economic
Development Department, U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), and the
Department of Agriculture Agricultural Census. Where
more current information is available, it has been
provided. Please note that numbers for the same type of data (e.g., households) may not exactly match in
different tables and sections because of the different
data sources and samples used. The main data source
for the assessment of fair housing was the HCD’s AFFH
Data Viewer mapping tool. Several additional data
sources were used to supplement the 2022 REAP data
package:
• Housing market information, such as home sales,
construction costs, and rents, updated via online
surveys.
• Data on special-needs groups, the services
available, and gaps in the service delivery system
provided via service provider stakeholder
interviews.
• Lending patterns for home purchase and home
improvement loans through the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act (HMDA) database.
OUTREACH
PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
Workshop #1
The first community workshop for Stockton residents as
part of the Housing Element update took place via
Zoom on Wednesday, September 14, 2022, from 5:00
pm to 7:00 pm. The focus of the workshop was on
potential sites to accommodate the City’s Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and also to educate
residents about the update process and hear resident
insights and ideas about how the City can improve
housing opportunities in the future. Spanish translation was available during the workshop. The community
workshop was recorded and posted on the City’s
Housing Element web page.
City staff and consultants facilitated the workshop and 20 participants attended. Throughout the workshop,
community members were asked to provide feedback,
ask questions or provide comments. All questions and
comments were read aloud, and either City staff or the
consultants responded or documented receipt of the
comment. The following summary of questions and
comments relate specifically to fair housing issues.
Challenges in the permitting process - many of the
comments pertained to constraints being experienced
related to processing and approval of applications,
which are analyzed in Chapter 6 and programs
identified in the Policy Document to address potential
constraints and streamline the review and project
approval process.
• Furthering fair housing - the City was asked how
they intend to implement the AFFH and what
specific actions will be taken. Based on
stakeholder and fair housing advocate input and
through this assessment of fair housing issues, the
City identified factors that contribute to fair
housing issues, and programs to address the
provision of housing for all segments of the
population, particularly special needs groups and
those at risk of displacement, developed.
During this workshop, attendees were asked to
participate in a series of polls and select their preferred responses. The following poll questions and top
responses include:
Which housing groups do you think Stockton needs to
focus on and provide housing for?
• Homeless or recent individuals
• Low-income households
• Persons with disabilities
What type of housing is needed in Stockton?
• Mixed-use and rental apartments
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1107
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-51
To decide which sites are priorities for housing
development, what criteria are most important to you?
• Access to grocery stores, restaurants, and
shopping
• Including affordable housing.
• The following set of discussion questions was
presented to residents during this virtual meeting.
What neighborhoods or street corridors in
Stockton should be developed with new housing?
• Why isn’t housing being built in Stockton?
• What is preventing the types of housing you’d like
to see from being built?
The comments elicited by these questions have been
considered and incorporated into the Housing Element,
as applicable.
Workshop #2
The second community workshop took place in person
at the Buskirk Community Center on Wednesday,
October 29, 2022, from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. The
purpose of this workshop was to educate residents
about the Housing Element update and Housing Action
Plan processes and to give attendees an opportunity to
share their ideas and ask related questions. Spanish
translation was available during the workshop, and
translation for additional languages was available upon request.
The process was similar to Workshop #1, with 20
participants attending. Input from the participants was solicited throughout the workshop. A set of discussion
questions were presented to residents during this virtual meeting, which are discussed in Chapter 1 of the
Housing Element in the summary of the Outreach
Program. Topics participant input was requested on
included:
• The most critical housing issues in the community?
• The housing types most needed in the community?
• The City’s most important consideration in
determining new housing opportunities?
The following summary of questions and comments
relate specifically to fair housing issues arising from the above discussion questions.
Housing stock and affordability – The influx of
homebuyers from the Bay Area was identified as a
concern. A Stockton Housing Action Plan Market
Conditions report has been completed which addresses
housing prices and recent in-migration trends. As well, the effect of gentrification of neighborhoods, rising
home prices and cost burden is discussed in the Risk of Displacement section in this Assessment of Fair
Housing.
Renter and Property Owner Relations - The availability
of data on nonresident property owners and investors
was brought up. The Assessment of Fair Housing
provides tenure data, and identifies rental property
owner and tenant relations, including evictions and
discrimination as a fair housing issue, including
Program 30. Practices to Affirmatively Further Fair
Housing to address these issues, specific nonresident
and investor data was not available. A participant from Disability Rights CA offered a fair housing training to the City (for decision makers or staff).
Sites – Concern was expressed regarding identification
of lower income sites Downtown in with high
CalEnviroScreen scores. Unit capacity is provided in this area of high need for affordable housing to foster
housing mobility opportunities and reduce the risk of
displacement of residents, as well as provide housing
near transit and resources. The siting of units in
environmentally challenged areas is analyzed. Staff
noted that the City allows up to four units by right in all residential zones. This means density can increase in
most areas of the city, not just downtown. The inclusion of residential sites in commercial developments to meet the RHNA was brought up. A detailed analysis of all
potential sites in the city, including mixed-use potential, was conducted to determine appropriate sites for unit
capacity to meet and exceed the RHNA, as presented in
Chapter 4.
Homelessness – The unhoused is a fair housing
concern, and it is often difficult to collect informative data that accurately reflects the magnitude of the
population at risk, resulting in undercounting. The
practice of homeless sweeps and the no-camping
ordinance as a fair housing issue was mentioned in the
workshop discussion. The data source for analysis of the homeless, described in Chapter 2 – Housing Need
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1108
BR-52 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Assessment, was a Point-in-Time count conducted by the
San Joaquin County Community Development
Department and the Central Valley Low Income Housing
Corporation in late January 2022. Land use
designations that support the development of homeless
shelters and transitional housing facilities is discussed in Chapter 6 of the Housing Element. Program 25.
Continue to Support Organizations Assisting Homeless
Persons is included to increase shelter and transitional facilities and provide short term financial assistance for households at risk of becoming homeless, and Program
17. Development Code Revisions to ensure availability
of sites for homeless facilities. A listing of Homeless Shelters, and Transitional Housing Facilities is provided in Tables HE-38, HE-39 and HE-40 in Chapter 2,
Housing Needs Assessment.
These comments have been considered and
incorporated into the Housing Element, as applicable.
CONSULTATIONS
Housing Element Consultations
In November 2022, seven consultations were
conducted with Stockton stakeholders to offer
opportunities to provide one-on-one input.
Representatives from the following organizations were
interviewed:
• The Housing Authority of San Joaquin County
• San Joaquin Fair Housing
• Valley Mountain Regional Center, San Joaquin
County (Main Office)
• Disability Rights California
• Faith in the Valley
• Community Partnership for Families / The
Community Foundation of San Joaquin
The stakeholders were asked the following questions,
depending on the type of organization interviewed, and
common responses include:
Opportunities and concerns: What are the 3 top
opportunities you see for the future of housing in this jurisdiction? Increasing the variety of future
developments, including mixed-use, infill development,
ADUs;
• De-concentration of affordable housing;
• Improving local housing data;
• Expanding housing services/resources; Updating
the zoning code to be more inclusive and
accessible;
• Continuous compliance with State law.
What are your 3 top concerns for the future of housing
in this jurisdiction?
• Lack of existing affordable housing, high
proportion of households experiencing cost
burden
• Homelessness and limited housing for formerly
incarcerated individuals,
• Time frame for review and approval processes.
Housing preferences: What types of housing do your
clients prefer? Is there adequate rental housing in the community? Are there opportunities for home
ownership? Are there accessible rental units for seniors and persons with disabilities?
• Desire for safe, habitable, accessible, stable and
affordable housing;
• Uninhabitable housing conditions and lack of
landlord or property owners making
improvements;
• Landlords evicting long-time tenants to increase
rental prices to accommodate in-migration from
higher income locations.
Housing barriers/needs: What are the biggest barriers
to finding affordable, decent housing? What are the
unmet housing needs in this jurisdiction?
• Limited housing supply and unmet need;
• Housing costs and affordability;
• Renter application requirements, fees and
deposits;
• historical racism and segregation;
• The criminalization of the unhoused population;
• Lack of political will from elected officials.
• As mentioned before, according to report.
Housing conditions: How would you characterize the
physical condition of housing in this jurisdiction? What opportunities do you see to improve housing in the
future?
• Southside faces more dilapidation issues, and the
conditions are believed to be worse compared to
the rest of the State
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1109
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-53
• Many residents take what they can afford,
including uninhabitable housing
• De-concentration of lower-income housing
COVID - How has COVID affected the housing
situation?
• Pandemic unveiled serious housing issues as well
as making them worse.
• Economic conditions increased number of people
at risk of, or experiencing homelessness
• Inequitable distribution of resources and services;
• Unmet housing needs of formerly incarcerated
individuals were at risk or became
• A rise in domestic violence cases, and due to
Project HomeKey, agencies unable to place
domestic violence survivors in a safe space.
• Bay Area in-migration increased resulting in rising
rents.
The eviction moratorium provided safety for
economically impacted renters, but impacted landlords
through a lack of resources.
Stakeholders shared that the factors that limit equity and fair housing are rooted in systemic racism, capitalism, sexism, and ableism. And to address these equity and
fair housing concerns, the City needs to incorporate
programs that reflect the needs of those most vulnerable in the Stockton community., which include low-income
households, the elderly, disabled persons, large and
single person households, single female-headed
households with children, persons in poverty, the
homeless, farmworkers, populations of color, cost
burdened renters and homeowners, among others.
Recommendations include programs that support
affordable housing developments, an eviction
protection and right-to-counsel program, a dedicated
housing trust fund for affordable housing, landlord
educational tools and resources, genuine advocacy for
the homeless, a universal income program, a
reasonable accommodation process, and social
housing opportunities for people to co-own
areas/property. They also shared that the City should
ensure all new developments have an inclusionary
housing component, which can be done by adopting
inclusionary housing programs. These
recommendations have been taken into consideration
and can be reviewed in the Policy Document.
Housing Action Plan/Displacement Study
Stakeholder Consultations
In support of efforts to prepare a Housing Action Plan
for the City of Stockton, consultant team member BAE
Urban Economics participated in a total of ten interviews with area stakeholders in the Spring and Summer of
2022 regarding issues and opportunities for the
production and preservation of housing. Additional
interviews will be conducted in the spring of 2023 with market rate developers to inform preparation of pro
forma financial models for target housing types in
Stockton. Due to significant overlap in the subject
matter targeted for this initial round of interviews, and the list of stakeholders to be interviewed, BAE partnered with Enterprise Community Partners which was similarly
engaged in preparation of an anti-displacement
strategy for the City of Stockton. Participants in the first round of interviews included representatives from the
following:
• Stocktonians Taking Action to Neutralize Drugs
(STAND)
• Visionary Home Builders
• The Housing Authority of San Joaquin County
• Central Valley Low Income Housing (CVLIHC)
• Reinvent South Stockton Coalition (RSSC)
• Housing Justice Coalition (Part of the RSSC)
• National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP)
• Enterprise Community Partners
• Grupe Huber Company
• Little Manila Rising
While the topics covered during each interview varied
slightly based on the expertise and affiliation of the
interview participant, all of the interviews covered the following topic areas:
• Housing Needs and Preferences – What types of
housing are your clients or constituents looking
for? What types of housing are they most
struggling to locate and secure? What are the
barriers they are facing? Where do they typically
end up?
• Housing Instability and Insecurity – What types of
housing insecurity are being observed? What
trends, factors, or characteristics are contributing
to housing insecurity among your clients or in your
community? What solutions are being used?
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1110
BR-54 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
• Gaps in Housing Availability – What types of
housing are being undersupplied in the Stockton
Market? What types are being over supplied?
Why?
• Barriers to Housing Production – What are the
main barriers to housing production in Stockton?
How does this vary by housing type (e.g., singlefamily homes, missing middle housing, multifamily apartments, tiny homes, etc.)? Do the barriers to
housing production vary in different parts of the
community?
• Barriers to Housing Preservation – What are the
main barriers to the preservation of existing
housing? What should the City be doing to
facilitate housing preservation?
• Causes of Residential Displacement – What are
the main observed drivers of residential
displacement? How are your clients or
constituents being impacted? How are different
groups or populations impacted? How are
different parts of the city being impacted and why?
Interview participants expressed a range of perspectives and experiences, but generally agreed on the underlying economic factors contributing to a lack of desired
housing production in Stockton. All interview
participants acknowledged an overabundance of
detached single family housing in Stockton, which
represents a majority of the newly built housing
inventory. Interview participants acknowledged an
under production, and lack of general availability, of
higher density multifamily rental and missing middle
housing, both rental and for-sale, that would meet the
needs of their clients. Participants indicated that new construction is generally concentrated in the more
affluent neighborhoods in north Stockton, and that there are large areas that are going unserved by new marketrate development, but which feature populations that would benefit from an expansion of the housing
inventory, such as in south Stockton and the downtown
area. These areas tend to be lower-income and
residents often have less mobility, but which still offer robust neighborhood networks and cultural affiliations.
The reasons cited for the lack of development in these
areas include the high cost of construction and the
relatively limited purchasing power of lower-income
households in these areas.
Interviews indicated that a lack of newly constructed
housing is putting tenants under pressure to accept
housing that is, at least in some cases, in substandard condition and often more expensive than is typically
considered appropriate. Participants indicated a
relatively high prevalence of multiple households
banding together to afford housing, resulting in
overcrowded conditions, as well as households paying
well over the accepted 30 percent of their income
towards housing. Due to a lack of alternative housing
options, households are often reluctant to submit
complaints about substandard conditions and are
unable to secure housing at more affordable rates. This is particularly prevalent among renter households,
though interview participants also noted problems
among lower-income owner households who are
having trouble maintaining their homes. This sometimes
results in foreclosure or condemnation, but more often
in the household selling the property, often at a
suppressed value due to the condition of the property.
Multiple interview participants noted that many of these houses are then being purchased by higher-income
households. The impression is that they are coming from outside the area, and that they subsequently rehabilitate the property and benefit from immediate equity
appreciation. Interview participants voiced concerns
that this dynamic prevents lower-income homeowners
from fully benefiting from potential equity appreciation.
Participants recommended increased funding for code
enforcement and an enhanced multifamily rental
inspection program to identify habitability issues.
Participants also recommended increasing funding for
home rehabilitation assistance to help keep lowerincome homeowners in their homes and to discourage displacement and gentrification.
Interviewees noted that housing instability and
displacement in Stockton is really a function of high and increasing housing costs, both for new construction and existing units, and stagnation among local workforce
wages and associated household incomes. The
pandemic exacerbated these trends with many lowerwage and service sector workers either losing their jobs or taking significant unpaid leaves of absence due to
business closures and work-from-home policies.
Interview participants experienced a significant increase in the need for homelessness prevention and rapid
rehousing services during the first two years of the
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1111
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-55
pandemic, which is now beginning to abate with the
revocation of pandemic-era restrictions. Interviewees
commented that the City needs to pursue an aggressive
expansion of the housing stock (something other than
detached single-family homes) to address the lack of
inventory, as well as strong economic development
programs that can improve the earning potential of
existing Stockton residents. Without both an increase in housing availability and the ability of households to pay for housing, the issue will continue to get worse and the number of households facing housing instability will
grow.
To facilitate the production of low-income housing, as
well as transitional and permanent supportive housing,
interview participants indicate that the City needs to
adjust expectations regarding funding recapture,
allowing more grants and forgivable loans.
Interviewees also suggested the City needs to increase
its willingness to allow funding to go towards supportive services and that the City needs to consider programs to reopen existing single room occupancy (SRO) properties
and/or facilitate development of new SRO properties in
appropriate locations. They suggested the City also
needs strong policies and programs to preserve
naturally occurring affordable housing, where possible.
Examples of these policies and programs may include,
but should not be limited to, rehabilitation funding for both rental and ownership properties, possibly coupled
with workforce housing deed restrictions (i.e., limited to occupancy by households with at least one person
employed within the community), rental assistance and
grants for back rent, cash incentives to property owners willing to accept tenants using public assistance, etc.
Interview participants generally supported efforts to
expand the housing stock with a preference for the
addition of both market rate and below-market rate
rental housing. There is a desire to see such
development both in higher income areas that can
provide better access to opportunity for lower-income
households, but also within lower opportunity areas
where households are experiencing the greatest need.
All interview participants also acknowledged that the
City’s aim should be to avoid adding additional lowincome housing inventory in the downtown, as the city is already at risk of creating conditions associated with concentrated poverty, which run counter to the longterm objectives of the community towards creating a commercially and culturally vibrant downtown
environment for all Stockton residents. The challenge
seems to be that that is where the infrastructure capacity is concentrated and where it may be possible to secure
land zoned for high density housing at a relatively low cost (i.e. City owned). Also, the area is unlikely to
experience market rate housing development in the near
future, so it can often be attractive to try to leverage lowincome housing to try and spur investment.
INTEGRATION AND
SEGREGATION
Since 2017, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee
(TCAC) and HCD have developed annual maps of
access to resources such as high-paying job
opportunities; proficient schools; safe and clean
neighborhoods; and other healthy economic, social,
and environmental indicators to provide evidencebased research for policy recommendations. This effort has been dubbed “opportunity mapping” and is
available to all jurisdictions to assess access to
opportunities within their community.
The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps can help to identify
areas in the community that provide strong access to
opportunity for residents or, conversely, provide low
access to opportunity. The information from the
opportunity mapping can help to highlight the need for
housing element policies and programs that would help
to remediate conditions in low-resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty and encourage better
access for lower-income households and communities
of color to housing in high-resource areas. TCAC/HCD
categorized census tracts into high-, moderate-, or lowresource areas based on a composite score of economic, educational, and environmental factors that
can perpetuate poverty and segregation, such as school
proficiency, median income, and median housing
prices. The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps use a
regional index score to determine categorization as
high, moderate, and low resource. Census tract and
neighborhood boundaries don’t exactly align in the City so this analysis refers mainly to census tracts in order to address state requirements for this analysis.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1112
BR-56 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Areas designated as “highest resource” are the highestscoring census tracts in the region, falling within the 0 to 20th percentile. It is expected that residents in these census tracts have access to the best outcomes in terms of health, economic opportunities, and education
attainment. Census tracts designated “high resource”
score in the 21st to 40th percentile compared to the
region. Residents of these census tracts have access to highly positive outcomes for health, economic, and
education attainment. “Moderate resource” areas are in
the 41st to 70th percentile, and those designated as
“moderate resource (rapidly changing)” have
experienced rapid increases in key indicators of
opportunity, such as increasing median income, home
values, and an increase in job opportunities. Residents in these census tracts have access to either somewhat
positive outcomes in terms of health, economic
attainment, and education; or positive outcomes in a
certain area (e.g., score high for health, education) but not all areas (e.g., may score poorly for economic
attainment). Low-resource areas score above the 70th
percentile and indicate a lack of access to positive
outcomes and poor access to opportunities.
The final designation is “high segregation and poverty.” These are census tracts that have an overrepresentation of people of color compared to the county as a whole,
and at least 30.0 percent of the population in these
areas is below the federal poverty line ($27,750
annually for a family of four in 2022). In Stockton, many of the areas designated as high segregation and poverty have also been identified as racially or ethnically
concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP) by HUD.
Determination of R/ECAPs relies on a racial and ethnic
concentration threshold as well as a poverty test. The
racial and ethnic concentration threshold for a R/ECAP
is a non-White population of 50.0 percent or more. The
poverty test defines areas of “extreme poverty” as those where 40.0 percent or more of the population lives at
or below the federal poverty line, or where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate in the
metropolitan area, whichever is less. More information
about R/ECAPs in Stockton is provided later in this
section.
As seen in Figure HE-1, TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas,
2022, Stockton has several spatial concentrations of
opportunity area designations. The figure shows the 15
neighborhoods in the city as used throughout this
General Plan and referenced in this section. Generally, from north to south they are:
• Trinity/Northwest Stockton
• Eight Mile/Bear Creek
• Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton Road
• Morada/Holman
• Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village
• Brookside/Country Club
• East Stockton
• Midtown
• The Port and Mount Diablo Waterfront
• Boggs Tract
• Downtown
• South Stockton
• Mariposa Lakes
• Weston/Van Buskirk
• Industrial Annex
The northern, eastern, and western edges of the city
north of the Calaveras River in the Morada/Holman,
Eight Mile/Bear Creek, Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton
Road, and Trinity/Northwest Stockton neighborhoods
are designated Highest and High Resource. These
designations extend east of I-5 in the Pacific
Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhood as far east as
Pacific Avenue and as far south as West March Road.
Two census tracts in the Midtown neighborhood, which
include the University of the Pacific between the
Calaveras River to the north, West Pershing Avenue to
the west, Pacific Avenue to the east, and West Harding
Way to the south; and the adjacent residential
communities to the east of Pacific Avenue and west of
both the Rural and San Joaquin Catholic Cemeteries,
accessed off of North El Dorado Street and North
California Street between East Alpine Avenue to the
north and East Harding Way to the south, are
designated as Highest and High opportunity areas,
respectively.
Census tracts designated Moderate Resource
opportunity areas are also predominantly identified in
the northern portion of the city, generally north of East Harding Way; within the Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton
Road and Morada/Holman neighborhoods; and
residential enclaves adjacent to primarily
unincorporated island areas in the lower
Brookside/Country Club and eastern edge of the
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1113
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-57
Midtown neighborhoods as well as one census tract in
the Downtown neighborhood.
The majority of the city south of Smith Canal to the west of North Pershing Avenue and south of West and East
Harding Way to the east of North Pershing Avenue in
the Midtown, Downtown, South Stockton, Port and
Mount Diablo Waterfront, Weston/Van Buskirk, and
Industrial Annex neighborhoods are designated by
TCAC/HCD as Low Resource and Areas of High
Segregation and Poverty. In contrast, Low Resource
census tracts in northern Stockton tend to be more
spread out and are often adjacent to Moderate and
High Resource census tracts. The East Stockton
neighborhood, eastern portions of the Pacific
Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhood east of Pacific
Avenue, and census tracts adjacent to and north of East Hammer Lane between the two Union Pacific Railroad
Sacramento Subdivision and Fresno Subdivision lines
are designated Low Resource, with two small residential census tracts assigned High Segregation and Poverty
designations.
Regional Trends
Stockton is a member of the San Joaquin Council of
Governments (SJCOG) joint-powers authority.
SJCOG's other members are the County of San Joaquin
and the cities of Lodi, Manteca, Tracy, Ripon, Escalon, and Lathrop. Based on the 2022 TCAC assessment of
opportunity areas, areas on the east side of Lodi
represent some of the COG region's lowest-opportunity
areas, along with the areas of High Segregation and
Poverty within Stockton identified previously.
Large unincorporated areas to the west of Stockton are
designated as low-resource areas, as are many census
tracts immediately adjacent to Stockton city limits. This is also true of central areas of Manteca, unincorporated areas just to the east of Manteca, one census tract in
central Lathrop and two in central and northern Lodi.
This is similar to many census tracts in the southern
areas of Stockton's city limits and within its SOI.
The city of Escalon and the surrounding unincorporated
areas are designated as moderate-resource areas, as is
much of Lathrop and areas of north and central Tracy.
The unincorporated communities of New Jerusalem and
Vernalis are also within moderate-resource census
tracts.Many of the high and highest-resource areas in
the COG region are located at the far south, east, and
north ends of the county. Unincorporated communities
to the north and northeast of Stockton, such as the
Morada area, are designated as highest-resource
areas, which is similar to neighborhoods on the north
side of Stockton. Areas north of Lodi are identified as either high or highest resource areas. This includes the Lockeford, Victor, and Collierville unincorporated
areas. Unincorporated communities farther to the east
of Stockton, such as Linden and Farmington, are also
considered to be high resource areas. South of
Stockton, the city of Ripon is divided into high and
highest-resource areas, while the majority of Tracy is
considered either a high or highest resource area, with the exception of three census tracts on the north side.
The unincorporated communities of Mountain House,
Banta, Stoneridge, and Lammersville are also located
within highest-resource census tracts.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1114
BR-58 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Figure HE-1: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas
Source: HCD, 2022
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1115
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-59
INCOME
Income is a primary indicator of a household’s standard of living and is a critical factor in determining the ability of that household to balance housing costs with other
basic needs, such as food and transportation. These
may also result in displacement due to a number of
factors in addition to housing cost burden. According to the San Joaquin Council of Governments Displacement
Study, 2021, displacement pressures threaten the ability of housing-challenged households to stay in their homes and limit where these households can live, reducing
their ability to stay connected with supportive networks and limiting their access to opportunity. There are three basic types of displacement risk residents of Stockton
might face, which are discussed in subsequent analysis:
• Direct/Physical Displacement. Households are
directly forced to relocate from or leave their
current residence due to landlord practices, formal
eviction, foreclosure, natural disaster, or
uninhabitable and unsafe conditions.
• Indirect/Economic Displacement. Households are
indirectly pressured to relocate due to rising cost
of housing (cost burden), increased taxes and
auxiliary fees, changes in supporting cultural and
social networks, and loss or reduction of income.
• Exclusionary Neighborhood Change. Households
are unable to move into a neighborhood that is
experiencing housing cost increases due to
gentrification or other factors, including higherincome households renting or purchasing more affordable housing stock that would have
previously been accessible to them; landlord
resistance to accepting Housing Choice Vouchers
(HCV); competition for affordable resources
favoring those with higher incomes; inability to
meet credit and application and/or qualifying
requirements.
Displacement risk is discussed in greater detail in the “Displacement Risk” section later in this document.
According to the 2016-2020 ACS, the annual median
income (AMI) in the City of Stockton was $58,393 in
2020, an increase of more than $10,000 since 2010.
The 2020 median income was notably lower in Stockton
than for the county as a whole and the state, which, in 2020, had median incomes of $68,628 and $78,672,
respectively. However, it should be noted that median
income data in 2020 may be reflective of the impact of
COVID and associated unemployment and has been
increasing in 2021 and 2022 as the economy recovers.
According to Table HE-7, Household Income
Distribution, in the Housing Needs Assessment (HNA),
in 2020 approximately 25.4 percent of households in
Stockton were considered very low-income, which is any
four-person household that earns less than $29,197
annually (less than 50.0 percent of AMI); approximately
10.8 percent of households correlated with the lowerincome category, which is any four-person household that earns between $29,178 and $46,714 annually
(between 51.0 and 80.0 percent of AMI); approximately
22.4 percent of households correlated with the
moderate income category, which is any household that
earns between $46,715 and $70,072 annually
(between 81.0 and 120.0 percent of AMI; and
approximately 41.4 percent of households correlated
with the above moderate-income household category,
earning over $70,074 annually (above 120.0 percent
of AMI).
Above Moderate-Income Household
Distribution
While the median income in Stockton ranges from
$12,256 to $137,083 depending on the
neighborhood, in general, higher incomes are found in
the northern half of the city above Harding Way, with
the exception of the lower portion of the Weston/Van
Buskirk neighborhood south of French Camp Slough in
the southwest corner of the city. Areas where the median income is greater than $87,100, as depicted on Figure
HE-2, Median Household Incomes in Stockton,
correlate with the above moderate-income range in the
city. They are concentrated outside of the core of the city along its northern and western edges in the
Trinity/Northwest Stockton, Eight Mile/Bear Creek,
Morada/Holman, and Brookside/Country Club
neighborhoods. There is also a concentration of census
tracts in the Midtown neighborhood, inclusive of the
University of the Pacific campus; the American Legion
and Victory Parks; and the Elmwood, South Country
Club, Northbank Court, and Oxford/Bristol residential
areas with median incomes ranging between $90,833
and $94,706. There is one census tract in the
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1116
BR-60 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Brookside/Country Club neighborhood with a median
income of $137,083, the highest in the city.
Mixed Median Income Neighborhoods
There are three neighborhoods—Upper Hammer
Lane/Thornton Road, the lower portion of
Morada/Holman, and Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village in
the northern portion of the city—that have historically developed along the northern extension of major
commercial thoroughfares from the Downtown and
Midtown neighborhoods. They include a range of
incomes and TCAC/HCD opportunity designations
based on location of the residential areas, the presence of affordable housing resources, type and age of
housing stock, physical development barriers
(waterways, sloughs, railroad tracks), and other factors.
Some of the block groups in these two neighborhoods
may be experiencing gentrification and have
concentrations of populations that are at increased risk of displacement.
The western portion of the Upper Hammer
Lane/Thornton Road neighborhood to the west of Lower
Sacramento Road consists primarily of moderate- and
above moderate-income households—from $55,938
adjacent to I-5 where the affordable Emerald Pointe
Townhomes are located, to $108,304 in the Stonewood
Estates subdivision south of Laughlin Park and White
Slough. There are two census block groups in this
geographical neighborhood, with median incomes in
the low-income category—a mixed residential,
institutional, and commercial area adjacent to I-5 along Kelley Drive, and the lower portion of the Creekside
residential area including Wagner Heights Apartments
and Delta Sierra Middle School. The portion of this
neighborhood between Lower Sacramento Road and
the Union Pacific Railroad Fresno Subdivision line is a mix of low- and moderate-median incomes, with four
affordable housing complexes along Hammer Lane.
There are two block groups with very low-median
incomes, one of which, including the Stockton
Summerplace residential area and Parklane Elementary
School, has been designated a TCAC/HCD Area of
High Segregation and Poverty with a median income of
$26,462.
The Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhood east
of I-5, south of Hammer Lane, west of the Union Pacific Railroad Sacramento Subdivision line, and north of the
Calaveras River is also primarily a mix of low- and
moderate-median income areas. There are four block
groups with median incomes in the very low-income
category that are scattered throughout the
neighborhood, and three of them are in the vicinity
surrounding the San Joaquin Delta College campus.
There is no pattern of concentration of very low-income households; adjacent block groups fall within the
moderate- and above moderate-income categories.
However, there are eight affordable multifamily housing complexes in this neighborhood, all of which are in
block groups with median incomes below $30,897, and
one of these block groups is designated a TCAC/HCD
Area of High Segregation and Poverty and HUD
R/ECAP. The presence of the affordable housing
complexes generally are a contributing factor to the
lower median incomes in the block groups where they
are located.
A similar spatial distribution of affordable multifamily housing complexes within block groups with lower
median incomes is found in the lower portion of the
Morada/Holman neighborhood, with median incomes
ranging from $29,359 to $52,465 in block groups that
have an affordable housing resource. Historically, as
discussed in the “Other Relevant Factors” section, a
significant segment of the Asian community relocated to these newly developing localities during the 1960s in
response to the construction of the SR-4 cross-city
highway and remain a predominant community of color
in the present. The very low-income block group, unlike most of the surrounding areas, which are primarily
residential, consists of a mix of multifamily complexes (both affordable and market rate), vacant land, and
nonresidential uses.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1117
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-61
Figure HE-2: Median Household Incomes
Source: 2015-2019 ACS
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1118
BR-62 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Lower-Income Neighborhoods
A defined concentration of very low- and low-median
income households and affordable multifamily
complexes is evident north of the Calaveras River in the central portion of the city along the West Lane, Pacific Avenue, El Dorado Avenue, Hammer Lane, and March
Lane commercial corridors, and south parts of the city
in the Midtown, Downtown, and South Stockton
neighborhoods between Harding Way and Charter
Way, with the lowest median incomes at $12,256 and
$16,750 in the heart of Downtown. These lower-income
block groups are generally defined by major
transportation routes, including the Union Pacific
Railroad lines, rail terminal, and switching station; I-5; SR 4; and the Port of Stockton, and include a mix of
single-family and multifamily residential, industrial uses, entertainment venues, public and institutional buildings, educational facilities, and commercial services. The
majority of this concentration of lower-income
households has a correlating TCAC/HCD designation
as an Area of High Segregation and Poverty and have
been identified by HUD as R/ECAPs. The pattern of
primarily lower median income households in the
vicinity of major transportation corridors (rail, freeways, the Port)) is evident in East Stockton as well as south of the Downtown in the South Stockton, Weston/Van
Buskirk, and Industrial Annex neighborhoods. The
pattern also occurs in two enclaves of Housing Authority of County of San Joaquin public housing; 436 units at
Conway Homes in the Van Buskirk community with an
associated median household income of $20,104; and
391 units at Sierra Vista Homes on Airport Way near the rail holding yards and Reverend Peterson and Williams
Brotherhood Parks.
In Stockton, 16.8 percent of the population is
considered under the poverty threshold, roughly
equivalent to 14.0 percent of households that make less than 30.0 percent AMI, which is considered extremely
low income. This is the highest rate among San Joaquin
County jurisdictions. At the census-tract level, the
highest rates of poverty, above 30.0 percent, are found south of Harding Way in the Midtown neighborhood, in
the Downtown neighborhood, and south of SR-4 in the
South Stockton and the East Stockton neighborhoods.
The census tracts with poverty rates that are above 30.0 percent of the population generally coincide with the
city’s lower-income block groups (Figure HE-3, Local
Poverty Rates). Particularly high rates of poverty are in the Downtown (47.2 percent) bounded by East Park
Street to the north, the Union Pacific Railroad
Sacramento Subdivision line to the east, North Madison
Street and El Dorado Street to the west, and the Mormon Slough to the south. This neighborhood includes the
Amtrak Downtown ACE Station, 14 affordable
multifamily complexes, single-family and multifamily
housing units, Weber Point Events Center, DeCarli
Waterfront Square, and a mix of industrial and
commercial uses. Also, 43.5 percent of the population
residing in the census tract in the Weston/Van Buskirk
neighborhood (the Sierra Vista Annex-Conway Homes
public housing development is in this tract) has an
income below the poverty level. A poverty rate of 41.1
percent is seen in the residential areas east of the Union Pacific Railroad yards on either side of Airport Way in South Stockton, corresponding to the city’s lowestincome residential areas, where housing typology and the presence of industrial uses likely account for
increased housing affordability and higher rates of
poverty. In addition, many areas south of SR-4 have
historically been used as rail yard or port worker housing and were redlined areas, as discussed in the “Other
Relevant Factors” section, with patterns of low incomes persisting in these areas. In general, elevated rates of poverty (above 20.0 percent) are found in the city’s
lower-income residential areas and often correlate with the locations of affordable multifamily housing units and mobile home parks.
Between 2013 and 2020, incomes have shifted in the
city. The proportion of very low-income households has
decreased from 33.1 percent in 2013 to 25.4 percent
in 2020, with a similar decrease in the proportion of
households (15.4 percent in 2013 to 13.9 percent in
2020) with median incomes between $30,000 and
$45,000, roughly corresponding to the low-income
category. Conversely, above moderate-income
households with incomes between $75,000 and
$124,999 increased from 18.9 percent in 2013 to 21.4
percent in 2020. The proportion of households with
incomes generally corresponding to the moderateincome category shifted only a few tenths of a percentage point. In 2013, every census tract with an
affordable multifamily complex was categorized as
having a median income below $40,000, whereas in
2020, many of the block groups in the Pacific
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1119
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-63
Avenue/Lincoln Village and upper Midtown
neighborhoods that have affordable housing complexes
also have median incomes above $40,000. The
northern, western, and eastern edges of the city have
also seen increased median incomes.
This demonstrates that Stockton’s residents have a wide range of incomes, with some distinctly higher-income
areas in the northern half of the city; lower-income
households predominate in the southern portion of the
city where major transportation routes, industrial
facilities, and nonresidential uses exist, in addition to historical practices of redlining. This pattern of income distribution is also evident in other jurisdictions in San Joaquin County along SR-99. However, though access
to resources generally corresponds to income, as shown
by TCAC/HCD Opportunity designations (Figure HE-1),
there may be meaningful differences in access to other
opportunity area factors, including the TCAC/HCD
economic score, education domain score, and
jobs/proximity index scores, which may contribute to
higher-resource designations in lower-income areas. To
improve access to areas of high opportunity for lowerincome households, the City will work with developers to identify opportunities and reduce barriers to
constructing higher density and affordable housing in
higher income areas, particularly in the
Trinity/Northwest Stockton, Brookdale/Country Club,
Eight Mile/Bear Creek, and northeastern
Morada/Holman neighborhoods; infill in the vicinity the Quail Lakes subdivision in Pacific Avenue/Lincoln
Village neighborhood; and in the vicinity of University of the Pacific within the Midtown neighborhood, (Programs
5, 8, and 12) and will encourage construction of ADUs
across the city to increase housing mobility opportunities (Program 6).
Regional Trends
Median household incomes in the COG are distributed
similarly to the TCAC opportunity area designations
previously discussed. As of the 2015-2019 ACS, the
only census tracts within the COG that have median
household incomes lower than $30,000 are located in
Stockton. However, many areas of Lodi; the
unincorporated county area to the west and northwest
of Stockton (including the Thornton community);
communities immediately to the west of Stockton; and
census tracts within Lathrop, Manteca, and central
Tracy; also have median household incomes below
$55,000, which is below both the State median income
of $87,100 and below Stockton's 2020 median income
of $58,393.
Census tracts in the far northeast and southeast of the unincorporated county tend to have median household
incomes higher than $55,000 and lower than the
statewide median. These areas include the
unincorporated communities of Lockeford, Collierville,
Woodbridge and Clements. This is also true of the city
of Escalon, the southwest side of Ripon, north and
central Tracy, and much of Manteca, as well as
unincorporated communities of New Jerusalem and
Vernalis.
Many of the communities in the COG with incomes
above the state median but below $120,000 are the
same communities identified as high and highestopportunity areas under the TCAC designation system.
This includes areas in north Stockton and in the SOI
area north of Stockton including Morada; the
unincorporated communities of Linden, Peters, and
Farmington to the east; the northeast side of Ripon;
much of Tracy and the unincorporated areas to the
south including Chrisman; and the majority of the
Lathrop area.
The COG area's highest-income community is the
census tract covering Mountain House and the north
side of Tracy, with a median household income of
$128,246. This is the only community in the COG with
a median household income above $125,000.
Few areas of the COG outside of Stockton have high
concentrations of residents with incomes under the
poverty line as of the 2015-2019 ACS. A small number
of census tracts on the east side of Lodi, part of the
unincorporated community of August, and the census
tract that includes part of the Kennedy community
represent the only areas outside of Stockton city limits where more than 30 percent of residents have incomes
below the poverty line. However, August and Kennedy
are also within the Stockton sphere of influence (SOI)
area.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1120
BR-64 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
More medium concentrations of poverty, between 20
and 30 percent of the population, are located in the
Lockeford area, the census tract that includes Thornton, a small number of census tracts in south-central Lodi
and central Manteca, and in unincorporate
communities just to the east and southeast of Stockton.
Less than 20 percent of residents in each of the COG's
other census tracts have incomes below the poverty line.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1121
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-65
Figure HE-3: Local Poverty Rates
Source: 2015-2019 ACS
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1122
BR-66 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
RACE AND ETHNICITY
The City of Stockton is one of San Joaquin County’s
more diverse jurisdictions; its share of minority residents is 80.6 percent, compared to 69.3 percent in San
Joaquin County as a whole and 63.5 percent for the
State (Table HE-5, Population Breakdown by
Race/Ethnicity, in the HNA). The largest proportionate
racial and ethnic concentrations in Stockton are
Hispanic/Latino (43.5 percent), non-Hispanic Asian
(20.5 percent), non-Hispanic White (19.4 percent), and
non-Hispanic Black/African American (11.0 percent).
Other demographic groups, including American
Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian Hispanic, Multiracial
Hispanic, Native Hawaiian, and Other are represented
by smaller populations, each comprising 2.0 percent or
less of the city’s population. The racial and ethnic
groups that experienced the most growth between 2013
and 2020 were Hispanic or Latino residents, nonHispanic Asian residents, and non-Hispanic Black or African American residents, and the non-Hispanic White
population declined from 22.3 percent in 2013. The
data also indicate an increase in the number of residents who identify as multiracial or as part of other,
unspecified racial and ethnic groups.
As illustrated in Figure HE-4, Local Racial
Demographics, the northern portion of the city generally west of Lower Sacramento Road and North El Dorado
Road and north of SR-4 has a greater concentration of
block groups with non-White populations—between
41.0 and 60.0 percent—than the portion of the city
south of downtown and SR-4. White non-Hispanic
residents comprise majorities by block group in central Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton Road and Pacific
Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhoods between I-5 and
Lower Sacramento Road, and in the Brookside/Country
Club neighborhood west of I-5. Also, the block groups
to the east and south of University of the Pacific in the Midtown neighborhood are primarily White nonHispanic, likely in part due to a concentration of students in the area. is also one block group in the
predominantly non-White Morada/Holman
neighborhood, including the Friendly Village Mobile
Home Park and the Imperial Stockton Estates Mobile
Home Park, with a White non-Hispanic population of
48.0 percent, followed by Hispanic at 24.5 percent and
Asian at 15.8 percent. These neighborhoods generally
coincide with high and moderate TCAC/HCD
opportunity designations.
There are high concentrations of non-White residents,
predominantly identifying as Hispanic or Latino,
throughout most of South Stockton (south of SR-4),
including in areas near the Stockton Metropolitan
Airport and the border with French Camp, and in the
East Stockton neighborhood. The data also indicate a
smaller concentration of non-White residents along I-5
near West Hammer Lane, which includes a mix of
Hispanic residents (around 36.0 percent),
approximately 25.0 percent Asian residents,
approximately 15.0 percent Black and African
American, and a White non-Hispanic representation
near 18.0 percent. There are also notable non-White
concentrations along the city’s eastern boundary toward SR-99. However, unlike the majority of areas in the city with proportions of non-White populations above 81.0
percent, in which Hispanic households are
predominantly represented, the Morada/Holman
neighborhood in the northeast section of the city is
proportionately the most racially and ethnically diverse.
The block group west of SR-99 and east of the Union
Pacific Railroad Fresno Subdivision line has a
predominance of Asian households (46.0 percent)
followed by Hispanic or Latino households at 30.3
percent, non-Hispanic White at 10.8 percent, and Black
and African-American at 7.5 percent, correlating with a high TCAC/HCD designation; the remainder of the
block groups within this geographic neighborhood have
mixes of Asian and Hispanic or Latino residents between
35.0 and 40.0 percent each, with non-Hispanic White
and Black or African American groups ranging between
11.0 percent and 17.0 percent each. There is another
concentration of very racially diverse residential areas in the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, with a mix of
Hispanic or Latino (39.1 percent), Asian (25.2 percent), Black and African American (21.2 percent), and White
non-Hispanic 8.8 percent) residents. This data indicates that there are racially and ethnically integrated
neighborhoods in the city that generally correlate to
moderate and high resource designations.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1123
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-67
Generally, the city’s most racially and ethnically diverse neighborhoods coincide with the city’s lowest-income
neighborhoods and neighborhoods designated as
Areas of High Segregation and Poverty, as well as
locations of affordable multifamily housing resources
and the two Sierra Vista public housing communities.
These neighborhoods are found in predominantly
Hispanic communities in the southern section of the city (Figure HE-4, Local Racial Demographics), although the
racial and ethnic composition of the two public housing communities is more diverse, with roughly half of the
residents identifying as Hispanic or Latino, and onequarter each identifying as Black and Asian.
Similar to many jurisdictions in the San Joaquin Valley, Stockton once experienced redlining, which influenced
racial and ethnic patterns in the city, and these
communities may have more limited access to resources
and opportunities than households with similar incomes
living in other parts of the county (see the section titled “Other Relevant Factors”). However, in recent decades,
Stockton has experienced dramatic integration and
persistent diversity. The 2010-2014 and 2016-2020
ACS data reflect nearly identical spatial distributions of racial and ethnically diverse groups; however, there
have been substantial shifts in the Pacific
Avenue/Lincoln Village, Midtown, East Stockton, and
Morada/Holman neighborhoods from lower to higher
proportional representations of non-White
demographic groups. In general, areas of the city that
are the most diverse now were also the city’s most
diverse since the early 2000s, though these
neighborhoods are more diverse today than they were
previously.
This indicates that Stockton is home to a diverse
population of residents with a wide range of household
incomes, with generally higher incomes in areas of
higher White non-Hispanic communities as well as
neighborhoods with higher proportions of Asianidentifying residents on the east side of the city; distinctly lower incomes are found in communities with higher
proportions of Hispanic-identifying residents living in the southern half of the city, with some neighborhoods
experiencing high poverty and segregation and
identification by HUD as a R/ECAP, discussed in the
following section.
Regional Trends
As of the 2014-2018 ACS, much of the San Joaquin
COG region is predominantly Hispanic or White, as is
the case for many of the census tracts in Stockton. The Cities of Manteca, Lodi, and Ripon each have a mix of
block groups with predominantly White or Hispanic
populations. In Lodi, segregation between these areas
seems to be more pronounced, as non-White residents
make up less than a third of residents in most
predominantly White block groups. In central Lodi, one
block group has a non-White population that represents
only 19.5 percent of the total population according to
the 2015-2019 ACS. Toward the east side of Lodi,
where the community is predominantly Hispanic, block
groups have non-White populations of as much as 90.9
percent of residents. In Manteca, predominantly White
areas still have significant non-White populations, with many predominantly White areas in the 2014-2018
ACS having non-White populations of between 50 and
60 percent in the 2015-2019 ACS due to shifting
populations or having multiple moderately-sized nonWhite minority communities that make up a majority when combined. In Lathrop's majority Hispanic and
Asian areas, non-White residents make up more than
75 percent of residents in each block group. In its
predominantly White southwest side, non-White
residents make up 48.4 percent of the population.
Escalon is an exception to this mix of White and
Hispanic communities in incorporated areas, as all of
the block groups in this city are predominantly White,
and non-White communities make up 31.7 to 41.3
percent of residents.
Several unincorporated communities to the north and
northeast of Stockton are predominantly White,
including Collierville, Acampo, Lockeford, and
Clements. To the far east of the city, block groups that include the unincorporated communities of Peters and
Farmington are also predominantly White. South of
Stockton, the unincorporated communities of Banta,
Stoneridge, New Jerusalem, and Vernalis are also
predominantly White, as are the unincorporated areas
surrounding Ripon and Escalon. However, as is the case
in incorporated cities, in many of these areas non-White residents represent at least thirty percent of the
population, indicating that some majority-White areas
may be approaching a balance of White and non-White
residents. The predominantly White block groups with
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1124
BR-68 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
the lowest percentage of residents who identify as nonWhite are located in the north of the Linden community (28.6 percent of residents) and immediately west of Lodi (27.2 percent).
Unincorporated areas to the northwest of Stockton
including Thornton are predominantly Hispanic. Of
unincorporated areas in the County, this community has
one of the higher concentrations of non-White residents in the county (75.9 percent). This is also true of the block groups to the southwest of Stockton and to the north or west of Lathrop, including French Camp (73.9, 80.5,
and 82.3 percent), and immediately to the southeast
near the airport (76.9 percent of residents). The block groups in the far southwest region of the unincorporated county, including the south side of Tracy and the
unincorporated community of Chrisman, are also
predominantly Hispanic, with 61.9 percent of residents
identifying as non-White. It is worth noting that these large concentrations of non-White residents in
predominantly Hispanic areas are not necessarily all
Hispanic, but that Hispanic residents make up the
largest community in the area. Block groups with
predominantly Hispanic populations are also located in
the east of Stockton, the Noble Acres community, part
of Linden, and several unincorporated areas to the east of Stockton without larger named communities. In these
areas the percent of residents that identify as non-White is closer to 50 percent.
As with several areas of north Stockton, one block group that includes the community immediately to the north of the city has a predominantly Asian population. In this
block group, 86.7 percent of residents identify as nonWhite, though not all non-White residents necessarily identify as Asian. This high concentration of non-White residents is also true of the unincorporated Mountain
House and Lammersville area (74.3 percent of
residents) and a small area on the west side of Tracy
(80.3 percent non-White), each of which has a
predominantly Asian population. The block group
covering part of central Lathrop and the area just to the north of the city is also predominantly Asian, and 82.4 percent of residents in this area identify as non-White.
Data for several unincorporated areas to the west of
Stockton and north of Tracy on predominant
populations and the percent of the population that are
non-white are not available from the 2015-2019 ACS.
To increase housing mobility opportunities for lowerand moderate-income households and non-White households, the City will implement Program 12 to
continue to support construction of high-density housing in areas with better access to opportunities to facilitate economic mobility for lower-income residents and will
promote construction of a range of housing types to
meet a variety of needs.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1125
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-69
Figure HE-4: Local Racial Demographics
Source: Esri, 2018
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1126
BR-70 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
R/ECAPS and RCAAs
Concentrations of minority populations or
concentrations of affluence may indicate a fair housing issue despite relative integration compared to the
region.
R/ECAPs
In 2013, HUD developed a method for identifying
disproportionate impacts of poverty on racial and ethnic minority groups that relies on a racial and ethnic
concentration threshold, as well as a poverty test. Figure HE-5, Racially or Ethically Concentrated Areas of
Poverty (R/ECAP), identifies the R/ECAP areas in
Stockton by census tracts based on the HUD criteria.
Concentrations of R/ECAP tracts are located throughout
Downtown Stockton and the areas immediately to the
south of SR-4 in South Stockton, correlating with several of the tracts identified by the Home Owners Loan
Corporation Redlining Grade (University of Richmond,
2021) as “Declining” and “Hazardous,” and a
TCAC/HCD Opportunity Resource designation of High
Segregation and Poverty. Many of the deed restricted
housing complexes in the city are included within the
boundaries of the R/ECAPS, with the highest
concentration in the Downtown, which likely contributes to the concentration of households in poverty. The
R/ECAP tract geographic distribution is very similar to that of lower income households, with proportions of
renter households above 60.0 percent; between 15.0 to
29.5 percent of residents live in overcrowded conditions in all but one census tract (which is adjacent to rail
switching yards and largely industrial uses); over 60.0 percent of renters pay over 30.0 percent of their income for housing (one census tract in Homestead community
has slightly lower renter overpayment at 56.1 percent); and over 40.0 percent of owners overpay for housing.
Also, between 20.0 percent to 60.0 percent of
households in these census tracts are single femaleheaded households.
There are also three scattered census tracts identified as R/ECAPS in the Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton Road
and Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhoods.
While the census tracts northwest of the intersection of West Lane and East Hammer Road, and the census tract
southeast of the intersection of East March Lane and
North El Dorado Street are designated as TCAC/HCD
Areas of High Segregation and Poverty, the census tract southeast of the intersection of Thornton Road/Pacific
Avenue and West Hammer Lane has a moderate
TCAC/HCD resource opportunity designation. Within
this census tract, the median income in 2019 was
$42,939 and the percentage of persons in poverty is
21.1 percent, with 37.2 percent of children in the tract in households below the poverty level. As well, 77.2
percent of the population is non-White, which meets the requirement for a R/ECAP having a non-White
population over 50.0 percent of the total tract. Based
on these characteristics, this tract has a concentration of non-White households but the population rate is below
that required of a R/ECAP. As stated previously, HUD
identified R/ECAP areas in 2013. Therefore, more
current data suggest that this area may have
experienced a decrease in poverty rate. However,
household characteristics still indicate a concentration of lower-income, cost-burdened households.
Approximately 75.9 percent of households are renters,
57.3 percent of renter households overpay for housing,
and 33.4 percent of homeowners overpay for housing;
it is located in a moderate risk of flooding zone; there are two affordable housing complexes; and while the
senior population is fairly low in this tract, at 12.8
percent of the total tract population, 57.6 percent of
seniors experience a disability, which is equivalent to
44.8 percent of the persons with disabilities in this tract.
The City will provide opportunities for provision of
mixed-income housing integration through Programs 6
and 12.
RCAAS
Where the R/ECAP areas reflect concentrations of
poverty, HCD has developed an alternative metric
focused on areas of Racially Concentrated Area of
Affluence (RCAAs). An RCAA is defined as a tract in
which the percentage of a population tract that identifies as White is 1.25 times higher than the percentage that
identifies as White in the entire COG region (also called the Location Quotient), and where the median income
is at least 1.5 times greater than the COG AMI. There
are two RCAA areas in Stockton—one in the Upper
Hammer Lane/Thornton Road neighborhood with a
TCAC/HCD High Resource Opportunity area
designation, and the Brookside Country Club
neighborhood with a Highest TCAC/HCD Resource
Opportunity area designation. The limited distribution
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1127
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-71
of RCAAs reflects the relatively high representation of communities of color in most of Stockton as well as the limited affluence level (Figure HE-6, Racially
Concentrated Areas of Affluence).
In contrast to R/ECAPs, RCAAs usually have persisted
due to decades of focused investment, appreciated
value of real estate, and wealth generation resulting
from discriminatory practices and covert (and in some
cases overt) racially restrictive covenants, indicating possible barriers to entry for non-White and lowerincome households in these neighborhoods. The UC Merced Urban Policy Lab found that White residents of
Stockton are the most isolated compared with other
ethnicities. Stockton’s isolation index of 0.248 for White residents means that the average White resident lives in a neighborhood in which 24.8 percent of the population
is White. Therefore, the higher percentage of nonHispanic White population in the RCAAs indicates that there are other factors that have influenced this level of segregation.
As discussed in greater detail in the “Other Relevant
Factors” section, the Brookside Country Club RCAA
tract coincides with the development of the Brookside
Master Planned community in the late 1980s, designed
as an elite golf course community emphasizing security, better educational facilities, and an exceptional quality of life. Though racial discriminatory exclusion was not direct, the community was socioeconomically
differentiated by income and the ability to pay the high market rate home prices and association fees. In 2020,
the RCAA has an overall median income of $105,766,
and a Location Quotient of White population of 1.47
(47.1 percent White), although the actual percentage of White population varies within the four block groups
encompassed by the RCAA.
Although the median income within the four block
groups remains among the highest in the city, the racial and ethnic composition of the Brookside RCAA has
been shifting, and should this trend continue over the
next decade, the Brookside Country Club neighborhood
may no longer qualify as an RCAA. In 2010 (2010
census), the proportion of White population ranged
from 48.2 to 71.8 percent, with two block groups at
63.0 percent; followed by Asian residents comprising
between 18.4 to 30.9 percent; and Hispanic residents
did not exceed 12.6 percent in any block group. In
comparison, in 2020 (2016-2020 ACS), the White
population had diminished to between 32.4 and 57.1
percent; the Asian population had risen to between 20.1 and 32.4 percent for an average of 21.6 percent tractwide; and the Hispanic population had increased to between 13.4 and 25.3 percent for an average of 22.1
percent within the tract. While this shift in the racial and ethnic composition of the RCAA suggests that White
residents may be relocating elsewhere in the city, it also indicates increasing integration and housing mobility
opportunities for (higher income) non-White
populations.
The second RCAA is not as clearly distinguished from
other census tracts with higher income residents,
although it meets the parameters of the RCAA definition; the Location Quotient is 1.26 (40.4 percent White), with a median income of $96,118 and a High resource
designation. The non-White population is more heavily
Hispanic, at 30.5 percent of the tract population, with a fairly equal mix of Asian and Black residents—
approximately 11.0 percent. The RCAA encompasses
the Stonewood Estates community, also developed in
the mid-1980s, with home values averaging $500,000.
Similar to the Brookside RCAA, the racial and ethnic
composition has shifted from 54.0 percent White in
2010 to 40.4 percent White in 2020, and though the
income remains high, in relative terms the overall
median income in the tract is lower than in 2010. Based on these characteristics, it is likely that this tract will no longer meet the RCAA parameters at some point in the
near future. However, the shift in socioeconomic
characteristics indicates that this RCAA has provided
housing mobility opportunities for moderate-income
households and non-White households in a
TCAC/HCD High resource designated area.
The City will commit to Programs 6, 12, 14, 15, 17, 26, and 27 to integrate affordable housing into these
neighborhoods to increase housing mobility
opportunities and increased access to resources for
lower income households.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1128
BR-72 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Figure HE-5: Racially or Ethically Concentrated Areas of Poverty Source: HUD, 2013
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1129
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-73
Figure HE-6: Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Source: 2015-2019 ACS, HCD 2022
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1130
BR-74 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Regional Trends
The majority of R/ECAP areas in San Joaquin COG are
located within Stockton. However, one census tract on
the northeast side of Lodi was also designated a
R/ECAP. No other cities or unincorporated areas of the
county have R/ECAP-designated areas.
Two areas of Lodi were considered RCAAs, one tract
that includes the city's west side and an adjacent
unincorporated area and another that includes the city's north side. Median household incomes in these areas
were $109,375 and $103,750, respectively. NonWhite residents represented less than a third of the population in each of these areas.
The north side of Ripon was identified as an RCAA. As
previously discussed, this is a predominantly White area with a median household income of $101,957.
The area southwest of Tracy, which is a predominantly
Hispanic area, was also identified as an RCAA. Though
the community has a predominant Hispanic population,
White residents make up 38.1 percent of the
community, which is approximately at the threshold of
White population to qualify as an RCAA in San Joaquin
County. This area has a median household income of
$113,269.
No other areas of the unincorporated county or cities
within the County were identified as RCAAs.
FAMILIAL STATUS
Approximately 72.5 percent of Stockton households are
family households, defined by California law as a
household of two or more persons, regardless of
relationship status. As indicated by Table HE-36,
Female-Headed Households, in the HNA, 30.3 percent
of family households are headed by single females with
no spouse, which is greater than in San Joaquin County
at 25.1 percent, and the state at 26.2 percent. Similarly, Stockton has a greater proportion of single femaleheaded households with children under the age of 18 (8.1 percent of all households and 26.8 percent of total female-headed households) compared to countywide
(5.8 percent of total households and 23.1 percent of
female-headed households) and statewide (4.7 percent
of total households and 17.9 percent of female-headed
households). Of the total number of female-headed
households in the city, 28.9 percent have incomes
below the poverty level. Overall, female-headed
households with children comprise 55.5 percent of total households in poverty in Stockton, which indicates that these households are at particular risk of displacement and challenges securing affordable housing. The spatial distribution in the northern portion of the city of singleparent, female-headed households with children of between 20.0 to 40.0 percent of the total number of
single female-headed households in the tract is
generally consistent with TCAC/HCD Low and
Moderate opportunity designations in the
Morada/Holman and Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton
Road neighborhoods, and the portion of the Pacific
Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhood east of Thornton
Road as well as south of March Road. The entire East
Stockton neighborhood shows rates of single-parent,
female-headed households with children between 20.0
to 40.0 percent of the total number of single femaleheaded households. Data indicate that there is a common correlation between higher rates of singleparent, female-headed households with children in the census tracts with lower-incomes, a predominance of
non-White households, and availability of affordable
housing resources.
The spatial distribution of single-parent, female-headed households with children of between 40.0 to 60.0
percent of the total number of single female-headed
households in the tract is generally consistent with
TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas of High Segregation
and Poverty designations and lower-median household
incomes. The majority of the southern portion of the city, including the Downtown, portions of the East Stockton
neighborhood, and South Stockton neighborhoods,
have rates of single-parent, female-headed households
with children between 20.0 to 60.0 percent of the total number of single female- headed households in the
tract. Higher rates of this household type in lowerresource, lower-income areas suggest that children in these households may have more limited access to
resources and opportunities compared with children
living in other parts of the city or in other family
configurations. However, the higher presence of single
female-headed households with children in low
resource areas is not a consistent correlation in all
census tracts. There are two census tracts designated
TCAC/HCD High resource opportunity in the Pacific
Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhood, where between
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1131
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-75
40.0 to 60.0 percent of households are single femaleheaded households with children. In the census tract bounded by I-5 to the west, Grouse Run Drive to the
east, and March Lane to the south, median incomes
range from $60,341 to $98,491 (Figure HE-7,
Children in Female-Headed Households), with nonWhite populations between 41.6 to 69.3 percent.
However, although the census tract south of
Weberstown Mall is designated High resource
opportunity, it has a median household income of
$39,240, and 79.2 percent of the population is nonWhite, which aligns more closely to the pattern of higher rates of this household type in lower-income, more
racially and ethnically diverse areas, suggesting that the more positive TCAC/HCD designation is a result of
proximity to access to resources, amenities, and
educational facilities.
Regional Trends
As of the 2015-2019 ACS, few areas of the San Joaquin
COG area outside of Stockton have significant
concentrations of children living in households headed
by a single female householder. Areas with more than
20 percent of children living in this household type tend to be located within cities, with two exceptions. In the Lockeford area, 36.4 percent of children live in this
household type, and in the census tract that includes the communities of New Jerusalem and Vernalis, 26.8
percent of children live in households with single female householders. Neither of these census tracts was among
the region's lowest-income areas.
In San Joaquin COG's incorporated areas, medium
concentrations of children in female-headed
households are more common. In Escalon, 22 percent
of children live in this household type, which is a similar rate to two census tracts in north and central Tracy (25.2 and 22.3 percent of children, respectively). Each of
these census tracts has a median household income
above $65,000.
Central Manteca has three small census tracts where
32.0, 27.0, and 22.9 of children live in female-headed
households, and central Lathrop has one census tract
where 20.6 percent of children live in this household
type. However, in both cities fewer than 20 percent of
children in the remaining census tracts live in femaleheaded households. Each of these census tracts has a median household income above $50,000.
Lodi's northeast side has a collection of three census
tracts where more than one-quarter of children live in
female-headed households with 33.4, 25.5, and 32.2
percent of children living in this household type,
respectively. The first two of these three tracts are also the city's lowest-income areas, with median household
incomes of $33,438 and $36,037. The third has a
median household income of $57,931. Another tract
on the city's south side has a medium concentration of
children in female-headed households (23.2 percent)
and has a median household income of $55,284.
The census tract with the highest rate, between 61.0 and
80.0 percent of single female-headed households with
children, is found in the Weston/Van Buskirk
neighborhood in the southwest portion of the city. The
census tract is designated an Area of High Segregation
and Poverty, which also corresponds to the location of
the Sierra Vista–Conway Homes Annex affordable
public housing community. This indicates a
concentration of single-parent, female-headed
households in a low-resource, low-income, and
predominantly non-White neighborhood.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1132
BR-76 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Figure HE-7: Children in Female-Headed Households
Source: 2015-2019 ACS
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1133
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-77
Data from the 2016-2020 ACS indicate that
approximately 22.2 percent of households consist of
residents living alone. A slightly higher proportion (54.6 percent) of single-person households are renters
compared to homeowners (45.4 percent). The spatial
distribution of single-person households is fairly evenly distributed throughout the city at a rate below 20.0
percent of households (Figure HE-8, Adults Living
Alone). However, there is a concentration of singleperson households ranging from 28.7 percent to 42.6 percent of the total households in three census tracts in and near the Greater Downtown area. Almost onequarter (24.4 percent) of the population in these tracts are Generation Z (age 7 to 25), with Millennials (age
25 to 42) comprising 28.9 percent of the population,
followed by Baby Boomers (age 59 to 77) at 19.3
percent, and Generation X (age 43 to 58) at 18.5
percent. Individuals over 77 represented only 7.0
percent of the population. All three census tracts are
TCAC/HCD designated as an Area of High Segregation
and Poverty and are identified as a R/ECAP by HUD. As
well, there are 17 affordable housing resources in this area, several of which are operated by the Housing
Authority of County of San Joaquin as permanent
supportive housing for the formerly homeless. There is
also one area with a concentration of single-person
households above 20.0 percent in the census tract
adjacent to University of the Pacific campus in the
Midtown neighborhood with a TCAC/HCD Moderate
resource opportunity designation. Within this tract, the largest age cohort is again Millennials at 25.8 percent, with Baby Boomers comprising 22.4 percent of the
population, Generation Z at 20.9 percent and
Generation X at 14.9 percent. In contrast to the
Downtown however, the oldest age cohort represents
13.5 percent of the population. While the higher
proportion of persons who live alone in this tract could be partially attributed to its adjacency to the college campus, the higher proportions of persons in the older
age cohorts suggests that a portion of residents may be aging in place, particularly associate with convenient
access to a range of medical facilities. Although
incomes range between $17,478 to $57,03, and 20.0
percent of the population has an income below the
poverty line, the two affordable housing complexes and
student living arrangements may contribute to the
dynamic of lower economic conditions and singleperson households, and therefore the population in this tract is not considered at risk of displacement.
The City will implement Programs 6 and 30 to improve
access to affordable housing for single-parent female
headed households and single person households in
areas of higher opportunity by encouraging construction of affordable units in a range of sizes, and improve
opportunities in low-opportunity areas.
Regional Trends
As is the case in many of Stockton's census tracts, rates of adults living alone are typically low throughout the San Joaquin County COG area. Only one census tract
outside of Stockton has a rate of adults living alone that is higher than 20 percent. This tract, located in Lodi, is also one of the census tracts with a higher percentage
of children living in female-headed households. Though
it is not one of the city's lowest-income tracts, with a median household income of $57,931, medium
concentrations of both groups may indicate housing that may be more affordable to single-income households.
Three of the region's highest-income census tracts also have some of its lowest rates of adults living alone. Thes include the Mountain House area and the two tracts
directly south, where 3.8, 3.0, and 2.0 percent of
households are adults living alone. These tracts have
median household incomes of $128,246, $119,479,
and $113,269, respectively. These tracts also have
relatively low percentage of children living in femaleheaded households (8.3, 5.4, and 0 percent, respectively). This suggests that housing in this area may be less affordable to single-income households.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1134
BR-78 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Figure HE-8: Adults Living Alone
Source: 2015-2019 ACS
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1135
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-79
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Persons living with disabilities are an important
population with special needs with respect to housing.
Such persons are often more likely to live in poverty,
struggle to secure and maintain adequate employment,
and sometimes require significant accommodations in
housing. As shown in Table HE-33 in the HNA, 14.6
percent of the total population in Stockton five years and older had one or more disabilities in 2020, compared
to 13.3 percent countywide and 8.0 percent in
California. Among school age children, the most
frequent disability was cognitive (48.6 percent). For
persons ages 18 to 64 years, the most frequent
disabilities were ambulatory (27.4 percent), cognitive
(23.2 percent), and independent living (20.8 percent).
Among seniors, ambulatory and independent living
disabilities were the most frequent (29.2 percent and
21.6 percent, respectively).
Figure HE-9, Percentage of the Population with a
Disability, shows the geographic distribution of residents with disabilities by census tract. The spatial distribution of Stockton residents living with disabilities is consistent with patterns demonstrated by Areas of High
Segregation and Poverty and lower-income households,
with lower rates of disability generally corresponding to High and Moderate resource designated areas. The
majority of the city has a rate of persons with a disability below 20.0 percent, with census tracts with 10.0 percent or below of residents experiencing a disability found in the Trinity/Northwest Stockton, Brookside Country Club, Midtown (University of the Pacific), and the Port and
Mount Diablo Waterfront (which contains very little
residential population) neighborhoods. Census tracts
with a share of residents with a disability between 20.0 percent to 30.0 percent of the total population are
found in four tracts north of the Greater Downtown. Two of these tracts are adjacent to University of the Pacific campus, and one is adjacent to and inclusive of San
Joaquin Delta College. The availability of commercial
uses, services, amenities, and transit opportunities in the vicinity of the campuses suggests that these areas may
be attractive residential options for persons with
disabilities, with TCAC/HCD designations ranging from
Low resource west of University of the Pacific to High
resource to the east of University of the Pacific and the San Joaquin Delta College environs. The final census
tract with a high rate of persons with disabilities is in the Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton Road neighborhood
between I-5 and Thornton Road, including the Wagner
Heights Rehabilitation Center, suggesting that the
residents of this facility contribute to the higher incidence of disability. South of Greater Downtown in the
Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the census tract
north of French Camp and Walker Slough, west of I-5,
including the Sierra Vista II affordable public housing complex, has a rate of persons with disabilities of 23.1 percent, of which 29.7 percent are seniors (although
seniors comprise less than 10.0 percent of the total
population in this tract, 65.0 percent experience a
disability). This census tract is TCAC/HCD designated
as an Area of High Segregation and Poverty, has a
poverty rate of 43.5 percent, and the highest rate of
single female-headed households with children.
The census tracts with the highest proportion of residents with disabilities are found in Greater Downtown
Stockton, north of Dr. Martin Luther King Boulevard
(formerly East Charter Way,) east of I-5, south of West Harding Way and East Park Street, and west of North
Van Buren Street and the Union Pacific Railroad
Sacramento Subdivision/ACE line. The proportion of
persons with disabilities range from 19.6 to 20.8
percent in the census tracts south of Harding Way and
north of West Park Street (between 34.8 and 47.3
percent of disabled persons in these tracts are seniors); to 31.1 percent in the downtown core (33.7 percent of
persons with disabilities are seniors); to just over 25.0 percent in the census tract to the west and southwest of the Downtown core (with seniors between 27.9 and
48.9 percent of disabled persons). As previously
discussed, the Greater Downtown area is designated a
TCAC/HCD Area of High Segregation and Poverty,
HUD identifies it as a R/ECAP, and a large number of
affordable housing and homeless resources are located
in the vicinity, with transit opportunities available at the Amtrak Downtown ACE Station, the nearby Amtrak San
Joaquin Street, and the Greyhound terminal at the
corner of South Center and East Market Street.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1136
BR-80 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Figure HE-9: Percentage of the Population with a Disability Source: 2015-2019 ACS
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1137
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-81
There are several licensed assisted living facilities
available to persons living with disabilities in Stockton.
According to the State of California Licensing Division, accessed February 2023, there are 227 adult
residential facilities with capacity for 1,490 residents, and 3 adult day care facilities southwest of the Industrial Annex neighborhood in the unincorporated French
Camp area, with daily capacity for 235 persons. These
residential homes are for adults with intellectual and
developmental disabilities who also have medical,
behavioral, or age-related support needs. There is also capacity for 1,948 persons in licensed senior residential facilities, with some of the largest being O’Connor
Woods Assisted Living with capacity for 499 seniors,
Camlu Assisted Living with capacity for 160 residents,
Del Monte Stockton with capacity for 158 seniors, and
Golden Haven with capacity for 150 seniors. Facilities
are clustered largely within the western half of the Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village; in the vicinity surrounding San Joaquin Delta College and the commercial services and
amenities along Pacific Avenue and March Lane; and in
the lower Morada/Holman neighborhood. There is also
a cluster of assisted living facilities in the Midtown
neighborhood in the vicinity of the St. Joseph’s Medical Center between Pacific Avenue and North Airport Way,
as well as within the Greater Downtown area in higherdensity neighborhoods. Most facilities correspond with areas of concentrated disability, therefore explaining the higher rates of disabilities in these tracts compared to other areas of the city. As well, multifamily senior
independent and single-family active adult communities
are located throughout the city.
The City also requires new developments to comply with
Title 24 of the 2022 California Building Code to ensure that all new construction meets accessible design
standards, thus ensuring that all new housing is
accessible for all residents regardless of disability.
Additionally, the City will ensure that older housing that may not meet the same accessibility requirements can
be adapted as needed through its Reasonable
Accommodation process, discussed in the
Governmental Constraints section of this Housing
Element, and by seeking funding to assist with
modifications (Program 29).
To improve access to housing for senior residents and
other residents with disabilities, the City has included Program 27 to encourage all new units to be universally designed so they are accessible for both occupants and
visitors.
Regional Trends
Most areas of the San Joaquin COG area outside of
Stockton have rates of disability lower than 20 percent of residents, with the exception of the census tract that includes the community of Thornton, where 20.4
percent of residents have a disability, and one census
tract in Manteca, where 20.3 percent of residents had a disability. Of the Thornton tract's residents with a
disability, 44 percent were senior residents (i.e. over 65 years old). The tract covers a large unincorporated area, but also extends slightly into the northern part of
Stockton's SOI. Housing in this area may be more
affordable to residents with disabilities.
While as previously discussed there are several census
tracts within Stockton that have higher or lower
concentrations of residents with disabilities, many have similar rates to unincorporated areas to the west and
south of the city, as well as to much of Manteca
(between 10 and 20 percent of residents).
In Manteca, only 29.2 percent of disabled residents in
its tract with the highest disability rate were seniors. The concentration of residents with a disability in this area of Manteca is likely attributable in part to the presence of Mercy Adult Care, an assisted living facility, and possibly to Union Court, an affordable housing property that
may be more affordable to residents with disabilities.
Communities of the COG area with the lowest
percentage of residents with disabilities include the two higher-income census tracts in and around Mountain
House (6.5 and 5.6 percent of residents, respectively).
Of disabled residents in these two tracts, 46.0 and 55.8 percent are seniors. This indicates that it may be more challenging for residents with existing disabilities to move into this community, potentially due to high
housing costs. It is possible that older residents with disabilities in this area may have already owned their
homes prior to developing a disability.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1138
BR-82 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
ACCESS TO
OPPORTUNITY
TRANSIT MOBILITY
Transit mobility refers to an individual’s ability to
navigate the city and region on a daily basis to access services, employment, schools, and other resources.
Indicators of transit mobility include the extent of transit routes, proximity of transit stops to affordable housing, and frequency of transit.
Regional rail transit is provided by the San Joaquin
Regional Rail Commission (Amtrak San Joaquins),
which services 18 train stations in the San Joaquin
Valley. Originating in San Francisco, the route travels to Oakland and Richmond (with connection to BART); up
though Sacramento to Stockton; continuing to Modesto,
Merced, Madera, Fresno, Hanford, and Bakersfield; to
Los Angeles; and through Orange County to San Diego,
with intermediate stations. ACE rail provides four trips per day to the Tri Valley and Silicon Valley. Sacramento service (including a shuttle connection to the
Sacramento Airport) is expected to begin operating in
2025. In addition to rail service, Amtrak San Joaquin
offers a Thruway Bus network with a connection at the
Stockton San Joaquin Street Station serving Los Angeles, San Francisco, Yosemite, Napa, Las Vegas, Arcata,
Chico, and San Luis Obispo. Thruway connections are
also available between Redding and Sacramento, and
between Santa Cruz and Stockton via San Jose on the
Altamont Corridor Express, connecting to Silicon Valley business shuttles and BART.
Stockton Metropolitan Area residents are served by the
San Joaquin Regional Transit District (RTD). There are
six transit service types in the RTD system serving
Stockton. The RTD Local fixed route connects BRT
Express, Intercity Local, Hopper, and Commuter services as well as VanGo! and Dial-A-Ride paratransit services.
San Joaquin RTD is one of the transit operators in the
Access San Joaquin Consolidated Transportation
Services Agency formed by multiple transit operators in San Joaquin County. One of the primary goals
of Access San Joaquin is to improve the quality of
transportation services for low-mobility groups such as seniors and people with disabilities, discussed in greater detail later in this section.
Two Commuter routes provide service north to
Sacramento. Route 150 operates between the
Downtown Transit Center and the Dublin BART Station
between 4:00 am and 7:20 pm on weekdays, with a
stop at the Tracy Transit Station and weekend service
between 7:00 am and 10:30 pm; Route 163 connects
Stockton to Lodi and Sacramento via SR-99 on
weekdays, with service originating in Stockton at 5:30
am and the last bus from Sacramento arriving back in
Stockton at 6:30 pm. Monthly round-trip fares from
Stockton to Sacramento are $176 monthly or $7.00
one way.
RTD launched its first Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Express
Corridor in 2007. BRT Express routes are key corridors, some up to six miles in length, and are important
interconnections within the transportation system for the city of Stockton. BRT operates five fixed local intracity express routes between the Downtown Transit Center at
California Street and East Weber Avenue, throughout
the city, with connections at the Hammer Transfer
station. Routes are operated from 5:20 am to 10:11 pm
on weekdays and from 7:00 am to 7:44 pm on
Saturday, depending on the route.
There are 21 local routes that serve the Stockton
community via the Downtown Transit Center, Mall
Transfer Station, and Hammer Transfer Station. As well, there are seven Local Hopper routes and five Hopper
County routes. Metro Hopper is a deviated fixed-route
service serving popular destinations throughout the
Stockton city limits, operating Monday through Friday,
6:00 am to 6:30 pm, running approximately every hour.
County Hopper is a deviated fixed-route service serving San Joaquin County and providing intercity connections
between Stockton, Tracy, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon,
Lathrop, and Escalon. There are five weekday routes
that operate from 5:30 am to 9:00 pm. The BRT
Express, Local, Intercity, and Hopper systems charge
$1.50 for a single ride; the discounted rate for seniors over age 60, persons with disabilities, and Medicare
cardholders is $0.75; and children are free. A one-day
pass is $4.00 with the discount rate at $2.00. Monthly
full-price passes are $65.00, with discount fares at
$30.00, and special student fares at $40.00.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1139
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-83
The new RTD VAN Go! pilot program offers trips
throughout San Joaquin County, with no set zones or
transfers required. Van Go is an on-demand ride-share
service that can be booked up to 48 hours in advance.
Travel does not operate on a fixed schedule; however,
patrons are provided an estimated pick-up window.
From one to three passengers can be accommodated.
The set fee for the first five miles of a personalized route is $4 per person, with $0.50 per additional mile per
person. Discount fare cards are available for $3.00 per person with a $0.50 per mile charge.
In order to accommodate ADA-certified passengers who
are not able to reach fixed-route stops, each Hopper
can deviate from its normal route a distance of up to
one mile. The service covers approximately 75.0
percent of the Stockton Metro Area for ADA-certified
customers with the one-mile deviation. Within a rural
area, each County Hopper can also deviate from its
normal route a distance of up to one mile. Reservations are required. RTD offers Paratransit Dial-A-Ride for
those who qualify under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This program is specifically designed for
individuals who, due to their disability, are functionally unable to use fixed-route services in San Joaquin
County. This service is available seven days a week by
appointment only and operates within three-quarters of
a mile of Stockton Metro Area (SMA) fixed routes.
Persons interested in this service must obtain certification under the ADA through an eligibility process.
According to AllTransit, (see Figure HE-10, Transit Score in Stockton), Stockton has an overall transit score of 4.2, which is comparable to other cities in the San Joaquin
Valley, reflecting a relatively low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible via transit. While
there are seven transit routes in Stockton, with most
residential neighborhoods located within a half mile of one or more routes, only 1.7 percent of commuters use
transit. Annual ridership on the Altamont Corridor
Express (ACE) commuter rail service between Stockton
and Santa Clara has more than doubled from 2010 to
2019, suggesting that commuters from Stockton may
rely on ACE rather than local and regional bus routes
because their jobs that are more easily accessible via
ACE.
Figure HE-10: AllTransit Performance Score, 2022
Source: AllTransit, 2022.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1140
BR-84 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
HOUSING MOBILITY
As presented in HNA Table HE-31: Housing Tenure,
2020, 50.1 percent of households are renters in
Stockton. The homeownership vacancy rate in the city is
0.4 percent, and the rental unit vacancy rate is 2.6
percent. This may indicate that, while there is a greater shortage of ownership units for renters seeking
homeownership and existing homeowners seeking a
new home, there are also limited mobility opportunities for households seeking rental opportunities. Renters are the slight majority tenure in Stockton, and HCV
participants are present throughout most of the city
(Figure HE-11, Housing Choice Voucher Distribution in
Stockton). There are six census tracts in which 15.4 to
28.8 percent of renter households use an HCV. Three
of the census tracts with HCV usage above 15.0 percent
are in the Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton Road
neighborhood. The greatest concentration is in the
Stockton Summerplace and Knickerbocker/Tam
O’Shanter Drive residential areas, where 28.8 percent
of renter households use an HCV. The homes in these
areas are generally older, smaller single-family stock, much of which has been converted to rental units, with
high proportions of renter households. In addition to
HCV usage, there are also two affordable multifamily
complexes within this census tract providing 499
affordable housing units. Correlating to this high HCV
usage and presence of affordable housing units, the rate of poverty is 36.3 percent, with median incomes ranging between $26,462 and $37,127.
The second highest concentration is found in the Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhood, to the southeast
of the Pacific Avenue commercial corridor, where 22.7
percent of renters use an HCV, and renters comprise
85.3 percent of households. In addition to the HCVs,
there are two affordable multifamily complexes offering 133 units, and the housing stock includes several
condominium type complexes. Correlating to this high
HCV usage and presence of affordable housing units,
the rate of poverty is the highest in the city, at 41.9 percent, with median incomes in the two western block
groups of this tract at $25,328 and $28,419, and
concentrations of non-White populations above 93.5
percent. The census tract in the Midtown neighborhood
directly adjacent to Downtown, inclusive of the Cal State University Stanislaus–Stockton campus, is also an area
with a high poverty rate at 33.9 percent and low median incomes between $13,244 and $33,873 (although
these incomes may reflect population associated with
the college) and reflects an HCV usage rate of 16.7
percent.
High rates of HCV use (15.5 percent) are also found
along the southeast edge of the South Stockton
neighborhood in a census tract inclusive of
unincorporated county land. In addition to HCV usage,
the Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin and
Central California Housing Corporation provide 215
Sierra Vista Homes public housing units. Correlating to this high HCV usage and presence of affordable
housing units, a location in the vicinity of the Stockton Airport, industrial uses, and the Union Pacific Railroad track switching yards, the rate of poverty ranges from
41.1 percent in the northern block group to 31.5
percent in the southern block group, with median
incomes ranging between $24,743 to $26,050 and
over 98.0 percent non-White populations.
Throughout the rest of the city, HCV renter use is lower than 15.0 percent, with the majority of the city having HCV usage rates between 5.0 and 15.0 percent (Figure
HE-11, Housing Choice Voucher Distribution in
Stockton), with rates between 10.0 to 15.0 percent
adjacent to tracts with the highest concentration of
voucher users. The lowest HCV usage is found in the
northern portions of the city, the western edge, in the East Stockton neighborhood, and in the Pacific
Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhood around San
Joaquin Delta College and University of the Pacific. The concentration of voucher recipients in the
neighborhoods with HCV rates above 15.0 percent may
be due to the availability of housing that is affordable with a voucher, meets the condition requirements of the voucher, or that landlords in other areas of the city are unaware of the requirement to accept vouchers. The
concentration in the Stockton Summerplace and
Knickerbocker Drive residential areas may also be due
to the high percentage of female-headed households
found in that census tract.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1141
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-85
Figure HE-11: Housing Choice Voucher Distribution in Stockton Source: HUD, 2021
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1142
BR-86 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Stockton median rent for apartments and condos is
$1,823, based on a survey of 97 available rentals on
October 12, 2022. The price range for apartments was
between $850 to $2,437 for studio to four-bedroom
units (see HNA Table HE-30: Average Rental Rates,
2022). Based on 2022 ability to pay for housing based
on HCD Income Limits as shown in Table HE-27 in the
HNA, only households with median incomes would be
able to afford the median rent. The fair market rent for three-bedroom units, the most common size rental unit
in the Stockton MSA, as established by HUD, is $1,607,
but the average monthly rent for a three-bedroom unit,
inclusive of multifamily units, condos, duplex to fourplex units, or single family attached or detached units
converted to rental properties, was $2,357, which
would be above the affordability range of lower- and
median-income households. This indicates that the
majority of market-rate rental units, at sizes appropriate to accommodate a variety of household sizes, are only
attainable to moderate-income households, indicating
a need for additional stock of rental units available at fair market rents affordable to lower-income
households, particularly very low- and extremely lowincome households. To increase opportunities for housing mobility, the City shall work with the Housing
Authority of San Joaquin County to increase voucher
acceptance in areas of higher income through Program
11. Strategies may include partnering with the Housing
Authority to provide biannual training to landlords
regarding fair-housing requirements, including the
requirement that they accept vouchers, and educate
property owners in Moderate resource areas, as defined
by TCAC higher-income neighborhoods, about the
benefits of voucher holding-tenants, encouraging them
to market available units at their rental properties to voucher holders; and assess the feasibility of a landlord incentive program for landlords that choose to accept
voucher-holding tenants. The landlord incentive
program could be focused on Low resource areas, as
defined by TCAC, or neighborhoods that experience
higher rates of rental increases.
Regional Trends
HCV use in the San Joaquin COG region tends to be
concentrated around the City of Stockton and areas in
its SOI. In many unincorporated areas outside of the
Stockton SOI, most tracts had no renter households
using HCVs, and in tracts where HCVs were in use,
fewer than five percent of renter households used them.
Unincorporated communities with HCV usage included
the northern area of Mountain House, where 2.0
percent of renter households (24 households) used
HCVs. In the Census tract between Stockton and Lodi,
3.0 percent of renter households (19 households) used
HCVs.
Within other cities in the COG area, fewer than 5
percent of renter households used HCVs in most census
tracts where HCVs were in use. This includes one census tract in Tracy (3.7 percent of renter households, or 33 households) and eight in Lodi, ranging from 1.2 to 2.2
percent of renter households. One census tract in
central Manteca had an HCV usage rate of 6.1 percent
of renter households, the highest outside of the Stockton area. Four other tracts in Manteca had households
using HCVs, with rates ranging from 1.6 to 4.7 percent
of renter households. No renter households in Lathrop,
Ripon, or Escalon used HCVs.
Employment Opportunities
According to Census Longitudinal-Employer Household
Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics
(LODES) data, 34.4 percent of the labor force in the city of Stockton is employed in the city itself; conversely 65.6 percent of Stockton residents are employed outside of
the city limits. 53.8 percent of Stockton residents are employed within the San Joaquin County metropolitan
area, while 19.4 percent of Stockton residents work
elsewhere in the county. Approximately 16.5 percent of
Stockton residents are employed in the San FranciscoOakland-Berkeley MSA, 9.2 percent in the SacramentoRoseville-Folsom MSA, 4.8 percent to the San JoseSanta Clara MSA, and 3.3 percent work in the Modesto MSA. A small proportion, less than 1.5 percent each,
are employed in Solano County, Fresno County, and
other southern California locales, although 2.6 percent are employed in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Orange
County MSA. Although specific data is not available, the recent work-from-home employment trend that
increased remote employment potential may account
for a portion of the employment locales in outlying
metropolitan areas. Commutes over 50 miles, generally
outside of San Joaquin County, are primarily to the west and southwest toward the Bay Area (54.6 percent of
long-distance commutes), with 26.1 percent of the long
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1143
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-87
distance commutes southeast to cities along SR-99, with concentrations in the cities of Merced, Madera, and
Fresno. Only 9.0 percent of Stockton residents travel
north-northeast to the Sacramento area.
Slightly over one-half of Stockton residents work in San Joaquin County, and 43.6 percent of Stockton residents
live within 10 miles of their place of employment.
According to LODES data, 44.5 percent of these
workers travel south and southeast of their place of
residence; 34.2 percent travel north, northwest, and
northeast; 11.9 percent travel to the southwest and
west; and 9.3 percent travel east. Because the lineal
distance between northern and southern city limits is
approximately 15 to 16 miles, this may include either
intracity commutes, work-from-home employment, and
short commutes from within the city to locations external to city limits. Intracity commutes and work from home
account for 34.4 percent of the Stockton workforce;
therefore, approximately 9.2 percent of Stockton
residents with short commutes work in the vicinity of the city yet outside of the city limits, which could include the airport, expanding industrial facilities south along I-5 toward French Camp, and in developing tracts north
and east of the city.
The Labor Market Engagement Index (Figure HE-12,
Local Labor Market Engagement) depicts the relative
intensity of labor market engagement and
characteristics of the labor force in a geographical area, typically a census tract. This is based on three factors:
unemployment rate; labor force participation rate; and
educational attainment (BA degree and higher). The
higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and hence potential earnings associated with higher
levels of educational attainment. In Stockton, the Labor Market Engagement Index indicates the highest
participation rates are in the northwestern residential neighborhoods from the northern boundary of the city
to the Calaveras River, and along the northeastern and
western edges of the city. The areas of the city with the highest Labor Market Engagement Index (88) include
the villages within and north of the Brookside/ Country Club neighborhood, which also correlates to the area
with the highest median incomes in the city, over
$95,000, as well as TCAC/HCD most positive
educational outcomes and the most positive economic
outcomes percentile rankings. The census tracts,
including the University of the Pacific and Dameron
Hospital in the Midtown neighborhood, have labor
market participation rates between 35 and 70,
correlating to areas with median incomes between
$87,100 and $125,000, and TCAC/HCD positive
economic outcomes in the 50th to 75th percentile
range, although educational outcome domain scores
are lower, between the 20th and 60th percentile range.
Conversely, the labor market index is lowest in the
central and southern portion of the city, within the areas identified as R/ECAPs, and in the northeastern portion
of the city, with labor market indices below 10, generally correlating to areas with median incomes below
$55,000.
In Stockton, the unemployment rate was approximately
9.7 percent, although this rate reflects the
unemployment rate during the height of the COVID
epidemic and therefore does not represent the more
accurate conditions reported by the US Bureau of Labor
Statistics, which is 5.2 percent as of December 2022
(see HNA Table HE-11, Unemployment Rates). The
unemployment rate closely reflects those found
throughout San Joaquin County in 2020, suggesting
that residents of Stockton had similar access to
employment opportunities during the pandemic. The
jobs-household ratio was 1.2 in 2020, indicating that
there is a strong balance between jobs and housing;
however, this figure could also be reflective of the
increase in persons working remotely during the
pandemic and reporting their workplace as Stockton. As
well, as discussed above, 34.4 percent of the labor
force in the city of Stockton is employed in the city itself; conversely 65.6 percent of Stockton residents are
employed outside of the city limits, suggesting that while the number of jobs in the city and labor force
participation are fairly equivalent, the majority of
residents living in the city work outside of the city, and conversely, the majority of jobs available in the city are filled by persons commuting in from other localities.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1144
BR-88 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Figure HE-12: Local Labor Market Engagement
Source: HUD, 2021
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1145
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-89
Figure HE-13, Local Jobs Proximity, shows that central
Stockton has the closest proximity to jobs, with scores above 90 in the vicinity of Downtown and up to 98 in
portions of the Midtown neighborhood. However, many
of the census tracts with the higher jobs proximity scores align with those with the lowest employment
participation scores, are designated as R/ECAPS, and
exhibit rates of poverty 20.0 percent and higher. These areas also generally correlate with TCAC/HCD
Educational Outcome and Economic Outcome scores
falling below the 25th percentile range, suggesting that while there are many job opportunities in these tracts, the resident population is not filling them. Scores in the northern portion of the city indicate furthest proximity to jobs, falling between the 5th to 15th percentiles,
although these same areas reflect market participation
index scores ranging between the 43rd and 65th
percentile. These areas are predominantly newer
residential neighborhoods with incomes among the
highest in the city, also corresponding to TCAC/HCD
Economic and Educational Outcome Domain scores
above the 75th percentile. Based on the employment
destination data previously discussed, a portion of
residents in these neighborhoods may commute to
employment opportunities outside of the city, supporting recent trends of households with higher paying jobs
relocating from the Bay area to newer market rate
residential developments in Stockton. While Figure HE13, Local Jobs Proximity, and Figure HE-12, Local Labor Market Engagement, show discrepancies in
access to or engagement in labor market opportunities,
the unique characteristics of employment opportunities
in and near Stockton suggest that these maps may not
reflect economic conditions in the city, and that
proximity to jobs does not indicate higher economic
outcomes, access to resources, or employment
engagement. Therefore, although there are
employment opportunities associated with upper-level
educational facilities throughout the city, and a
substantial business and industrial base in the
Downtown, South Stockton, and Industrial Annex
neighborhoods, providing a variety of employment
options available to residents of Stockton, the high rates of residents commuting outside of the city and
unemployment rates in sections of the city with
concentrations of jobs suggests that access to
employment opportunities does pose a fair housing
issue because there is not a strong correlation between labor force qualifications and types of employment
available in the city.
Regional Trends
Outside of Stockton and communities in its SOI, many
of the COG area's highest Labor Market Engagement
Index (LMEI) ratings are located in the southern part of the county, including the city of Escalon (52), the
majority of the city of Ripon (66 and 60), parts of central Tracy (61 and 63), and the census tract including south Tracy and the unincorporated community of Chrisman
(63), indicating higher rates of labor force participation and educational attainment and lower unemployment
rates in these communities. However, some
unincorporated areas on the south side of the county
and areas of central Tracy are also among the lowestrated areas, indicating wide gaps in these factors within the region. The census tract that includes the
communities of Vernalis and New Jerusalem have the
lowest possible LMEI score (0) and the adjacent census
tract to the east has a score of 15. The tract surrounding Escalon also has a particularly low score of 13. Three
census tracts in Tracy have scores of 18, 18, and 15.
On the South side of the County, areas with the highest LMEI rankings were not always correlated with high Jobs Proximity Index (JPI) scores. While the unincorporated
block groups including the west and south sides of Tracy and the tract including the unincorporated community
of Chrisman had high LMEI scores and JPI scores in the
99th percentile, in the Ripon area the census tract with the highest LMEI rating had the city's lowest JPI score in the 15th percentile. Residents in this area have high
participation in the labor force, but likely have to travel farther distances to access jobs, which can add to the
cost of living. On Ripon's north side, the community's
other higher-scoring area in the LMEI was divided
between two block groups, one with a lower JPI in the
27th percentile, and another with a high JPI score in the 84th percentile. The higher-scoring block group is
outside of Ripon's city limits, and likely represents a higher concentration of agricultural job opportunities.
Similarly, within the city of Escalon, the LMEI ranking was above 50, but two of the three block groups in this area had JPI scores below 10, and the third was in the
30th percentile.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1146
BR-90 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Figure HE-13: Local Jobs Proximity
Source: HUD, 2017
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1147
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-91
The Mountain House area has a medium LMEI score of
44, but a JPI score of 0. This is indicative of the area's primarily residential nature, with limited commercial or office land uses in close proximity.
The unincorporated community of Woodbridge also has
a relatively high score (63), as does the tract in the
northeast corner of Lodi (62). These areas have low to
medium JPI scores between the 14th and 34th
percentile, indicating that many employed residents
have to travel longer distances to access employment.
Other tracts with high and highest-resource TCAC
designations on the west side of Lodi and in the census tracts that include the communities of Acampo and
Collierville have medium LMEI ratings between 41 and
54 and JPI scores in the 61st (Acampo), 53rd and 39th
percentiles (Collierville). Like the south side of the
county, the Lodi area also has significant level of
contrast between neighborhoods. Tracts in Lodi's lowerincome east side have LMEI scores between 5 and 20, likely indicating a combination of low levels of
education attainment and higher rates of
unemployment, but medium JPI scores between the 41st
and 80th percentiles. The nearby community of
Lockeford also has a notably low LMEI score of 19 but
medium JPI scores in the 57th and 66th percentile.
Within Manteca and Lathrop, LMEI scores are primarily
low to moderate, with each city's central area having its lowest Index scores. Four census tracts in central
Manteca have LMEI scores below 10, and two more
have scores below 20. However, north Manteca and the
adjacent unincorporated area has a score of 46. In
Lathrop, two tracts in the central city have scores of 14 and 18, while the rest of the city has more medium LMEI scores between 24 and 35.
Other unincorporated communities to the northwest and
east of Stockton have low to medium LMEI scores
between 20 and 40. Interestingly, these areas were
among the highest-scored in the JPI, likely due to the
high availability of agricultural work in these areas.
EDUCATION
Four main school districts serve the city: the Stockton Unified School District (SUSD) has a total of 59 schools in the city reported on by the Department of Education— 47 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, 6 high
schools, and 4 upper-level alternative schools—and the
Lincoln Unified School District serving the Pacific
Avenue/Lincoln Village and Brookside/Country Club
neighborhoods with a total of 12 schools, including 2
elementary schools, 6 elementary through middle
schools (K-8), 1 middle school, 2 high schools, and a
charter school. A small number of neighborhoods in the
north side of the city are served by the Lodi Unified
School District, and some in the south are served by
Manteca Unified School District.
Of the 58 schools in the SUSD for which English
Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics performance
scores were available in 2021, the Department of
Education reported that most of the schools are below
the state grade-level standards for ELA and mathematics (see Table HE-46). Similar performance statistics exist for the Lincoln Unified School District, although overall scores are generally higher, reflected in the TCAC/HCD
educational domain scores above the 50th percentile.
The proportion of each school’s population that was
considered socioeconomically disadvantaged in 2021
ranged from 40.1 percent at the Kohl Open Elementary
to 93.9 percent at Spanos Elementary in the SUSD, and
30.9 percent at Brookside Elementary/Middle School to
76.1 percent at Valley Oaks High School in the Lincoln
Unified School District. Although this factor does not
consistently correlate with income, there is a general
relationship between disadvantaged students, ELA and
math standardized scores, and TCAC/HCD Educational
Domain scores. Approximately 3.4 percent of schools in
the SUSD have less than 50.0 percent disadvantaged
students in the student body, and 6.8 percent have 50.0 and 60.0 percent disadvantaged student populations.
In comparison, in the Lincoln Unified School District,
25.0 percent of the schools have less than 50.0 percent disadvantaged student populations, and another 25.0
percent have between 50.0 and 60.0 percent
disadvantaged student populations. The highest
proportion (100.0 percent) of socioeconomically
disadvantaged students is at the Dr. Lewis Dolphin
Stallworth Sr. Charter School in the Downtown Core of
the city.
Overall, within the SUSD there were three schools where
60.0 percent or more of the students had ELA
performance scores at or above the standard, all of
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1148
BR-92 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
which are alternative high school or college preparatory schools in the central Downtown Core area,
corresponding to TCAC/HCD educational domain
scores above the 75th percentile, with
socioeconomically disadvantaged student populations
ranging between 55.1 and 75.9 percent. Three schools
had between 40.0 to 59.9 percent of the students
scoring at or above the standard, with
socioeconomically disadvantaged student populations
comprising between 47.8 to 72.4 percent of the student
body. These schools are east of West Lane in the
Morada/Holman neighborhood with TCAC/HCD
educational domain scores in the 57th to 85th
percentile, with one located downtown, also with a most positive educational outcome percentile score. There is no consistent correlation between median income and
higher ELA scores, with median incomes ranging from
$12,256 to $85,717. Within the Lincoln Unified School
District, there also were three schools where
approximately 60.0 percent or more of the students had
ELA performance scores at or above the standard, one
of which is a charter school and one is Brookside
Elementary School in the Brookside Country Club
subdivision with a TCAC/HCD educational domain
score in the 86th percentile, correlating with the highest median incomes in the city and the lowest proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged students.
A large proportion of the schools throughout the city
and in the SUSD, 49.2 percent, had less than 20.0
percent of students with ELA performance scores at or
above the standard. Disadvantaged students comprised
between 73.1 and 92.9 percent of the student
population, correlating with TCAC/HCD educational
domain scores generally below the 50th percentile. The
relatively low ELA and math scores among all schools in the Stockton Unified School District, with a few
exceptions in the northeast, north, northwest, and
downtown area, indicates that students generally have
similar access to lower performing schools.
Table HE-46: Performance Scores for Stockton Unified School District San Joaquin County, 2021-22
SCHOOL NAME ELA
SCORE
MATH
SCORE
SOCIOECONOMICALLY
DISADVANTAGED
FOSTER
YOUTH
ENGLISH
LEARNERS
Adams Elementary 11.5% 5.9% 82.9% 7 20.0%
Alexander Hamilton Elementary 11.3% 7.1% 91.0% 9 33.0%
Aspire APEX Academy 16.7% 10.1% 77.5% 5 14.7%
Aspire Langston Hughes Academy 31.8% 19.2% 72.2% 5 10.6% Aspire Rosa Parks Academy 13.5% 8.9% 88.9% 2 4.8%
August Elementary 15.5% 7.4% 93.0% 5 39.8%
Cleveland Elementary 17.6% 11.6% 87.9% 14 21.8%
Commodore Stockton Skills 37.2% 29.9% 57.4% 1 4.4%
Dolores Huerta Elementary 14.7 % 5.1% 92.9% 23 34.0%
Dr. Lewis Dolphin Stallworth Sr. Charter 13.5% 6.8% 100.0% 3 53.1% El Dorado Elementary 12.7 % 9.0% 91.5% 15 18.6%
Elmwood Elementary 21.2% 9.5% 81.8% 2 30.3%
Fillmore Elementary 17.6% 6.8% 87.9% 5 33.7%
Flora Arca Mata 26.4% 18.3% N/A 4 13.9%
George W. Bush Elementary 23.9% 13.8% 75.7% 8 16.2%
George Washington Elementary 19.9% 12.2% 85.0% 7 37.6%
Grunsky Elementary 16.3% 11.5% 89.2% -- 16.1%
Hazelton Elementary 18.2% 5.7% 91.6% 10 32.7%
Harrison Elementary 20.0% 9.5% 80.0% 7 33.5%
Hoover Elementary 12.6% 8.4% 73.3% 4 16.7%
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1149
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-93
SCHOOL NAME ELA
SCORE
MATH
SCORE
SOCIOECONOMICALLY
DISADVANTAGED
FOSTER
YOUTH
ENGLISH
LEARNERS
John C. Fremont Elementary 14.3% 7.0% 85.2% 9 38.2%
John Marshall Elementary 10.6% 7.5% 73.1% 9 23.9%
Kennedy Elementary 15.8% 13.7% 74.5% 11 23.7%
King Elementary 17.5% 11.7% 89.5% 14 40.3%
Kohl Open Elementary 26.9% 15.9% 40.1% -- 5.3%
Madison Elementary 16.6% 8.2% 78.6% 10 18.1%
Maxine Kong Kingston Elementary 21.6% 11.9% 72.2% 6 16.8% McKinley Elementary 13.6% 7.7% 87.7% 9 48.1%
Monroe Elementary 14.3% 6.0% 85.7% 9 34.5%
Montezuma Elementary 20.2% 14.3% 83.3% 8 38.4%
Nightingale Charter 28.1% 21.0% 86.8% 2 22.5%
Pittman Charter 25.5% 15.5% 89.2% 1 41.0%
Pulliam Elementary 18.1% 8.1% 80.6% 9 8.2%
Rio Calaveras Elementary 45.4% 29.3% 72.4% 3 19.2%
Roosevelt Elementary 19.3% 10.8% 89.1% 8 37.3%
San Joaquin Elementary 30.4% 19.2% 68.4% 12 24.2%
Spanos (Alex G.) Elementary 20.4% 14.7% 93.9% 6 45.6%
Stockton Collegiate International Elementary 29.1% 23.2% 57.7% -- 15.4% Taft Elementary 21.7% 12.5% 84.5% 10 30.4%
Taylor Leadership Academy 15.1% 5.1% 85.7% 10 21.3%
TEAM Charter 25.9% 4.5% 89.8% 9 24.1%
Valentine Peyton Elementary 51.6% 40.1% 57.7% 8 12.6%
Van Buren Elementary 11.2% 7.2% 92.9% 5 29.2%
Victory Elementary 22.5% 13.4% 85.7% 14 14.8%
Walton Development Center -- -- -- 5 33.7%
Wilhelmina Henry Elementary 19.6% 9.4% 88.6% 3 42.6%
Wilson Elementary 15.6% 14.1% 80.6% 5 16.6%
Aspire Stockton Secondary Academy 32.1% 15.5% -- -- 14.6% Stockton Collegiate International Secondary 47.2% 17.9% 47.8% -- 13.6% Cesar Chavez High 42.0% 11.9% 69.2% 24 15.4%
Edison High 33.0% 5.1% 81.8% 31 23.9%
Edward C. Merlo Institute of Environmental Studies 33.9% 13.6% 93.1% 2 26.9% Franklin High 32.8% 12.8% 79.6% 9 25.0%
Health Careers Academy 66.3% 16.3% 70.0% 1 10.1%
Jane Fredrick High 5.6% 0% 85.2% 5 26.1%
Stagg Senior High 38.6% 6.3% 70.4% 81 33.3%
Stockton Senior High 18.2% 0% -- 4 9.9%
Weber Institute 65.3% 15.8% 75.9% 2 8.6%
Stockton Early College Academy 98.1% 67.0% 55.1% -- 1.8% Source: California Department of Education, 2021, accessed 11/2022.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1150
BR-94 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Table HE-47: Performance Scores for Lincoln Unified School District San Joaquin County, 2021-22
SCHOOL ELA MATH
SCORE
SOCIOECONOMICALLY
DISADVANTAGED
FOSTER
YOUTH
ENGLISH
LEARNERS
Brookside Elementary/Middle School 69.2% 58.5% 30.9% <10 7.8% Claudia Landeen Elementary/Middle School 31.0% 18.4% 73.9% <10 16.7% Colonial Heights Elementary/Middle School 31.9% 19.2% 69.9% <10 10.7% Don Riggio Elementary/Middle School 27.6% 15.4% 58.6% <10 20.2% Lincoln Elementary School 35.6% 27.9% 73.9% <10 15.7%
John R. Williams Elementary 28.3% 18.7% 64.9% <10 14.5% Mable Barron Elementary/Middle School 38.3% 25.1% 55.1% <10 10.0% John McCandless Charter School 68.5% 45.1% 35.1% <10 4.4% Sierra Middle School 51.7% 16.6% 55.1% <10 9.8%
Tully C. Knoles Elementary/Middle School 39.3% 19.7% 71.9% <10 16.7% Lincoln High School 59.5% 25.0% 48.2% <10 9.5%
Village Oaks High School 18.2% 0% 76.1% <10 17.9%
Source: California Department of Education, 2021, accessed 2022.
The anticipated educational outcome is a measure of
several factors, including:
• students’ individual abilities
• quality of schools attended, and
• family backgrounds
These factors are correlated with:
• proficiency on standardized tests
• high school graduation rates, and
• student poverty indicators (sociologically
disadvantaged)
The results of this analysis can identify potential for higher levels of educational achievement such as high
school graduation and college attendance, preparation
for the workforce and associated long-term
improvements in earnings, health and upward mobility,
reductions in prejudice and negative attitudes across
racial groups, and even risk of disciplinary action.
According to TCAC and HCD, anticipated educational
outcome varies throughout the city (Figure HE-14, Local TCAC/HCD Educational Domain Score). In Stockton,
the highest expected educational outcome, above the
80th percentile, is expected in the Brookside Country
Club, Trinity/Northwest Stockton, Eight Mile/Bear
Creek, Morada/Holman, and portions of Pacific
Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhoods in the San
Joaquin Delta College and adjacent Venetian Park
residential areas, and within the Downtown. Areas with
above moderate expected educational outcomes
between the 59th and 73rd percentiles are found in the
northern central residential subdivisions and southern
edge of the Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village
neighborhood, within the Midtown neighborhood
adjacent to University of the Pacific, and the southwest corner of the Morada/Holman neighborhoods.
The lowest expected educational outcome, according to
TCAC and HCD, is found in two major areas of the city.
The largest area includes South Stockton, East Stockton, Weston/ Van Buskirk, and Industrial Annex
neighborhoods, where scores are below the 20th
percentile. The schools in this area (Edward Merlo
Institute, Franklin High, Cezar Chavez High, and
Nightingale Charter are the exceptions) generally reflect performance scores below 20.0 percent of meeting the
state ELA standard and lower scores for math
proficiency, as presented in Table HE-47.
Some northern areas of the city, where TCAC education
domain scores indicate more positive educational
outcomes, are within the Lodi Unified School District
(LUSD) catchment area. Within the Lodi Unified School
District, 71.9 percent of students are considered
socioeconomically disadvantaged as of 2021, which is
representative of conditions within the City of Lodi, and 20 percent of students are English language learners.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1151
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-95
Of the schools in the Lodi Unified School District, 23 are located within Stockton city limits. As of 2022, English Language Arts scores district wide are considered low,
and were 32.6 points below standard. In math, students
are 69.4 points below standard. LUSD schools located
within Stockton tend to follow this trend of low or very low ELA and math scores, with several exceptions.
Elkhorn School, which serves grades 4-8, has very high
scores in both ELA and Math, as does Middle College
High. John Muir Elementary has medium math scores
and high ELA scores, as does Manlio Silva Elementary.
On the south side of the city, where TCAC education
domain scores indicate less positive educational
outcomes, several neighborhoods are served by the
Manteca Unified School District (MUSD). The MantecaLathrop area is considered to have more positive education outcomes according to the TCAC Education
Domain score. As of 2021, 67.7 percent of students in
the district as a whole are considered socioeconomically disadvantaged, and 20.3 percent are English language
learners. The district has a high graduation rate,
including Weston Ranch High, which is located in
Stockton. Of the schools in the Lodi Unified School
District, 5 are located within Stockton city limits,
including New Vision High, which is an alternative
school. The four other schools within Stockton city limits tend to have low or very low ELA and mathematics
scores as of 2022.
To identify whether housing instability impacts school
performance, particularly in areas in which the schools have a high proportion of socioeconomically
disadvantaged students, and to ensure students are able to live and work in Stockton, the City has included
Program 31 to pursue solutions.
Regional Trends
Many in the COG with the most positive educational
outcomes as of TCAC's 2021 assessment are areas
served by the Manteca and Ripon Unified School
Districts, as well as the Lammerville Joint Unified School District, which includes the Mountain House and
Lammerville unincorporated communities, and Banta
Unified School District, which serves the unincorporated communities of Banta and Stoneridge. In both the Tracy
and Escalon areas, educational outcomes are more
divided in loose correlation with median household
income levels, where higher-income areas of the
community tend to have more positive educational
outcomes and lower-income areas tend to have less
positive educational outcomes. This may be related to
higher numbers of English Language Learners or
households with fewer financial resources to engage in
extracurricular academic assistance such as tutoring.
Within areas served by the Linden Unified School
District, educational outcome scores are in the two
quartiles with the least positive educational outcomes.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1152
BR-96 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Figure HE-14: Local TCAC/HCD Educational Domain Score
Source: TCAC/HCD, 2021
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1153
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-97
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
A disadvantaged community or environmental justice
community (EJ Community) is identified by the
California Environmental Protection Agency as “areas
that are disproportionately affected by environmental
pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative
health effects, exposure, or environmental
degradation,” and may or may not have a
concentration of low-income households, high
unemployment rates, low homeownership rates,
overpayment for housing, or other indicators of
disproportionate housing need. In February 2021, the
California Office for Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment released the fourth version of
CalEnviroScreen, a tool that uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic indicators to map and compare
community environmental scores. In the
CalEnviroScreen tool, communities that have a
cumulative score in the 75th percentile or above (25.0
percent highest score census tracts) have been
designated “disadvantaged communities” under Senate
Bill (SB) 535. Cumulative scores are calculated using
the individual scores from two groups of indicators:
Pollution Burden and Population Characteristics.
Pollution Burden scores exposure to negative
environmental hazards, such as ozone and PM2.5
concentrations, drinking water contaminants, lead risk
from housing, traffic impacts, and more. Population
Characteristics scores the rate of negative health
conditions and access to opportunities, such as asthma, cardiovascular disease, poverty, unemployment, and
housing cost burden. For each indicator, as with the
cumulative impact, a low score reflects positive
conditions.
As shown in Figure HE-15, CalEnviroScreen Percentiles,
the primary indicators leading to the low scores outside of city limits to the south and west, as reported by
CalEnviroScreen, are pesticides, groundwater threats,
hazardous waste, impaired waters, and solid waste.
Since most of this area is agricultural land, these
conditions are not surprising, and measures have been
taken to reduce impacts to residents of Stockton. The
distribution and locations of EJ communities across
Stockton, the San Joaquin Valley, and the nation are
likely caused by numerous factors, including historical planning decisions, such as freeway construction that
disrupted or harmed certain communities and redlining
practices that resulted in disproportionate mortgage
lending across the nation. In Stockton, the areas with
the highest rate of environmental pollution and poverty are adjacent to major thoroughfares, including I-5 and
SR-4, the Port of Stockton, and concentrated industrial uses. Cities commonly have the highest-density and
intensity of uses in their core, and this aligns with areas of the greatest number of potential fair housing issues in Stockton. Within the city, the higher scores in the central and southern portions are based on both population
characteristics and pollution burden ranging from the
92nd to 99th percentile for CalEnviroScreen. This area
also qualifies as a disadvantaged community; there is a significant concentration of poverty, low rates of
educational attainment, and a high rate of
unemployment, corresponding to several census tracts
designated by TCAC/HCD as Areas of High
Segregation and Poverty and by HUD as R/ECAPs. As
well, these areas are subject to increased exposure to
pesticides, hazardous waste, and toxic waste cleanup;
groundwater threats and drinking water contaminants;
pollution and particulate matter from major
transportation corridors, railroad yards, and airport
operations; and lead in housing in older
neighborhoods, depending on the location of the
compromised neighborhoods. Though all of these
factors may not be experienced in all neighborhoods in
central and southern Stockton, they do represent a
significant concern in terms of fair housing because of disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards
and a concentration of vulnerable populations.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1154
BR-98 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Figure HE-15: CalEnviroScreen Percentiles
Source: California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1155
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-99
TCAC/HCD Environmental Domain percentiles closely
correspond (inversely) to CalEnviroScreen scores.
According to TCAC/HCD Environmental Domain
scores, the majority of the Eight Mile/Bear Creek and
eastern portion of the Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton
Road neighborhoods and portions of the
Morada/Holman neighborhood (excepting the
easternmost tracts, which also include agricultural land in the unincorporated area) have positive environmental scores ranging from the 82nd to 95th percentiles. The
majority of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood
(Weston Ranch portion) also has high environmental
domain scores in the 83rd and 88th percentiles.
However, the Walter Slough area, including the Sierra
Vista-Conway public housing in the center of this
neighborhood, scores in the 33rd percentile. The
developed portion of the Trinity/Northwest Stockton, the Brookside/Country Club (with the exception of the older Stockton Golf and Country Club villages within an
unincorporated island), and western portion of the
Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton Road neighborhoods as
well as the central and eastern portions of the Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhood generally have
favorable environmental domain scores, between the
50th and 75th percentiles. As well, the greater part of the Midtown neighborhood has positive TCAC/HCD
environmental domain scores. Lower environmental
domain scores are generally found on the east side of I5 in the Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhood.
The area between West Elm and West Park Streets
adjacent to the Greater Downtown area and the
Downtown, East Stockton, Industrial Annex, and South
Stockton neighborhoods have environmental domain
scores that range from the 23rd percentile to below the 1st percentile in the district including the Stockton
Ballpark, Stockton Arena, and Weber Point Events
Center. This lowest scoring area includes the Port of
Stockton along the San Joaquin River, Rough and Ready
Island, downtown Stockton, industrial and other
nonresidential uses, older residential neighborhoods,
and industrial areas east of the Union Pacific Railroad and south of Duck Creek, to the southern boundary of
the city adjacent to the Stockton Municipal Airport.
(Figure HE-16, TCAC/HCD Environmental Domain).
The City has included Program 31 to reduce these
issues.
Regional Trends
Because CalEnviroScreen scores are weighted heavily
by socioeconomic factors, and TCAC's ratings are
focused primarily on environmental conditions alone,
some areas with socioeconomically disadvantaged
populations are rated as having higher scores
(associated with less positive outcomes) under the
CalEnviroScreen system than they are under the TCAC
evaluation, which focuses solely on environmental
factors.
Areas on the west side of the county, north of Mountain House and including the Thornton unincorporated
community are all considered disadvantaged
communities under SB 535. Factors that contributed to
high scores in these areas include impaired waters,
groundwater threats, drinking water quality, poverty and unemployment. In TCAC's assessment, the Thornton
area had a significantly more positive environmental
score in the 73rd percentile, while the areas just east of Stockton scored between 0 and the 15th percentile.
Mountain House and much of the Tracy area have
medium CalEnviroScreen scores in the 40th through
60th percentile range, with some areas in central Tracy having lower scores and the north side of Tracy and
unincorporated area near Banta and Stoneridge having
higher in the 61st to 75th percentile range. However,
scores on the north side of Tracy and the unincorporated area south may have been strongly influenced by
socioeconomic factors, because within the TCAC
assessment method, central and north Tracy scores are
primarily in the most positive quartile, while the largely unincorporated area south of Tracy has a score in the
2nd most positive percentile.
This socioeconomic weighting may have also come into
play in the Ripon and Escalon areas. Under the
CalEnviroScreen assessment standard, Ripon's tracts
have scores between the 49th and 52nd percentiles,
while their TCAC environmental scores are between the
3rd and 30th percentiles, a significantly less positive score. Similarly, in Escalon the city scores in the 58th percentile under the CalEnviroScreen system, but in the 9th percentile under the TCAC scoring system.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1156
BR-100 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Figure HE-16: TCAC/HCD Environmental Domain
Source: TCAC/HCD, 2021
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1157
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-101
The majority of the Lathrop area is also considered a
disadvantaged community under SB 535, as are
unincorporated areas to the east of Manteca. On the
east side of Manteca, hazardous waste, drinking water
quality, and pesticide exposure are central contributing factors in this rating. Drinking water contaminants,
groundwater threats, cleanup sites, hazardous and solid wastes, and pesticides were also identified as concern
ins the areas in and around Lathrop. Much of the
Manteca and Lathrop areas had TCAC environmental
scores that were similarly less positive, each scoring in the least positive quartile, though central Lathrop had scores in the second-least positive quartile and several areas in central Manteca had scores in the most positive quartile.
The east side of Lodi is also considered a disadvantaged community under SB 535. In this area, the highestscoring issues were socioeconomic, including poverty, unemployment, linguistic isolation, and low education
attainment. Because its CalEnviroScreen score was
weighted heavily by its socioeconomic scores, where
TCAC's ratings are focused primarily on environmental
conditions alone, much of Lodi had more positive
ratings, with the majority of scores in the highest
quartile.
Areas of San Joaquin County with the lowest
CalEnviroScreen scores include parts of the
Woodbridge community, the Dogtown area and part of
the Clements community. These areas also have TCAC
environmental scores in the most positive two quartiles.
DISPROPORTIONATE
HOUSING NEED AND
DISPLACEMENT RISK
OVERCROWDING
Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living
in a household is greater than the home was designed
to hold. The U.S. Census Bureau considers a household
overcrowded when there is more than one person per
room, excluding bathrooms, hallways, and kitchens,
and severely overcrowded when there are more than
1.5 occupants per room. A typical home might have a
total of five rooms that qualify for habitation under this definition (three bedrooms, living room, and dining
room). If more than five people were living in the home, it would be considered overcrowded. Overcrowding is
strongly related to household size, particularly for large households, and the availability of suitably sized
housing. A small percentage of overcrowded units is not uncommon, and often includes families with children
who share rooms or multi-generational households.
However, high rates of overcrowding may indicate a fair housing issue resulting from situations such as two
families or households occupying one unit to reduce
housing costs (sometimes referred to as “doubling up”).
Situations such as this may indicate a shortage of
appropriately sized and affordable housing units as
overcrowding is often related to the cost and availability of housing and can occur when demand in a jurisdiction
or region is high.
As shown in Table HE-15, Overcrowding, in the HNA,
9.3 percent of households in Stockton are considered
overcrowded, which is higher than countywide rate of
5.6 percent, and higher than the state as a whole at 8.2 percent. Of these households in Stockton, 72.0 percent
are considered overcrowded, and 28.0 percent are
considered severely overcrowded. In Stockton,
overcrowding is more common among renters, with
renters comprising 78.7 percent of all overcrowded
households. This pattern is also seen in the county and the state. Approximately 12.4 percent of renters in
Stockton experience some level of overcrowding
compared to 6.1 percent of homeowners, with 8.9
percent of renters overcrowded and 3.5 percent severely overcrowded; compared to 4.3 percent of homeowners
in overcrowded conditions and 1.7 percent of
homeowners in severely overcrowded conditions.
According to the 2014-2018 CHAS, of renters in
overcrowded conditions, approximately 24.3 percent
fall into the extremely low-income category, 29.2
percent are very low income, 33.4 percent are low
income, and 13.0 percent are median income. The
incidence of overcrowding among homeowners shows
a different pattern—approximately 6.3 percent fall into the extremely low-income category, 11.5 percent are
very low income, 42.4 percent are low income, and
39.9 percent are median-income, which suggests that,
though some households may be able to purchase a
home in Stockton, they cannot afford one that meets the Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1158
BR-102 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
size needs of the household. Overall, households
experiencing overcrowding in Stockton, particularly
renter households, when combined with income or
accessibility challenges, may become at risk for
displacement.
Stockton is a racially and ethnically diverse city, as
discussed in the “Racial and Ethnic Characteristics”
section. As discussed previously, most block groups in
the southern portion of the city have non-White
populations of at least 60.0 percent, though in the
northern portion of the city are concentrations of census tracts with lower diversity west of Lower Sacramento
Road, between Thornton Road /Pacific Avenue and I-5
(inclusive of a large unincorporated county island), west of I-5, and surrounding the University of the Pacific
campus. Overcrowding often impacts lower-income
households disproportionately. These patterns are
reflected geographically, with higher rates of
overcrowding generally in areas with lower median
incomes and/or concentrations of racial or ethnic
populations (Figure HE-17, Overcrowded Households
in Stockton). North of the Calaveras River, the majority of census tracts with overcrowding rates exceeding the
state average of 8.2 percent correspond with locations
of affordable housing resources, TCAC/HCD Area of
High Segregation and Poverty, and R/ECAP
designations. However, the relationship between
diversity, proportion of non-White populations, income, tenure, and overcrowding seen in many other
jurisdictions in the county—and even between the
northern and southern portions of the city—is not
consistently apparent in Stockton. Many of the
residential subdivisions within the Upper Hammer
Lane/Thornton Road and Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village
neighborhoods concentrated between the Union Pacific
Railroad Fresno Subdivision line and Lower Sacramento
Road/Pacific Avenue with the highest diversity indexes, low to moderate incomes, and presence of affordable
housing resources are not reported as areas of
significant overcrowding.
Two of the three census tracts with overcrowding rates
above 20.0 percent of households—in the Upper
Hammer Lane/Thornton Road neighborhood between
the Union Pacific Railroad Sacramento subdivision line
and the Union Pacific Railroad Fresno subdivision line
from the northern boundary to East Hammer Lane—are
not identified as a R/ECAP or Area of High Segregation
and Poverty. They do not coincide with the location of
an affordable multifamily complex and include block
groups that fall in the moderate-income range for San
Joaquin County. These neighborhoods consist of singlefamily residences, the Imperial Stockton Mobile Home Estates, Friendly Village Mobile Home Park, and Pines
Mobile Estates, and a variety of multifamily residences.
Both census tracts consist of a diverse mix of residents above the diversity index 85th percentile, have
predominantly Asian populations with a representation
of Black and African American residents exceeding the
overall citywide average, and proportions of Hispanic
residents at or just below the citywide average. A
stakeholder in the outreach process noted that the
homeless counts among the Asian population may be
underrepresented because families often share
responsibility to shelter the homeless (which the
stakeholder termed “couch surfing”), which can result in overcrowding. This may also be a practice among
Hispanic households. Culturally, Asian and Hispanic
households often tend to support extended families
regardless of income level. This suggests that the
tradition of sheltering homeless and extended family
composition in areas with high diversity scores may
contribute to rates of overcrowding above the state
average in census tracts with primarily higher income
levels. The differential in incomes and non-White
population distribution by block groups may further
assist in spatially identifying the location of households in the overall census tract experiencing higher rates of overcrowding.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1159
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-103
Figure HE-17: Overcrowded Households in Stockton
Source: California Health and Human Services, 2021.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1160
BR-104 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
The third census tract with an overall overcrowding rate of 21.2 percent is in the Dorchester residential area
along I-5, comprising a block group north of Hammer
Drive in the Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton Road, and
a block group south of Hammer Drive within the Pacific
Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhood. Both block
groups exhibit a very diverse mix of residents, with a
roughly equal proportion of Hispanic households at
37.0 percent; Black and African American populations
comprising 23.6 and 14.5 percent respectively above
and below Hammer Lane; and Asian residents at 19.9
to 25.4 percent respectively above and below Hammer
Lane. Renter households comprise 74.5 percent above
Hammer Lane where higher density multifamily
residential and nonresidential uses are prevalent, and
61.7 percent below Hammer Lane, which is lower
density multifamily and single-family residential with
limited nonresidential uses. Although the median
income above Hammer Lane is $34,500 and below
Hammer Lane is $66,563, if the pattern of
overcrowding among moderate-income Asian
households applies within this census tract, it is likely the overcrowded households may be more heavily
concentrated south of Hammer Lane.
Areas within the Midtown neighborhood with an
incidence of overcrowding above the state average are
generally to the east, west, and north surrounding the
University of the Pacific campus, although these tracts are primarily designated by TCAC/HCD as moderate
and high resource with median incomes in the low- to
moderate-income range. The higher rates may be
partially attributed to students residing in the vicinity who may be doubling up in bedrooms. Within the upper East
Stockton neighborhood, 16.0 percent of households
report overcrowded conditions in the highly diverse El
Pinal community. The tract is a mix of industrial and
railroad-oriented operations—older single-family
residential uses at the southern end and newer
residential subdivisions at the northern end. There are no affordable housing complexes, and the tract is
designated low resource. However, potentially in
relation to the newer housing stock in the northern and eastern edges of this census tract near SR-99, the
median income is $61,737, falling within the moderateincome category. Although it is difficult to identify spatially where the overcrowding is most prevalent, it
may occur more frequently in the southern portion,
where older housing stock conditions and typology exist and are intermixed with nonresidential uses.
The portion of the city south of East Harding Way and
Cherokee Road, inclusive of the Greater Downtown
neighborhoods, sees rates of overcrowding above the
state average, generally corresponding with
TCAC/HCD designations of Areas of High Segregation
and Poverty and HUD R/ECAPs, diversity index scores
above the 85th percentile, and historically redlined
locales, with a few exceptions. The census tracts with
rates of overcrowding exceeding 20.0 percent are in the Greater Downtown, with the highest rate (29.5 percent)
in the census tract between Union Avenue and North
Wilson Way in the East Stockton neighborhood, where
older housing stock, originally constructed to serve the railroad industry, is mixed with industrial and other
nonresidential uses. In contrast, the census tract in the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood corresponding to
the 100 Sierra Vista Conway Homes public housing
units, with a median income between $20,104 and
$38,359, a TCAC/HCD Area of High Segregation and
Poverty designation, 71.9 percent of the residents are
renters, and both Asian and Black or African American
proportions exceeding the citywide average, has an
overcrowding rate of only 4.6 percent, similar to the
other tracts in this geographic neighborhood with
Moderate and Low resource designations. The
availability of 30 three-bedroom and 18 four-bedroom
units in the public housing development may be a factor in the low overcrowding rate in this tract.
While some households reported as overcrowded may
have chosen to double up inhabitants in one room, and
therefore the condition may not be based on inability to find and secure adequate housing, severe
overcrowding, particularly among the lower-income
households in Stockton, may indicate a more significant potential for displacement. Most noteworthy with respect to overcrowding is the increasing number of households
reporting severe overcrowding conditions, from 1.2
percent of total households in 2012 to 2.6 percent in
2020. Renter households have experienced the largest
increase in severely overcrowded conditions, from 1.3
percent in 2012 to 3.5 percent in 2020. This risk of
displacement applies to both owners and renters in the
city, the county, and the state and is a sign that
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1161
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-105
households are having difficulty finding affordable
housing suitable for their size.
The availability of housing units in Stockton appropriate to house lower-income large families (five or more
persons) within their affordability level may also
contribute to overcrowding. The incidence of largefamily households in Stockton, presented in HNA Table HE-16, Household Size by Tenure, is higher than in San
Joaquin County at 21.2 percent of households
compared to a countywide representation at 19.6
percent, and higher than the 13.8 percent throughout
the state. In comparison to other jurisdictions in San
Joaquin County, the City of Stockton is fairly similar to Tracy, the second largest city in the county, in which
20.9 percent of households have five or more persons,
and in contrast with the adjacent smaller cities of Lodi to the north and Manteca to the south, with 14.2 and
18.2 percent of households, respectively, having five or more persons. In Stockton, the distribution of large
households by tenure generally aligns with the overall
tenure distribution of 49.9 percent homeowners and
50.1 percent renters, with 48.2 percent of large
households being homeowners, and 51.8 percent
renters. In comparison, 54.8 percent of large
households in the county are homeowners, and 45.2
percent are renters, and 55.4 percent of large
households in the state are homeowners, and 44.6
percent are renters. This pattern of a slightly higher
proportion of large-household renters and a slightly
lower representation of large-household homeowners
than overall tenure distribution is also found in
surrounding jurisdictions in the county.
To meet the needs of large families in Stockton, 63.8
percent of the housing stock has three or more
bedrooms. Approximately 66.6 percent of these larger
units are owner occupied, comprising 85.2 percent of
all of the homeownership stock. Of the total rental stock in Stockton, 42.5 percent of the units have three or more bedrooms, which is 33.3 percent of total larger units in the city. An October 2022 survey of rental listings in
Stockton, shown in the HNA Table HE-30, Average
Rental Rates 2022, indicates that the median market
rate rent for a two-bedroom unit is $1,615, a threebedroom unit is $2,357, and larger units are $2,624 per month. Based on HNA Table HE-26, Ability to Pay
for Housing Based on HCD Income Limits 2022, with
the exception of a two-bedroom unit, a low-income
household of four persons could not afford the asking
rent. Therefore, while there is a large proportion of large units, lower-income households with five or more
people may experience challenges in finding adequately
sized units in their affordability range, which may result in overcrowded living conditions unless they are able to secure housing in one of the 56 assisted affordable
complexes in the city or apply HCVs to market-rate,
larger rental units.
Therefore, the City will provide incentives to developers, such as streamlined review or parking waivers, that
construct affordable housing with larger units in areas of concentrated overcrowding to alleviate housing
pressure on households that may be doubling up
(Program 30).
OVERPAYMENT
HUD considers housing to be affordable for a
household if the household spends less than 30.0
percent of its income on housing costs. A household is
considered “cost burdened” if it spends more than 30.0
percent of its monthly income on housing costs, while
those who spend more than 50.0 percent of their
income on housing costs are considered “severely cost
burdened.”
In Stockton, 20.8 percent of households are cost
burdened, and 21.0 percent are severely cost
burdened, so a total of 41.8 percent of total households experience some level of overpayment. When
evaluating overpayment among lower-income
households in the city (43.9 percent of total
households), this rate of housing cost burden for lowerincome households is slightly higher in Stockton, at 75.0 percent, than in San Joaquin County (72.0 percent) and
California (70.0 percent). When looking at
overpayment by tenure, homeowners generally
experience cost burden at a lesser rate than renters
across all geographies. Approximately 27.9 percent of
homeowners are cost burdened compared to 54.4
percent of renters. More specifically, approximately
25.6 percent of renters overpay for housing and 28.8
percent severely overpay; compared to 15.5 percent of
homeowners overpay and 12.4 percent severely
overpay. Some stakeholders described that many
people in Stockton resort to uninhabitable housing
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1162
BR-106 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
because they cannot afford anything better. They shared that landlords do not feel any pressure to fix units,
knowing that their tenants are desperate for housing as housing costs continue to increase and housing supply
is very limited. This data points to the need for more
affordable housing units in Stockton to meet the needs
of lower-income households.
In many circumstances, overpayment is closely tied to
income, and lower-income households are most at risk
of displacement due to overpayment, as presented in
Table HE-24, Housing Cost Burden by Household
Income Classification, in the HNA. According to the
2014-2018 CHAS, approximately 43.9 percent of
households in Stockton are lower income, of which 75.0
percent overpay for housing—30.0 percent pay
between 30.0 and 50.0 percent of their income for
housing, and 45.0 percent pay over 50.0 percent for
housing. Further, of the cost-burdened lower-income
households, 72.5 percent are renters and 27.5 percent
are owners. Approximately 58.6 percent of overpaying
renters are severely cost burdened, and 64.4 percent of overpaying homeowners are severely cost burdened. In
contrast, of Stockton residents making more than 80.0
percent of the AMI, 13.6 percent are overpaying and
2.2 percent are severely overpaying.
As shown in HNA Table HE-24, Housing Cost Burden
of Extremely Low-Income Households 2018, 14.0
percent of the population falls into the extremely lowincome category (ELI), of which 82.5 percent pay over
30.0 percent of their income for housing. Of the ELI
households overpaying for housing, 88.7 percent pay
over 50.0 percent of their income for housing,
indicating a significant shortfall of resources affordable to these households. Approximately 21.4 percent of
renters in Stockton are considered extremely lowincome, compared to 5.9 percent of homeowners. The majority of ELI households are severely cost burdened—
74.8 percent of ELI renters and 66.4 percent of ELI
homeowners pay over 50.0 percent of their income for
housing. This indicates that, while lower-income renters are more likely to experience cost burden, overpayment
is particularly prevalent among all ELI households.
According to the 2016-2020 ACS, most of the city
reflects renter cost burdened rates between 40.0 and
60.0 percent (Figure HE-18, Renter Overpayment in
Stockton). The contiguous areas with a concentration of households experiencing rates above 60.0 percent are
primarily found in the Midtown and East Stockton
neighborhoods south of Harding Way, the Greater
Downtown, and the South Stockton neighborhood,
corresponding to the TCAC/HCD Areas of Segregation
and Poverty and HUD R/ECAPs, and the two census
tracts south of West Charter Way toward French Camp
between I-5 and South El Dorado Street in the Industrial Annex neighborhood. North of the Calaveras River, in
the Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhood south
of East March Lane, a lineal concentration of
households experiencing rates of overpayment above
60.0 percent of renters is found from I-5 to the Union
Pacific Railroad Sacramento Subdivision line. The
majority of this concentration sees rates of renter
households above 70.0 percent, lower-median
incomes, six affordable housing complexes, and a
predominantly Hispanic population, with one
TCAC/HCD designation of Area of High Segregation
and Poverty and identification as a HUD R/ECAP in the
census tract surrounding Weberstown Park. However,
likely due to proximity to Weberstown Mall, commercial
uses and services along Pacific Avenue, and San
Joaquin Delta College, TCAC/HCD resource
opportunities in all other census tracts are designated Moderate and High.
The remaining sizeable concentration of renter
households with high rates of overpayment is found
along the western edge of the Morada/Holman
neighborhood and Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton
Road neighborhood between the Union Pacific Railroad
Sacramento Subdivision line and West Lane. The area
has a sizeable Hispanic presence with non-White
populations above 81.0 percent, has an overall lowerincome median income, contains eight affordable housing complexes, and renters represent an average of
70.0 percent of the households. The census tract south
of Mosher Slough, north of East Hammer Lane, partially
within the area known as Tam O’Shanter, including the
315 affordable units at Polo Run Family Apartments and
184 affordable Hampton Square Apartments, is 88.0
percent renter occupied and is designated by
TCAC/HCD as an Area of High Segregation and a HUD
R/ECAP. However, with the exception of this Area of
High Segregation and Poverty, all of the census tracts in these neighborhoods have Moderate resource
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1163
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-107
opportunity designations. The northernmost census tract in the area south of Morada Lane in the upper Tam
O’Shanter area, however, has socioeconomic
characteristics that do not consistently align with the other census tracts with high proportions of overpaying renters. The median income in the upper block groups
of the Morada/Holman neighborhood fall within the
moderate-income range, and unlike the other census
tracts with high rates of non-White populations, Asian
residents are the predominant population at 37.5
percent of the households, followed by Hispanic
residents at 33.0 percent, with Black and African
American, and White non-Hispanic roughly around
12.5 percent each. Over 60.0 percent of the residents
are homeowners, and with the exception of a few blocks
of triplex units along West Lane, this area consists
entirely of single-family detached units. Therefore, the renters in this tract are likely overpaying for single-family rental properties.
In contrast to renter overpayment, homeowners
generally experience cost burden at a lesser rate. The
highest rates of homeowner overpayment north of the
Calaveras River generally align with high rates of renter overpayment, high rates of overcrowding, or both
conditions. Homeowner overpayment rates between
40.0 to 60.0 percent are found south of Mosher Slough
between the Union Pacific Railroad Sacramento
Subdivision line and the Union Pacific Railroad Fresno
Subdivision line and in a concentration of census tracts of residential stock generally built prior to 1980 on both sides of Pacific Avenue between West Swain Road and
West March Lane/Calaveras River, inclusive of San
Joaquin Delta College, Sherwood Mall, and a range of
commercial and service uses. There is one census tract
in this cluster designated as an Area of High
Segregation and Poverty and a R/ECAP in which 74.3
percent of homeowners overpay for housing. However,
85.3 percent of the households within this census tract are renters, and therefore, 10.8 percent of total
households in this census tract are homeowners who
overpay for housing. Two additional census tracts within the Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton Road neighborhood
between Lower Sacramento Road and the Union Pacific
Railroad Sacramento Subdivision line north of Hammer
Lane, known as the Ponce de Leon area, have rates of
homeowner overpayment between 43.5 and 45.5
percent (Figure HE-19, Homeowner Overpayment in
Stockton). Renter households comprise 64.5 and 53.7
percent of the residents in these census tracts,
respectively, and although non-White population
ranges between roughly 75.0 percent and 82.5 percent,
this area is quite diverse, and although the predominant population in each block group in Hispanic,
representation is below the city average, and
proportions of Asian and Black populations are higher
than the citywide average. The median income is just
above the threshold between low and moderate income,
although 24.0 percent of the population in the upper
tract has incomes below the poverty line.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1164
BR-108 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Figure HE-18: Renter Overpayment in Stockton
Source: 2015-2019 ACS
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1165
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-109
Figure HE-19: Homeowner Overpayment in Stockton
Source: 2015-2019 ACS
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1166
BR-110 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
South of the Calaveras River, areas with higher
concentrations of homeowners overpaying for housing
(40.0 to 60.0 percent) generally include the El Pinal
community in the East Stockton neighborhood and the
Greater Downtown area encompassing the southern
edge of the Midtown neighborhood, Downtown, and
Homestead area of South Stockton north of SR-4, most
of which correspond to a TCAC/HCD Area of High
Segregation and Poverty and HUD R/ECAP. However,
while it appears that a high proportion of homeowners
in the lower Midtown and Downtown census tracts are
overpaying, the proportion of homeowners in these
tracts range from 2.0 to 11.0 percent of total
households, and therefore the percentage of
homeowners overpaying for housing is in actuality only
between 0.4 percent and 17.4 percent of total
households. Areas in the South Stockton neighborhood
south of SR-4 and East Stockton neighborhood Fair
Oaks area, including those TCAC/HCD designated as
Areas of High Segregation and Poverty and HUD
R/ECAPs, generally consist of renter households, with
the highest incidence of homeowners overpaying for
housing between 26.8 and 48.1 percent. The lower
homeowner overpayment rate in the South Stockton and
Industrial Annex neighborhoods may be partially
attributed to housing type and condition, as the majority of units were constructed over 50 years ago, and
historical property listings survey on Realtor.com,
accessed December 2022, reveals that homes on the
market 10 years ago in these neighborhoods were, on
average, listed at 12.0 percent of current prices. The
lower homeowner overpayment rate might be partially
attributed to the presence of longtime residents in these neighborhoods who were able to purchase a home
years ago at significantly lower prices than in the current market, (and generally current monthly housing costs
would be based on this lower purchase price and tax
valuation), and therefore would not be overpaying for
their housing, assuming their income level has remained fairly stable. However, lower listing prices for these older units may provide an affordable opportunity for new
residents desiring to purchase a home in these
neighborhoods and would be within their ability to pay.
As well, these neighborhoods are identified as
experiencing varying levels of gentrification (see “Risk of Displacement” section), which suggests that higherincome households or real estate investors are purchasing these lower priced properties and
rehabilitating them, which would also contribute to
lower levels of overpayment.
Special-needs groups that may be disproportionately
affected by high housing costs include large families,
single-parent households, and seniors. As discussed in
the “Overcrowding” section, large-family households
often face special housing challenges due to a lack of
adequately sized affordable housing. The higher costs
required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing a disproportionate cost
burden and increase the risk of housing insecurity. While overpayment rates for single-parent households are not
available, the ACS reports that 28.9 percent of femaleheaded, single-parent households are below the poverty threshold. Therefore, these households may have an
increased rate of overpayment. Seniors, comprising
21.6 percent of Stockton’s households, often face
increased displacement risk due to overpayment as this
population more frequently relies on fixed incomes such as retirement savings or Social Security. According to
the 2016-2020 ACS, 29.5 percent of senior
homeowners overpay for housing, and 64.3 percent of
senior renter households overpay, constituting 40.6
percent of all senior households in Stockton.
The sudden loss of employment, a health care
emergency, or a family crisis can quickly result in a
heavy cost burden, with limited affordable options
available in the city, putting these populations that may already be at greater risk of displacement due to
overpayment or overcrowding in a situation where they
may lose their place of residence and experience
homelessness, even when a source of income is still
available. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have to choose between finding
unsuitable lodging within their affordability range,
becoming homeless, or moving out of the region. To
reduce displacement risk as a result of overpayment, the City has identified the following programs: 7, 14, 15
and 17.
Regional Trends
In the San Joaquin COG region, nearly all of the
unincorporated areas have rates of overcrowding below
the statewide average of 8.2 percent of households.
One exception is the census tract to the west of Stockton which has a rate of overcrowding of 16.2 percent of
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1167
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-111
households. This area is very sparsely populated with no Census Designated Places, so it is possible that limited housing availability near local agricultural employment encourages community members to share housing.
One additional census tract, which extends from
southeast Stockton's SOI near the airport to the
unincorporated area east of Manteca has a rate of
overcrowding of 12.4 percent, but due to the size of the census tract it is difficult to determine whether or not overcrowded households are within Stockton's SOI.
Within incorporated areas, higher rates of overcrowding are located in north Tracy, east Lodi, central Manteca, and Lathrop. In the Lathrop area, census tracts on the
city's outskirts have higher rates of overcrowding at 13.3 percent, while tracts in Lathrop's central areas range
between 3.0 and 10.7 percent. In central Manteca,
rates of overcrowding are lower, with the highest rate of overcrowding in the city only 9.3 percent. Rates of
overcrowding in four census tracts in north Tracy range between 9.4 and 18.5 percent, while the rest of the city has rates below the statewide average. The east side of Lodi has the region's highest rates of overcrowding
outside of Stockton, with as many as 31.4 percent of
households experiencing overcrowding in this
community. Rates of overcrowding in this area of Lodi
are higher than many of the areas of Stockton with the
highest rates of overcrowding.
Generally, overpayment among renters and
homeowners tends to be medium to high across the San
Joaquin COG region, with homeowners tending to
have lower rates of overpayment in many parts of the
county than renters. Overpayment among renters in this
region is highest on the south side of Ripon, in central Manteca, in the unincorporated community of
Lockeford, and in several census tracts in central and
northern Lodi. In each of these areas, more than 60
percent of renter households pay more than 30 percent
of their income on housing. In the majority of Lodi's
census tracts at least 50 percent of renter households
overpay for housing. Similarly, much of Manteca's
census tracts have renter overpayment rates over 50
percent, with three tracts having renter overpayment
rates over 60 percent. The west side of Ripon also has
a high rate of renter overpayment at 63.9 percent,
though the other two census tracts that cover the city
have renter overpayment rates of 41.6 percent (central
Ripon) and 21.8 percent (north Ripon and surrounding
areas). Lockeford has one of the region's highest rates of renter overpayment, with 78.4 percent of renter
households overpaying. This census tract has a low
number of renter households (236 which is low
compared to other census tracts) which may have an
effect on this high percentage.
The east side of the unincorporated county area,
including the communities of Waterloo, Peters, Linden,
and Farmington, have rates of renter overpayment
below 40 percent but above 20 percent, as do northern
unincorporated communities of Acampo, Collierville,
Clements, and Woodbridge.
The census tract that includes Thornton and the
northwestern corner of the Stockton SOI, has a rate of
renter overpayment of 41.4 percent. Because of the
concentration of homes in Thornton, this is likely the
central area of renter overpayment in this census tract.
On the southwest side of the region, the Tracy area and surrounding unincorporated communities include a mix
of tracts with rates of renter overpayment between 20
and 40 percent and between 40 and 60 percent. As
much of these areas have the highest incomes in the
region, it is important to note that renter overpayment effects even higher-earning, higher-resource areas in
the county.
Few areas in the region have low rates of renter
overpayment. In the unincorporated area west of
Stockton, only 3.9 percent of renter households overpay for housing. However, this area only has 233 renter
households, which is low compared to other census
tracts. Similarly, two unincorporated census tracts
directly north of Stockton and west of Lodi have only 147 and 141 renter households, and renter overpayment
rates of 11.6 and 11.3 percent, respectively.
As is the case in the Stockton area, fewer areas of the region outside of the Stockton area experience
extremely high rates of homeowner overpayment as
compared to renter overpayment. One exception is a
census tract in east Lodi. Of homeowner households
with mortgages in this tract, 60.5 percent overpay for
housing costs. As with several areas of particularly high renter overpayment, it is worth noting that only 195
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1168
BR-112 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
homeowner households live in this census tract, which is low compared to other census tracts in the region. Three nearby tracts in east Lodi with higher numbers of owner households have rates of overpayment of 58.2, 53.2,
and 48.5 percent.
On the north side of Lodi are two census tracts with
owner overpayment below 20 percent, but the majority
of the census tracts on the west side of Lodi have rates of overpayment between 30 and 40 percent. The
unincorporated census tract to the north of Stockton and west of Lodi, which has a low rate of renter
overpayment, has a medium rate of homeowner
overpayment, 47.3 percent.
In contrast to its high rate of renter overpayment,
Lockeford has a rate of owner overpayment of only 16.3
percent. This makes it unusual on the east side of the
county, as the other census tracts which include
unincorporated communities in this area have owner
overpayment rates between 45 and 50 percent,
including Peters, Linden, and Farmington. The
Waterloo, Glenwood, and Noble Acres areas are also
unusual, with only 13.6 percent of homeowners in this
census tract overpaying for housing. Escalon is also in slight contrast to its surrounding unincorporated areas, with only 21.4 percent of homeowners overpaying for
housing.
The majority of the north, west, and south sides of the unincorporated county and the remaining incorporated
cities in these areas have medium rates of homeowner
overpayment between 20 and 40 percent. Exceptions to
this trend are a small number of census tracts in north Tracy, central Lathrop, and central Manteca. In each of these areas between 40 and 60 percent of homeowners
overpay for housing.
HOUSING CONDITION
As discussed in the HNA, housing condition can be an
indicator of quality of life. Substandard conditions
present a barrier to fair housing as occupants are
susceptible to health and safety risks associated with
poor housing conditions and at risk of displacement if
conditions make the unit unhabitable or if property
owners must vacate the property to conduct repairs. As
housing units age, they deteriorate without ongoing
maintenance, which can present a fair housing issue for occupants, reduce property values, and discourage
private reinvestment in neighborhoods dominated by
substandard conditions. Typically, housing over 30
years is more likely to need repairs or rehabilitation than newer units. As shown in the HNA, Table HE-22, Age of
Housing Stock and Housing Stock Conditions by
Tenure, approximately 66.8 percent of housing units in
Stockton are older than 30 years and may need repairs,.
This is lower than for the state as a whole, where 69.2 percent of units are older than 30 years, yet higher than
61.5 percent of housing units in San Joaquin County.
This need has informed the inclusion of several
programs in the Housing Element, including
rehabilitation assistance and relocation assistance.
In Stockton, 33.2 percent of housing units were built
after 1990. Of the multifamily complexes with five or
more units in Stockton, 10.0 percent were built since
2000, 28.4 percent were built between 1980 and
1999, 38.3 percent were constructed between 1960
and 1979, and 23.3 percent were constructed prior to
1960. Smaller multifamily unit types, including duplex, triplex, and fourplex units, constitute 50.6 percent of the multifamily units in the city. Only 5.7 percent of this type of unit has been constructed since 2000, and 25.5
percent were added to the housing stock between 1980
and 1999. The majority of small multiplex units were
constructed between 1960 and 1979 (36.9 percent),
and 33.5 percent of this type of housing stock were built prior to 1960. Additionally, 61.0 percent of mobile
homes in Stockton were built prior to 1980, making
them over 40 years old, an age that generally indicates a need for replacement or rehabilitation. Mobile homes
typically deteriorate more rapidly than stick-built homes and so are more likely to need significant repairs as they age to maintain conditions. Further, these homes are
often more affordable to lower-income households, and
the cost of regular repairs can present a barrier to
maintaining good housing condition. Therefore, the City will improve communication of rehabilitation assistance programs currently available for lower-income
households, including eligible owners of mobile homes
and rental property owners to alleviate substandard
conditions before reaching a point of inhabitability
(Program 22).
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1169
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-113
The Neighborhood Services Division of the Police
Department enforces codes, laws, and regulations for
the abatement of substandard housing conditions and
blight issues. Code enforcement statistics from the
Neighborhood Services Division provide a sense of the
number of units that may need renovation,
rehabilitation, or replacement in the city. As shown in the HNA, Table HE-23, Code Enforcement Cases, the
Neighborhood Services Division processed 234,924
housing code enforcement cases over the past 16 years,
at an average of about 14,683 cases each year. The
most common housing violations are structural
problems, raw sewage, exposed wiring, and other
exterior housing problems.
According to the 2016-2020 ACS data, approximately
46.1 percent of households experience one or more of
the following conditions: lacks complete kitchen, lacks complete plumbing, is overcrowded, or is cost
burdened. While these estimates include households
that are overcrowded or cost burdened but do have a
complete kitchen and plumbing, it can be assumed that
at least a portion are living in units without these basic facilities, which are indicators of substandard housing conditions. ACS data estimate that 0.1 percent of
homeowner households live in a unit without complete
kitchen facilities, and 0.1 percent without complete
plumbing. Approximately 1.1 percent of renters live in
units lacking complete kitchens, and 0.3 percent without complete plumbing facilities. Due to the relatively low incidence of kitchen or plumbing problems, most of the
households experiencing substandard conditions are
attributed to either severe overcrowding, severe
overpayment, or both. However, to help property
owners make necessary repairs, particularly lowerincome property owners and managers of deedrestricted housing, the City has included Program 22 to continue to promote the availability of rehabilitation
assistance programs.
While the City has not had the resources to conduct a
housing conditions survey in recent years, past surveys focused on three specific areas that were formerly
Redevelopment Agency project areas: Midtown, South
Stockton, and North Stockton. These are the areas of
the city with the greatest concentrations of blighted
structures and residences in need of significant
rehabilitation. Based on these past surveys and a
consideration of current conditions, it is estimated that there are around 4,000 housing units needing major
repairs or replacement. In addition, the City is currently working on an updated survey of these areas and its
results will inform future rehabilitation efforts (see
Program 22).
DISPLACEMENT RISK
A combination of factors can result in increased
displacement risk, particularly for lower-income
households. Displacement risk increases when a
household is paying more for housing than their income
can support, their housing condition is unstable or
unsafe, or when the household is overcrowded. As
discussed under “Integration and Segregation” and
“Overpayment,” there are disproportionate patterns of
concentrated poverty in the city that may correlate with increased displacement risk. Other factors, besides
those listed above, are vacancy rates, availability of a variety of housing options, and increasing housing
prices compared to wage increases. The Urban
Displacement Project, a joint research and action
initiative of UC Berkeley and the University of Toronto, analyzes income patterns and housing availability to
determine the gentrification displacement risk at the
census tract level. For the San Joaquin County
Displacement Risk Assessment (2019), the research
team used the Urban Displacement Project’s Bay Area
model to assess census tracts in San Joaquin County for displacement risk. Using the Urban Displacement
Project model as a foundation, the research team made
select modifications based on best practices and
stakeholder feedback. This included modifying the
definition of the “region” from 13 counties to San
Joaquin County alone, adjusting income parameters,
and collapsing the original nine typologies into four
displacement typologies specifically relevant to San
Joaquin County, as follows:
• Susceptible to and Ongoing Displacement: These
tracts are low or mixed low income, and some had
an absolute loss of low-income households during
the period of 2000 to 2018.
• Varying Levels of Displacement: These tracts have
varying levels of income and housing affordability,
and some tracts gentrified during 1990-2000 or
2000-2018, but all tracts experienced an increase
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1170
BR-114 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
in housing costs and/or rental value during 2012
to 2018.
• Moderate and Mixed Income: These tracts range
from moderate to high income, and other
variables are relatively stable.
• Varying Levels of Exclusiveness: These tracts range
from moderate to high income, and housing costs
are increasing. In some tracts, low-income
households are excluded from entering and
decreasing in numbers.
According to the San Joaquin Displacement Study
(2021) by the San Joaquin Council of Governments,
Enterprise Community Partners, and UC Davis Center
for Regional Change, 51.0 percent of the population in
San Joaquin County falls in the Varying Levels of
Exclusiveness typology. In Stockton, it is most prevalent in the northern and southern neighborhoods, including
most residential areas in Trinity/Northwest Stockton,
North Stockton Annex, Eight Mile/Bear Creek, upper
Morada/Holman, Brookside/Country Club, lower
Weston/Van Buskirk, and western residential areas
along the I-5 in Midtown and Pacific Avenue/Thornton
Road neighborhoods. Interview feedback during the San
Joaquin Displacement Study process indicated that
these communities have seen large amounts of growth
in the 2000 to 2018 time period, particularly related to in-migration of households employed in Silicon Valley
and in higher-earning jobs throughout the Bay Area that can now work remotely or commute.
Almost 30.0 percent of San Joaquin County households
fall into tracts designated Moderate and Mixed Income.
This tract typology is relatively stable, without much
change in terms of household income over the data
period. This typology shows up most frequently in less
urbanized and less populated areas of the county that
have not experienced the same type of growth occurring
around the periphery of the city found in more urbanized communities such as Stockton. However, there are a few
portions of Stockton that are categorized as Moderate
and Mixed Income in the upper areas of
Brookside/Country Club neighborhood, Upper
Hammer Lane/Thornton Road neighborhood, and east
of Lincoln Village in the southwestern portion of the
Morada/Holman neighborhood.
Neighborhoods designated Susceptible To and
Ongoing Displacement, and experiencing Varying
Levels of Gentrification are those facing the highest risk of and potential impact from displacement. These tracts generally align with high proportions of lower-income
households and concentrations of very low-income
households, where the majority of households consist of populations of color, there are a high share of renter
households, and high rates of renter overpayment
correlating to increases in rent above the county
median. The methodology also identifies areas where
data indicating an absolute loss of low-income
households between 2000 and 2018 correlate with
relocation of households in response to increases in
housing sale prices and rent costs. In Stockton, the
mapping tool designates the majority of areas
experiencing gentrification and those that are
susceptible to displacement within the central,
downtown, and south Stockton neighborhoods,
including portions of Upper Hammer/Thornton Road in
the vicinity of Hammer Lane/Lower Sacramento Road
and the Union Pacific Fresno Subdivision Railroad;
residential areas around Lincoln Village, Sherwood
Mall, Stonecreek Village, Weberstown Mall, and San
Joaquin Delta College in the Pacific Avenue/Lincoln
Village neighborhood; southwestern residential areas in the Morada/Holman neighborhood; eastern and
southern portions of the Midtown neighborhood; the
central section of the Port and Mount Diablo Waterfront neighborhood; Downtown; and South Stockton. These
two typologies apply to approximately 18.0 percent of
households countywide, but they appear to constitute a
significant portion of the city, generally corresponding to lower-income areas in Stockton with high rates of
renters, renter overpayment, and non-White
populations. The recent influx of relocating households from the Bay Area may be a contributing factor to rising home values and displacement of existing lower-income
households in these neighborhoods, where homes and
rents may be increasing beyond the ability to pay for
current lower-income residents, yet might be attractive to in-migrating populations, thus increasing potential
for gentrification.
According to the AFFH Mapping Tool (ACS 2015-
2019), the California Urban Displacement Project:
Estimated Displacement Risk Model Overall
Displacement Risk data (see Figure HE-20, Elevated
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1171
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-115
Displacement Risk) identify the majority of the Greater Downtown, South Stockton, and East Stockton
neighborhoods, all of which correlate with locations of affordable housing complexes, and the portion of the
Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood including the Sierra
Vista public housing as At Risk of Displacement. As well, a block group in the Pacific Avenue/Lincoln is identified as at risk of displacement. This assessment generally
corresponds to the findings of the San Joaquin
Displacement Study, although at less detail some
transitioning areas are overlooked.
Increases in home and rental prices have impacted
residents throughout Stockton, though renters are
typically more burdened by housing market increases in
annual rent increases, compared to homeowners who
have fixed-rate mortgages. As identified in the HNA,
according to Redfin, as of November 2022, the median
sales price in Stockton was $420,000 for all home
types. Supplementing the 2016-2020 ACS data
discussed in the HNA, the Stockton Housing Action Plan
Market Conditions Report, 2022, analyzed the home
sale price distribution for single-family and
condominium units in Stockton between November
2021 to April 2022. According to this survey, 1,705
single-family units sold in Stockton during the time
period, the majority of which were three or more
bedroom units. The median home price for a singlefamily home was reported at $425,000, comparable to the above Redfin estimate, while the bulk of units ranged from $300,000 to $600,000. During this same time
period, 88 condominium units sold (4.9 percent of total units sold during this period), the bulk of which were
two-bedroom units, with an overall median sale price of $195,000.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1172
BR-116 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Figure HE-20: Elevated Displacement Risk
Source: Urban Displacement Project, 2022 (HCD AFFH Data Viewer).
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1173
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-117
As discussed in the Stockton Housing Action Plan Market Conditions Report, 2022, based on historical Redfin
market median home sale price trends for Stockton and
San Joaquin County from February 2012 through April
2022, both the city and the county experienced a
dramatic price increase over that period. The county’s
median home sale price grew by 264.0 percent, and
the city’s grew by 286.0 percent. However, the median
for the city continues to lag below the countywide
median, suggesting that Stockton may have a larger
inventory of older, less costly homes. However, while the median home value in Stockton was lower than the
county and state, the median home price in Stockton is
still only affordable to above moderate-income
households. In the HNA, Table HE-26, Ability to Pay for Housing Based on HCD Income Limits, 2022, shows
that the maximum affordable price for a moderateincome family of four is $416,651, and for lowerincome households is $270,415. (HCD income limits are the basis for determining eligibility for affordable housing.) Purchasing a home above these limits could
result in overpayment and/or overcrowding and
potential risk of displacement. These maximum abilityto-pay thresholds for a three- or four-person household are significantly lower than the median home sale price for a three-bedroom single-family home. Though 2016-
2020 ACS income data indicate that approximately
25.7 percent of Stockton households earn $100,000
per year or more—which is generally considered the
threshold between a moderate income and an above
moderate income for a household of four, according to
HCD—and would be able to afford the median priced
three-bedroom home in 2022, moderate-income
households would generally be limited to two-bedroom
units and three-bedroom homes at the lower end of the
available market listings. These prices outpace income
growth, tending to put housing costs beyond the means
of more households over time.
Single-family attached homes, including smaller-sized
properties such condominiums, duplexes, triplexes, and
quadplexes, at times function as naturally occurring
affordable housing (NOAH) units for low- to moderateincome households. These market-rate units are generally older properties that may not be well
maintained and command lower rents or listing prices
due to the property’s age and more limited upkeep. The
preservation of NOAH units in multifamily properties
accommodates workforce and middle-class households
that may not meet housing subsidy requirements but
earn an insufficient income to avoid overpaying for
housing. For a low-income household, the maximum
affordable home price ranges from $216,495 for a twoperson household to $292,064 for a five-person household (Table HE-26 in HNA). Low-income
households could afford a one- or two-bedroom and a
limited number of three-bedroom condominium units.
However, the sales listings in the Stockton Housing
Action Plan Market Conditions Report, 2022,
referencing the market listing resource List Source,
indicated a constrained supply and limited availability of these affordable units.
In order to increase and promote sustainable
homeownership for the full range of household incomes
and needs, Stockton should focus on infill housing
development to encourage development of
underutilized properties and maximize the production of units in order to serve the growing number of residents and their households. Given the large number of
households earning the median household income or
less and facing a housing cost burden, the production
of condominiums, townhomes, and other smaller
ownership units, especially in more urbanized areas in
infill development projects with a mix of market-rate and affordable units, could alleviate supply constraints in the housing market. More importantly, infill housing
projects producing single-family attached homes are
relatively affordable to low-income households in the
city and would expand the opportunity for
homeownership to a broader range of households.
Rent prices in Stockton have also increased significantly and present a barrier to lower-income households.
Current rental market conditions based on information
from CoStar Group, 2022, identified that over 85.0
percent of available rentals in early 2022 were one- and two-bedroom units. Overall, the vacancy rate of marketrate rental units for CoStar Group’s inventory is
3.4 percent, which, compared to a healthy rental
vacancy rate of 5.0 percent, indicates a shortage of
available units. This limited availability of rental stock increases competition for units, and those that face
challenges in meeting the credit check or deposit
requirements could face homelessness. According to the
survey, between March and June 2022, the average
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1174
BR-118 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
asking rent for multifamily market-rate units increased by over 9.0 percent, with the largest rent increase in
one- and two-bedroom units. As discussed previously in
the HNA (Table HE-30 Average Rental Rates, 2022),
based on the HCD income limits, the average market
rate three-bedroom apartment with an average monthly
rent of $2,357 is affordable only to a moderate-income
household of four or five persons (120 percent of the
AMI), which is an annual household income of
approximately $102,000. The average monthly rental
cost for a two-bedroom unit is $1,615, which falls within the ability-to-pay range for a low-income household of
four, requiring an average income up to $66,200
(Housing Action Plan for the City of Stockton, 2022,
indicated a required income of between $50,000 to
$60,000, although rental data was accessed at an
earlier date than the HNA date of October 2022 for
Zillow inventory). Although there is limited rental stock available at lower price points, it may not be suitable to meet the size, location, mobility, access to resources, or other requirements of the household without
overcrowding or overpayment. Very low-income
households and households in poverty in general will
experience significant challenges in securing rental
housing without assistance in the current market in
Stockton.
More than 58.0 percent of all renter households earn
less than $50,000, and the median renter household
income is approximately $41,000, indicating a
significant existing need for below-market-rate rental
housing. This suggests that roughly half of Stockton
households would struggle to afford average-priced
rental housing in the city. The data demonstrate that
while there may be units affordable to lower income
households, there is a shortfall of housing affordable to extremely low-income and very low-income households.
Therefore, programs aimed at assisting households to
secure below-market-rate rental housing or more
affordable ownership housing options could assist
existing Stockton residents as well as any new residents at lower income levels.
Though housing costs have increased rapidly, wages
have not kept pace, as discussed in the HNA. In
addition, recent increases in incomes could be partially attributed to the influx of households from the Bay Area with higher paying jobs. The difference in these trends (housing cost vs. wages) indicates growing
unaffordability of housing in Stockton. The
discrepancies between wage increases and rising
housing costs that are resulting in increased
displacement risk are supported by the findings of the
San Joaquin County Housing Displacement Report. The
report found that a shortage of housing production,
rising housing costs, and the influx of residents from the Silicon Valley and Bay Area have intensified housing
demand and gentrification of older neighborhoods,
resulting in increased displacement risk, particularly for lower-income households.
To address affordability challenges, the City will
encourage and incentivize development of affordable
housing units, particularly in higher opportunity areas, and will develop a program to connect lower-income
residents with affordable housing opportunities and
identify funding for financial assistance for first time homebuyers (Program 12).
Regional Trends
Only one area in the region outside of Stockton is
considered to be a community at risk of displacement,
the east side of Lodi. This neighborhood was determined to be At Risk of Displacement. The remaining COG
region was designated an area at Low Risk of
Displacement. The census tract immediately west of
Stockton was not evaluated as part of the Urban
Displacement Project's study.
HOMELESSNESS
As discussed in Section 2, Existing Needs Assessment,
the 2022 countywide point-in-time homeless count
identified a total of 2,319 homeless persons in San
Joaquin County, of which 893 unsheltered persons were
counted in Stockton. Of the total 2,319 individuals,
41.6 percent were sheltered, while 58.4 percent were
unsheltered. Because encampment locations in the city
are not fixed, reported encampment areas may change
at any time due to the changing needs of encampment
residents or changes to a sense of security.
Encampments tend to be located in parks or other open
spaces near the city’s waterways, near highway
overpasses, or in commercial and light industrial
corridors.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1175
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-119
A large number of unsheltered homeless community
members have created a string of encampments along
the Mormon Slough, just south of downtown.
Depending on the point along the slough where
encampments are located, some areas have close
access to transit and commercial areas. Bus routes on
the Weber Avenue corridor, including the 47, 515, and
715, are in close proximity to Mormon Slough, as are
routes on South Lincoln Street (515 and 715).
Other encampments south of downtown have been
located at South Airport Way and East Clay Street. This area is near a grocery store and the Salvation Army with its associated services, plus the transit routes that run on South Wilson Way (378, 580). Slightly further away,
residents encamped in this area can also reach the
Route 49 bus at South B Street. There have also been
several long-standing encampments along West Church
and South Harrison near the St. Mary’s Community
Services and Dining Room, and in a number of parks in
the city. Transit and resource access in the area of St.
Mary’s is similar to that of Mormon Slough, with close
proximity to Lincoln Street’s transit lines.
The St. Mary’s Community Services campus offers
comprehensive services for persons experiencing
unsheltered homelessness in Stockton. The Dining
Room serves three meals a day, year-round and
oftentimes provides an entryway to additional on-site
programs and services that can lead to stability and
wellness. Their shower and clothing center is open six
days a week, with a non-profit partner Loads of Hope
bringing their free mobile laundromat on additional
days. On-site and free health services include a dental clinic, medical clinic operated by Community Medical
Centers, dedicated recuperative care beds, and a
Health Ambassador program in partnership with St.
Joseph’s Medical Center that offers warm hand-offs to
and from the hospital and other treatment programs.
Case managers and the Housing Navigation Teams
work with individuals and families to create
individualized case plans and pathways to stable
housing. Finally, St. Mary’s campus operates three lowbarrier shelters for men, women, and families.
Parks with encampments include McKinley Park, south
of downtown; Banner Island Ballpark, located in the
downtown area; and Louis Park, near the Country Club
unincorporated community. McKinley Park is in a more
residential area, but has access to schools and to transit along East 8th Street and South El Dorado Street (Routes 510 and 710). Banner Island Ballpark is close to
commercial resources and is served by the transit routes of West Fremont Street (04, 545, and 725) and is a
close walk to transit routes on Center Street (04, 90, 91, 93, 545). Louis Park is in a more residential area but is also served by Route 04. Other encampments on the
west side of the city are located around overpasses of I5 and along Ten Mile Slough near the unincorporated Country Club neighborhood. Ten Mile Slough is located
in a predominantly residential and recreational area
and is not served by transit.
On the city’s northeast side, encampments have been
located at the intersection of March Lane and Fred
Russo Drive, and on the northwest side along White
Slough. The neighborhood around March Lane and
Fred Russo Drive is primarily residential, but March Lane is served by routes 335, 340, and 371 at this
intersection. Depending on the location of the
encampment, homeless residents camped along White
Slough may be able to access commercial centers and
transit, including a stop in the commercial center on
Mariners Drive.
Stockton Police and Fire Departments partner with a
number of public and private organizations on a multiagency Homeless Outreach Team to ensure that homeless encampments are safe, to provide health care
and behavioral health services, and to encourage
individuals to move to shelters or housing. Partners
include Couty Behavioral Health Services, Whole Person
Care teams, Community Medical Centers (via Care Link
“Health Care for the Homeless”), San Joaquin County
District Attorney’s Office, and County Public Health
Services.
The San Joaquin Continuum of Care, San Joaquin
County, the City of Stockton as well as the other cities in the County adopted a Regional Plan to Address
Homelessness. In line with HHAP 1-5 requirements,
most recently HHAP 5, the City has adopted a Homeless
Action plan that tracks to state mandated performance
measures. St. Mary's Community Services is the largest
recipient of State allocated Homeless Encampment
Resolution Funds and is accountable to those funds.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1176
BR-120 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Those funds will expand a partnership with St. Mary’s
Community Services and STAND Affordable Housing for
an additional 17 multi-room homes and will focus
efforts on moving individuals from CalTrans District 10’s highest priority encampment: SJ 4 EB/WB at SB/NB SJ
5 Interchange Complex (PM 16.21), part of the
Mormon Slough encampment, into housing. In
addition, 2024 will see the completion of nearly 300
low-barrier modular units for people who are
unsheltered, a navigation center with up to 180 beds,
and three Homekey Projects creating more than 108
units of homeless housing. Given current numbers, the
City will nearly close the gap on unsheltered homeless.
The San Joaquin Continuum of Care recently
completed the 2024 PIT unsheltered Count utilizing
ESRI’s ArcGIS tool. Once analyses are complete, the
City will receive geotagged data that will provide
actionable insight into where to allocate resources,
provide services, or administer outreach. The City’s
Police Department and CalTrans intends to share any
future encampment mapping efforts with City staff.
The City has included several programs in the Housing
Element that will help to address the current and future needs of homeless community members. As part of
Program 25, the City will continue to support
organizations that assist persons experiencing
homelessness, including applying for funding and
pursuing private donations to support these
organizations. Through Program 6, the City will
encourage the development of Accessory Dwelling
Units, which have the potential to serve lower-income
households that may currently be experiencing
homelessness. Through Program 11, the City will
coordinate with the Housing Authority to continue to
offer the Housing Choice Voucher and will implement a
Housing Choice Voucher education program with the
goal of increasing the number of landlords that accept
these vouchers that can serve lower-income households
that may be experiencing homelessness. The City will
work to increase the overall number of affordable
housing units that are available in the city through
Programs 19 and 20.
Regional Trends
With 2,319 individuals counted as part of its 2022 PIT
count, San Joaquin County has a similar number of
homeless residents to neighboring Contra Costa
County, which counted 2,277 homeless residents in the
same year, and slightly higher than that of Stanislaus
County, which had a total homeless population of
1,857 that year. Solano County also had a lower count
of homeless residents that year (1,179 total). Tuolumne County, which is more rural in character, counted 266
homeless residents in 2022. Sacramento County had a
significantly higher number of homeless residents in
2022 compared to San Joaquin County, with 9,278
residents experiencing homelessness, either sheltered or unsheltered.
Large cities like Stockton tend to be the central point for homeless residents to congregate, as it allows them to
be closer to jobs and essential services. Approximately 66 percent of Stockton’s unsheltered homeless
community was in Stockton on the night of the 2022 PIT
count. Similarly, in Sacramento County, 67 percent of
unsheltered residents were in the City of Sacramento
during the 2022 PIT count. In Stanislaus County, 77
percent of all homeless residents were in Modesto,
though this number was not divided into sheltered and
unsheltered populations.
OTHER RELEVANT
FACTORS
HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
The city was established by Captain Charles Weber in
1848 with the purchase of 49,000 acres of land
through a Spanish land grant and the intention to supply the Gold Rush. The City was officially incorporated soon after in 1850. Following its role as a major supply point during the Gold Rush, shipbuilding served as the
primary industry in the city, and agriculture began to
take a stronghold in the valley. The city’s strategic
location takes advantage of the navigable waterways of
the San Joaquin Delta, the rich soils, availability of
water, and numerous railroad lines converging in the
city and connecting it to the major distribution centers in the San Francisco Bay 90 miles to the north. The Port of Stockton officially opened as the first inland seaport, Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1177
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-121
which contributed to the city’s growth and identity.
Following WWII, the city’s economy shifted away from
shipbuilding to agricultural operations, industrial
operations, and product manufacturing, but it remains
a major shipping point for these commodities.
The city originally developed around the waterway in the Port and Mount Diablo Waterfront neighborhood and
Downtown area, which later would become the Port of
Stockton. Development expanded to the north after the
turn of the century into the lower portion of the current Midtown neighborhood where University of the Pacific,
San Joaquin Delta College, California UniversityStanislaus, and Dameron Hospital were established, and to the south in the South Stockton neighborhood in
an area known as the Homestead. Both of these areas
are a current resource of older residential housing stock.
By the late 1960s, the city encompassed the Downtown
neighborhood, which remained the central business
district with Main Street as the anchor; the Midtown
neighborhood in its entirely; and residential and
supporting commercial uses north of the Calaveras
River closely following Pacific Avenue, North El Dorado Street, and West Lane in the Pacific Avenue/Lincoln
Village neighborhood, extending just north of West
Hammer Lane in the Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton
Road neighborhood. Though a portion of the residential
areas in the Midtown neighborhood are smaller, older,
single-family and small multifamily units, the portion of Midtown south of West Harding Way is also home to
the Magnolia Historic Preservation District.
Development had also extended into both the East
Stockton neighborhood (previously called Fair Oaks)
and the South Stockton neighborhood (inclusive of
unincorporated county islands). Only a small section the southwest corner of the Brookside/Country Club
neighborhood west of I-5 had been developed, most of
which is unincorporated county island.
According to the 2016-2020 ACS, the number of
owner-occupied and renter-occupied units is almost
equivalent. The greatest period of residential growth in Stockton occurred between 1970 and 1979, during
which 18.9 percent of the city’s current occupied
housing stock was constructed, with a predominance of
multifamily unit types (21.7 percent of current renteroccupied units and 16.0 percent of the current owneroccupied units). Much of this multifamily development occurred west of the I-5 in the Lincoln West Planned
Community in the northern portion of the
Brookside/Country Club neighborhood as duplex and
condominium complex housing typology. Vacant tracts
in the central portions of the city between West Hammer and Morada Lanes in the Upper Hammer
Lane/Thornton Road and Morada/Holman
neighborhoods were filled in with primarily single-family and duplex housing, becoming the destination for the
Asian population to relocate following the disruption to the Asian community in the 1960s from the right-of-way
for the cross-town SR-4. These neighborhoods in the
northeast section of the city currently have a
concentration of predominantly Asian residents.
A second significant period of growth occurred in the
following two decades, between 1980 and 1999,
resulting in an additional 28.1 percent of the city’s
housing stock, although during this time period a slightly greater proportion of owner-occupied units were
constructed (29.0 percent) compared to renteroccupied units (27.3 percent). Growth on the west side of I-5 occurred during this time frame, and this major
transportation route functioned as a physical barrier that allowed developers to promote residential
neighborhoods branded as distinctly different in
character from the rest of the city. The majority of the Brookside/Country Club neighborhood was developed
as a master planned golf course community, with
satellite planned-development gated communities and
upscale market rate single-family units and supporting
commercial space. There was a spurt of development
between 2000 and 2009 in the Eight Mile/Bear Creek
and Trinity/Northwest Stockton neighborhoods, the
Morada/Holman neighborhood north of Morada Lane,
and the Weston Ranch community in the Weston/Van
Buskirk neighborhood, during which 17.4 percent of the
housing stock was built, primarily owner-occupied
housing (24.2 percent of owner-occupied housing
stock, and 10.6 percent renter occupied-housing). Only
1.9 percent of the housing stock has been built since
2000, indicating a decline in residential growth in
Stockton over the past two decades. However, there
currently are a number of market rate subdivisions under construction in the northern end of Morada/Holman
and northwestern corner of Trinity/Northwest (Westlake
subdivision), and Eight Mile/Bear Creek neighborhood
east of North Lower Sacramento Road that might not
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1178
BR-122 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
have been taken into account during the 2016-2020
ACS data period.
Like several other cities in the San Joaquin Valley,
immigration and historical exclusionary practices have
contributed to the various development patterns found
in the city today. The Chinese were the first major group of non-European settlers in Stockton, living along Miner Street near the waterfront and later moving to East
Washington Street, which became Stockton’s
Chinatown. The next wave of agricultural worker
immigrants from Japan, the Philippines, and the Punjab
province of India also faced housing discrimination and were restricted from living north of Weber Street, which was Stockton’s “color line,” according to the Japantown Atlas Overview Map: Stockton Japanese American
Businesses of 1940 (1917 and 1951 maps). However,
unlike the earlier Chinese, the Japanese and Filipino
immigrants were predominantly family units and formed
more cohesive cultural communities, expanding upon
the earlier Chinatown settlement and establishing a
presence from the East Weber levee south to Lafayette
Street, between South Commerce and South Hunter
Street.
These areas were impacted economically during the
Japanese internment period, as businesses closed and
homes were abandoned. With the absence of the
Japanese workforce, the federal Bracero program
brought in temporary Mexican workers, many of whom
inhabited the vacated housing available in the
evacuated China and Japan Town communities. While
there were few African Americans in Stockton prior to
WWII, after the war many servicemen remained in the
Stockton area and filled available shipyard and growing manufacturing jobs. As the invisible Weber Avenue
“color line” remained unspoken yet in effect, this new
immigrant population generally established themselves
in the older residential areas in South Stockton as well as in the vicinity of the Filipino, China, and Japan Town communities, close to the port and industrial areas
where the jobs were. Upon return from the internment
camps, the Asian community was reinstated, but many
residences and businesses had been re-occupied by
Bracero and African-American workers, and the
concentration of non-White population expanded
southward.
When the color line was lifted concurrently with the
construction of cross-town connector SR-4 in 1961,
much of the Asian population relocated north of the
Calaveras River, with significant concentrations settling in what is currently the Morada/Holman neighborhood
and Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton Road
neighborhood east of West Lane. The other
communities of color, including the displaced Filipino
residents, remained in the vicinity of the Downtown or
relocated south of the cross-town freeway in South
Stockton or into East Stockton in the former Fair Oaks
area.
A variety of historical practices and policies resulted in past and present patterns of segregation. Some urban
renewal activities contributed to the segregation of lower income communities of color in certain sections of
Stockton—for example, the cross town SR-4 freeway;
land use decisions to construct affordable housing
complexes in existing lower-income areas, including the Greater Downtown, South Stockton, and along the
circulation corridors extending northward from the
Midtown neighborhood where the first residential
neighborhoods across the Calaveras River were
constructed; and prioritizing newer market-rate singlefamily developments in the more peripheral western, northern, northeastern, and southwestern edges of the
city. Physical features in the city also contributed to creating spatially divided concentrations of income and racially based neighborhoods—particularly the various
delta sloughs, creeks, Calaveras River, the port and
scattered lake features, roadway infrastructure, and the two Union Pacific Railroad lines with associated rail
yards and switching stations. Though these factors did
not openly target minority groups, they may have
contributed to establishing development patterns that
prevented access to opportunities by lower-income
households. Local, state, and federal policies have, both directly and indirectly, influenced access to services, amenities, and opportunities for lower-income and nonWhite households.
As well, nationwide practices of discriminatory land use policies, redlining, and mortgage lending discrimination have presented overt barriers to homeownership and
housing options in general for people of color.
Redlining refers to the process of delineating
neighborhoods deemed “unworthy of private
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1179
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-123
investment.” The Home Owners’ Loan Corporation
evaluated neighborhoods based on their desirability.
Investors categorized neighborhoods as “red” or
“yellow” if there was said to be an “infiltration of
undesirable populations” or a “lack of homogeneity”
(referring to White-only populations), which indicated a declining neighborhood. Once a neighborhood was
“redlined,” banks refused to grant home mortgages and
loans to residents in the area. As shown in Figure HE21, Home Owner’s Loan Corporation Redlining Grade, Stockton had historically many red census tracts, most
of which were in the South Stockton neighborhood, and
yellow census tracts in the northern Greater Downtown
and Midtown neighborhoods. Most of the red or yellow
tracts correlate with lower-income communities,
although north of SR-4 not all tracts are heavily racially or ethnically concentrated.
In order to address historical discrepancies in access to opportunities lower-income households and people of
color, the City has included Program 32.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1180
BR-124 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Figure HE-21: Home Owners’ Loan Corporation Redlining Grade Source: University of Richmond, 2021.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1181
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-125
LAND USE AND ZONING PATTERNS
According to the 2016-2020 ACS, 73.1 percent of the
housing stock in Stockton is single-family units, inclusive of single-family attached units, indicating a higher level of single-family zoning than in the city of Lodi, yet lower than in the city of Manteca and other San Joaquin
County jurisdictions. However, zoning designations
change over the years, and land zoned for higher
density multifamily units may have been developed with
lower densities (single-family or condominium). There is no direct correlation between the proportion of single
family units and the percentage of land zoned for singlefamily residential. Duplex, triplex, and fourplex unit types make up approximately 8.1 percent of Stockton’s
housing units. Conversely, 17.7 percent of the housing
stock consists of multifamily units in structures of five or more units, with 32.9 percent of the larger multifamily units in structures of 50 or more units. Mobile homes
comprise only 1.1 percent of the housing stock, with the majority of the units in the South Stockton and East
Stockton neighborhoods.
While in most communities single-family zoning can
create desirable places to live, higher entry costs
associated with this housing type can pose a barrier to access for low- and moderate-income households, and
in turn restricting access to economic, educational, and other opportunities that are available in higher-resource communities. Stockton consists of a mix of resource
designations and therefore offers varying levels of
access to education, services, employment, and
business resources to residents regardless of product
type. As well, while almost three-quarters of the housing stock are single-family units, the split between renters and homeowners is roughly equivalent, at 50.1 and
49.9 percent, respectively, indicating that a portion of the rental housing stock is single-family units. As
discussed previously, the higher resource tracts are
largely concentrated in the northern part of the city.
Tracts with High Segregation and Poverty designations
are clustered in Greater Downtown Stockton and
correlate to the concentration of lower median
household income block groups and the R/ECAPs
discussed earlier. Also, most of the tracts to the south of East Harding Way are identified as either High
Segregation and Poverty or Low resource. Further, while market values of homes in Stockton are generally lower
than in Manteca and Lodi, and while older, smaller units may have historically provided opportunities for home
ownership for lower-income households, in the current
market, the average single-family home price has risen
to over $420,000. Based on data presented in the
Stockton Housing Action Plan Market Conditions
Report, 2022, even the average home in Stockton
would likely be over most of the moderate-income
households’ ability to pay.
As shown on Figure HE-22, Zoning in Stockton, there
are four base residential zones: Residential Estate (RE), Residential Low Density (RL), Residential Medium Density (RM), and Residential High Density (RH). Additionally,
the Mixed-Use District (MX) is intended to apply to large properties of at least 100 acres that can accommodate
a wide range of land uses. A master development plan
is required for each MX zoning district to identify specific allowable land uses and development regulations. High
density residential is also permitted at densities up to 136 du/ac in four of the commercial zones of the city
(only in the Downtown Core area) with the intent of
encouraging a mixture of high intensity uses, including high density residential. As shown on Figure HE-22,
single family zones are predominantly in the outer and
central areas of the city, with higher intensity uses along major transit corridors, adjacent to commercial nodes,
in the vicinity of the three major educational campuses in the city, and Downtown.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1182
BR-126 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Figure HE-22a: Zoning in Stockton (South)
Source: City of Stockton, 2023.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1183
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-127
Figure HE-22b: Zoning in Stockton (North)
Source: City of Stockton, 2023.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1184
BR-128 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Affordable housing development typically requires highdensity zones to support construction; therefore, zones limited to single dwelling units on each lot do not
support affordable development. In Stockton, the higher density zones permitting multifamily unit types are
clustered in certain parts of the city and tend to correlate to the timeline of growth in the city and the advent of Housing Element RHNA requirements, although the
zoning depicted by Figure HE-22, Zoning in Stockton,
has been updated to reflect recent zone changes to
allow multifamily in more areas of the city. North of the Calaveras River, the highest-density multifamily zones
are interspersed within planned developments, master
planned developments, and specific planned areas west
of I-5 in the Brookside/Country Club and
Trinity/Northwest neighborhoods; in the Quail Lakes
Planned Development in the Pacific Avenue/Lincoln
Village neighborhood; and adjacent to General
Commercial uses along the major arterials in the Eight
Mile/Bear Creek and Morada/Holman neighborhoods
that have been more recently developed or are in
planning/entitlement stages. The above-described highdensity zones correspond with higher-income block groups and higher TCAC/HCD designations. In the
developed Brookside Country Club and Quail Lake
gated and golf course communities, the higher density
enclaves were included as high-end market rate
condominium and rental complexes, offering housing
mobility opportunities primarily to higher-income
households. However, the larger tracts identified along the developing periphery of the city will foster housing mobility opportunities for lower-income households into higher resource areas.
Additional high-density zones north of the Calaveras
River are found in the central Pacific Avenue/Lincoln
Village neighborhood in the vicinity of the Sherwood
Mall, Weberstown Mall, and between March Lane and
the Calaveras River, and along major arterials in the
lower portion of the Morada/Holman and Upper
Hammer Lane/Thornton Road neighborhoods. This
distribution is consistent with a pattern of multifamily housing primarily in Low and Moderate resource areas,
corresponding to affordable assisted multifamily
complexes, predominantly Hispanic populations, and
concentrations of lower-income households. The data
suggest that the multifamily housing in the more mature portions of the city north of the Calaveras River, which tend to be more affordable, is limited to areas with other factors that result in a lower quality of life.
High-density zoning is also found in the Downtown,
radiating out from the Greater Downtown area into the
four neighborhoods surrounding Downtown, also
consistent with the pattern higher-density housing types primarily in Low and Moderate resource areas and
corresponding to affordable assisted multifamily
complexes, predominantly Hispanic populations, and
concentrations of lower-income households in the more
historically developed portions of the city. Revitalization efforts are focusing on providing mixed-income housing
mobility opportunities to meet the needs of current
residents at risk of displacement and foster integration of higher-income households to support the
improvement of the TCAC/HCD resource designation.
Sizeable tracts of vacant and recently developed highdensity zoning are identified in the southern end of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood as part of the
Weston Ranch Planned Development, designated Low
resource.
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INVESTMENT
PATTERNS
Public and private investment typically includes
construction, maintenance, and improvements to public
facilities, including infrastructure, acquisition of land, and major equipment. Historically, investment by the
City has been prioritized based on need and available
funding, which has prevented disinvestment in any
particular area of the city.
The City’s current prioritization process for capital
improvement funding includes an initial review of
projects that considers fiscal consequences; health and safety effects; community economic effects; feasibility; implications of deferring the project; amount of
uncertainty and risk; and environmental, aesthetic, and social effects. The following are projects the City has recently completed or is currently constructing:
• Roadway Improvements. To improve connectivity
to public transit at the Cabral Station, Miner
Avenue street improvements were completed
between Center Street and Aurora Street. The
project included reduction in the number of
vehicle travel lanes from two lanes to one lane in
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1185
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-129
each direction with buffered bicycle lanes;
construction of a traffic-calming roundabout; and
signal, lighting, and median landscape
improvements. To reduce congestion and improve
mobility and safety for vehicles, bikes, and
pedestrians, the City is replacing a four-way stop
at Lincoln Street and Eighth Street by constructing
a roundabout and reducing traffic lanes at the
intersection.
• Roadway Improvements: Weston Ranch
Crossings. To increase safety for pedestrians and
bicyclists at nine crossing locations in Weston
Ranch, improvements included combinations of
flashing beacons; high-visibility crosswalks;
signage; curb ramps; and other changes along the
curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, depending on traffic
and pedestrian needs at each crossing.
• Sidewalk, Curb, Median, and Gutter Repair. To
foster revitalization in the downtown and environs,
the project removes and replaces concrete
sidewalks, curbs, and gutters that have been
damaged by tree roots at various locations
citywide. To maintain safety and roadway
conditions along major arterial roadways, the City
will complete the reconstruction of the median
along two major sections of Pacific Avenue
between Hammer Lane and the Calaveras River
Bridge.
• ADA Upgrades. To improve safety and
accessibility throughout the city, all sidewalk and
roadway circulation projects include bringing
infrastructure up to ADA standards.
• City Hall Renovations and Relocation. To better
serve the residents of the city and consolidate the
various departments currently in various buildings
downtown, the New City Hall Renovations and
Relocation project site is at 501 and 509 W.
Weber Ave., at the northwest corner of Weber Ave.
and Lincoln St. The project will renovate two 5-
story buildings and includes both on- and off-site
improvements. When completed, the majority of
City departments currently in various buildings will
relocate to the renovated buildings.
• Public Recreation Facilities. To provide quality
public recreation amenities to all residents, the
City will complete a total renovation of 22.3-acre
McKinley Park, the largest municipal park in South
Stockton. To provide quality recreation and
community services for all residents, the City has
begun construction of the future multifunction
Northeast Stockton Library and Community
Center at 1461 Morada Lane next to McNair High
School, at the corner of West Lane and Ronald
McNair Way.
• Bicycle and Trails Improvements. To broaden the
city's bicycling network and encourage more to
utilize nonvehicular transportation, the City is
introducing the Central Stockton Road Diet
Project. The plan includes placing new markings
and stripes and creating Class II bike lanes on
several streets in central Stockton, with the goal to
provide a low-stress bicycling alternative to
Harding Way. To promote safer, healthier travel
options, the March Lane Bike Path project will
improve the bicycle and pedestrian path,
providing a wider cross-section. Improvements will
be made midblock and at intersections, with gap
closures and enhanced connections to adjacent
uses. To support sustainable mobility and growth
and ensure the next phase of bicycle infrastructure
can be funded and implemented, the City is
updating its Bicycle Master Plan
• Alexandria Culvert. The City of Stockton is working
to replace the culvert at Alexandria Place and Five
Mile Slough to improve public safety and reduce
potential flooding impact.
• Safe Routes to School. The City will continue to
fund and work with the following schools: John
Marshall Elementary, Taylor Elementary, Pittman
Elementary, Roosevelt Elementary, McKinley
Elementary, and George W. Bush Elementary to
implement improvements and promote Safe
Routes to School in an effort to improve access to
school and safety for children and parents.
Priority for projects is based on what will result in the greatest community benefit, mitigate existing issues, and address public demand and need. The City is focusing
on creating more public facilities, public safety, and
recreational amenities for residents; expanding the
capacity of the water, sewer, and roadway infrastructure network; and preparing for expansion of the city’s
development of industrial, commercial, and residential
uses. There has not been any disproportionate
investment or disinvestment in a particular area of the city over the past several decades. In addition, the City will continue to implement Program 4 to address future
projects that address community needs. The annual CIP
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1186
BR-130 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
provides funding for new facilities to handle expanding growth and targets the central older core of the city with roadway improvements, parks improvements, and
general maintenance as well as infrastructure
rehabilitation throughout the city.
LOCAL KNOWLEDGE
The City has undertaken a number of Downtown
revitalization projects over the past two decades to
refocus attention on its historical significance, promote higher-density opportunities, and maximize the Port of
Stockton amenities, including: Robert J. Cabral Train
Station, Stockton Arena and Banner Island Ballpark
waterfront recreation amenities, City Centre Cinema,
ACE Train Station, University Plaza Waterfront Hotel
mixed-use project, Weber Point Events Center, historic
Hotel Stockton restoration, and the San Joaquin County
Courthouse. Strengthening the core Downtown
neighborhood is envisioned as an impetus to foster
revitalization and infrastructure investment throughout surrounding neighborhoods, as well as along the major
transportation routes and commercial corridors. In
addition, an overview of significant development
projects and plans that have shaped the growth and
character of the city, contributed to place-based
revitalization, and fostered residential opportunities, some of which are currently on-going and are a source
of sites included in the identified unit capacity to meet the RHNA, provides context for the policies and
programs developed to further fair housing,
Neighborhood Action Plans
Neighborhood Action Plans are being developed for the
South Airport Way Corridor, Little Manila/Gleason Park, and Cabral/East Cabral. Planning efforts will focus on
eliminating barriers to housing construction and will
result in recommended actions and strategies for each
of the three Neighborhood Areas.
The South Airport Way Corridor, Little Manilla/Gleason
Park, and Cabral/East Cabral are three catalytic areas
that can benefit from additional planning efforts. There have been two planning studies for the Robert J. Cabral Station Neighborhood—A Plan for Revitalizing East
Downtown Stockton, 2005 and a 2008 update. A
portion of the Cabral/East Cabral Neighborhood Area
is in the planning area of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission. This planning area encourages future
transit-oriented housing to complement the expansion
of rail services. A Gleason Park Neighborhood Master
Revitalization Strategy was completed in 1999. The
neighborhoods are in the 2040 Envision Stockton
General Plan “Preferred Scenario” for corridors, where
“exemplifying sites in need of investment to fuel positive change” includes “the eastern part of Downtown and
South Stockton.”
In 2020, the California Strategic Growth Council
awarded a $10,834,490 Transformative Climate
Communities (TCC) Grant to the City. This grant
includes multiple partners and projects to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, strengthen the local
economy, and improve public health for communities in
the South Stockton area. Most of the Neighborhood
Areas fall within the TCC project area.
All three Neighborhood Areas are in the South Stockton
Promise Zone, where federal and local partners
collaborate to boost economic activity, improve
educational opportunities, reduce crime, and leverage
private investment to improve the quality of life in these areas. The three Neighborhood Areas are also part of
a Stockton Opportunity Zone, a program that offers taxincentive programs for investment in low-income communities through a Qualified Opportunity Fund.
HCD Opportunity Maps display all three Neighborhood
Areas as Low resource areas. Resources can include
access to adequate infrastructure, employment, and
housing.
Regional Smart Growth TOD Plan
The Regional Smart Growth TOD Plan aims to shape
future growth throughout San Joaquin County to put the
region on a path to environmental sustainability by
promoting TOD and infill development. The City’s
revitalization programs, General Plan policies and
actions, and Cabral/East Cabral Neighborhood Plan
facilitate objectives of this plan.
The City continues to process applications for residential subdivisions and projects throughout the city, annexing parcels at the periphery of the city that have potential for affordable housing development in commercial mixeduse and high-density residential zoning, completing Downtown improvements that foster high-density mixedExhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1187 ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-131
income residential projects, and promoting
opportunities for affordable housing throughout the city.
The total number and the share of multifamily unit
permits as a proportion of total permits has increased in recent years. In 2021, over one-third of the city’s
residential building permits were for units in multifamily structures, indicating a shift toward construction of
smaller units in multifamily developments.
ENFORCEMENT AND
OUTREACH CAPACITY
COMPLIANCE WITH FAIR HOUSING
LAWS
Fair housing laws at the federal, state, and local level protect certain characteristics from housing
discrimination. These protected characteristics include race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender,
gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, veteran or military status, source of income, genetic information, familial status, and
disability. Fair housing laws in practice may be tenant protections, immigration rights, and other protective
laws as required by the jurisdiction. Stockton enforces and complies with fair housing laws and regulation
through a multifaceted process—regular review of City
programs and impediments to fair housing choice,
compliance with state and federal law, and referral of
fair housing complaints to San Joaquin Fair Housing.
In addition, the City demonstrates compliance or
intention to comply with fair housing laws through the
following:
• The City currently allows projects to take
advantage of density bonuses and incentives and
concessions in compliance with Density Bonus Law
(Government Code, Sections 65915 to 65918.)
The City has included Program 17 to update the
density bonus ordinance to be consistent with
recent State law as needed.
• The City has identified a surplus of sites available
to meet the County’s RHNA allocation which
complies with the No-Net-Loss (Government
Code Section 65863). In total, the city’s surplus
unit capacity is 10,495, composed of 1,437
lower-income units, 767 moderate-income units,
and 8,291 above moderate-income units.
• Emergency shelters are allowed in the Residential
High-Density, Commercial Office, Commercial
General, Commercial Downtown, and Industrial
Limited districts with a Commission Use Permit.
The development code does not impose any
further restrictions or requirements. The City also
allows emergency shelters “by right” (i.e., without
a commission use permit or other discretionary
approval) in the Industrial Limited (IL), Industrial
General (IG), and Public Facilities (PF) districts.
• The City currently complies with state law
regarding SB 35 (Government Code Section
65913.4) although it does not have a written
process established for processing projects under
SB 35. To further demonstrate compliance, the
City has included Program 19 to establish a
process that specifies the SB 35 streamlining
approval process and standards for eligible
projects. The established procedure will aid in
minimizing the review time required for
development processes and, in turn, reduce costs
to developers, which may increase housing
production in the city.
• The City will continue to comply with SB 330
(Government Code Section 65589.5), relying on
regulations in the law for processing preliminary
applications for housing development projects,
conducting no more than five hearings for housing
projects that comply with objective general plan
and development standards, and making a
decision on a residential project within 90 days
after certification of an environmental impact
report or 60 days after adoption of a mitigated
negative declaration or an environment impact
report for an affordable housing project.
FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS
As part of enforcement efforts, Stockton residents are
served by multiple fair housing service providers,
including San Joaquin Fair Housing Association and the
Housing Authority of San Joaquin County. The Housing
Authority refers tenants to the San Joaquin Fair Housing Association on their website. The San Joaquin Fair
Housing Association provides housing counseling
services, tenant/landlord services, conducts fair housing investigations, and operates periodic fair housing audits Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1188
BR-132 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
throughout the county. As well, they maintain an
inventory of affordable housing resources developed by
Visionary Home Builders, assist with financial education and navigating the homebuying process, provide rental
counseling and resident services, including job search, teen center, digital literacy program, and other services for residents of Visionary Home Builders’ affordable
communities.
Fair housing providers identified that concentrations of low-income and non-English speaking populations are
particularly vulnerable to displacement, isolation, and discrimination because they have more limited
resources when securing housing. Fear of retaliation is a common complaint among tenants with limited
resources at their disposal. The experiences reported by fair housing providers, though not isolated to Stockton residents, indicate a need for greater tenant protections; assistance with finding and securing housing; and
education for landlords, property managers, and
tenants regarding fair housing rights and
responsibilities. The City currently contracts with San Joaquin Fair Housing Association for fair housing
services and will meet with their staff to implement
strategies to improve conditions for low-income,
immigrant, and linguistically isolated populations.
Actions will include audits of housing providers for
discriminatory behavior, multilingual community
workshops, and education to increase awareness of
available services (Program 30).
During consultations, San Joaquin Fair Housing
Association staff asserted that the lack of affordable
housing is one of the greatest problems its clients face, and that the largest number of discrimination cases are related to disability. This includes failure to meet
reasonable accommodation requests or unit repairs.
Lower-income residents are more likely to be burdened
by unhealthy or unsafe housing conditions than higherincome residents due to the shortage of affordable housing in Stockton. The City’s goal of producing more
affordable housing for residents with special housing
needs, including people with disabilities and lowincome families, will help address this need (Programs 25, 26, 27). The City will also pursue funding to provide low-income community members with financial
assistance for repairs and accessibility improvements
(Program 16).
HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
(FHEO) reported that 106 cases were filed by residents
of Stockton between January 2013 and April 2021.
Several complaints alleged discrimination on multiple
bases. Of these cases, the majority of cases were closed following no-cause determinations or were withdrawn.
Of the nine cases showed cause, the most common
allegation was discrimination on the basis of disability (six) and race (three), with two citing familial status, one national origin, and one based on sexual orientation.
The City has identified Program 30 to ensure residents
and housing providers are aware of fair housing laws,
rights, and requirements as well as resources available to residents should they experience discrimination.
Program 30 also calls for the City to work with local and regional fair housing providers to facilitate training for housing providers to prevent discriminatory actions and behaviors.
SITES INVENTORY AND
FAIR HOUSING
ANALYSIS
The location of housing in relation to resources and
opportunities is integral to addressing disparities in
housing needs and opportunity and to fostering
inclusive communities where all residents have access to opportunity. This is particularly important for lowerincome households. Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A) added a new requirement for housing
elements to analyze the location of lower-income sites
in relation to areas of high opportunity. As discussed
throughout this Assessment of Fair Housing, TCAC and
HCD have designated a large proportion of Stockton as
low resource and Areas of High Segregation and
Poverty in the central and southern portions of the city.
High and Highest Resource designations are found
within the western, northern and eastern census tracts, as well as segments of Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village
and Midtown neighborhoods. Moderate resource tracts
are centrally located, interspersed in the Upper Hammer Lane and East Thornton neighborhood, western and
southern portions of the Morada Holman
neighborhood, Midtown, and in the southern portion of
the city, in the Weston Ranch neighborhood.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1189
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-133
Figure HE-23, Census Tracts in Stockton and Table HE48, Distribution of RHNA Capacity by Census Tract present the unit capacity by census tracts in the city, and the existing conditions of each tract as they relate to indicators of fair housing.
This distribution of sites has been identified based on available land that is suitably zoned for residential
development. Table HE-48 presents how the distribution
of sites by income will help to combat existing fair
housing issues in Stockton through facilitation of mixedincome neighborhoods, providing opportunities for additional housing opportunities in the higher resource areas, thus reducing concentrations of affluence and
promoting housing mobility, and providing additional
housing opportunities in areas that will reduce
displacement risk resulting from overpayment and
overcrowding.
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1190
BR-134 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Figure HE-23: Stockton Census Tracts
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1191
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-135
Table HE-48 Distribution of RHNA Capacity by Census Tract CENSUS
TRACT
EXISTING
HOUSEHOLDS
RHNA CAPACITY
AFFH INDICATORS
INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY DISPLACEMENT RISK
LOW MODERATE ABOVE
MODERATE
MEDIAN
INCOME
POVERTY
RATE
LOW- TO
MODERATEINCOME
POPULATION
NON-WHITE
POPULATION
DISABILITY
RATE
R/ECAP
STATUS
RESOURCE
DESIGNATION
JOBS
PROXIMITY
INDEX
CALENVIRO
SCREEN
PERCENTILE
OVERCROWDING
RATE
RENTER
OVERPAYMENT
RATE
HOMEOWNER
OVERPAYMENT
RATE
% RENTER
HOUSEHOLDS
1.00 1,730 605 372 111 $16,269 47.2% 94.0% 86.3% 31.1% Yes High Segregation and Poverty 96 99.9 24.8% 62.5% 100.0% 98.1%
3.00 867 114 273 437 $19,200 37.7% 65.4% 85.6% 25.1% Yes High Segregation and Poverty 95 99.7 14.5% 66.2% 25.6% 91.0%
4.01 1,334 4 $55,197 12.4% 36.6% 61.1% 20.8% no High Resource 93 77.9 5.1% 56.9% 22.7% 58.6%
4.02 1,617 50 98 360 $22,584 33.9% 72.1% 77.1% 19.6% Yes High Segregation and Poverty 98 91.6 9.9% 66.2% 49.7% 89.0%
5.00 754 94 157 $24,700 35.0% 82.4% 84.8% 18.0% Yes High Segregation and Poverty 94 86.7 29.5% 63.1% 70.6% 74.1%
6.00 543 150 $27,396 29.9% 55.7% 93.8% 16.9% yes
High Segregation
and Poverty 84 94.4 14.1% 69.8% 62.5% 83.4%
7.00 1,220 249 166 18 $32,836 37.6% 53.2% 91.9% 25.4% yes High Segregation
and Poverty 89 99.9 24.6% 61.8% 41.2% 62.3%
8.01 1,687 244 227 $60,160 17.4% 56.3% 96.2% 7.7% no Low Resource 82 99.4 11.2% 49.0% 42.9% 51.0%
9.00 1,930 77 $48,113 28.7% 55.6% 79.4% 11.4% no
High Segregation
and Poverty 58 to 73 97.3 7.0% 59.6% 28.5% 56.8%
10.00 1,962 59 92 $52,965 16.1% 34.7% 68.1% 12.6% no Moderate 59 to 64 85.2 3.6% 61.8% 45.5% 47.0%
11.01 1,806 8 $55,958 13.9% 35.6% 64.9% 22.5% no Low Resource 86 63.9 12.6% 47.3% 30.1% 44.2%
11.02 1,940 11 $51,630 20.3% 55.7% 65.6% 7.4% no Low Resource 67 60.1 2.1% 45.3% 26.8% 50.4%
12.00 1,734 4 18 $74,571 11.5% 55.6% 45.0% 8.6% no High Resource 94 29.6 3.7% 42.3% 23.6% 36.2%
13.00 1,900 180 42 $51,507 12.0% 58.7% 72.2% 12.0% no High Resource 92 to 95 71 9.0% 50.8% 20.7% 48.8%
15.00 2,299 8 $48,726 17.8% 59.3% 85.7% 13.2% no Moderate Resource 81 to 88 90 16.0% 55.1% 47.1% 45.0%
16.00 605 84 11 $35,479 27.8% 45.3% 76.0% 18.7% no Low Resource 88 86.6 9.1% 61.8% 64.4% 64.6%
18.00 1,091 46 60 $49,450 21.3% 67.1% 83.0% 15.7% no Low Resource 66 94 20.4% 48.6% 13.7% 59.8%
19.00 1,428 16 42 $31,066 33.2% 61.5% 93.9% 11.2% yes
High Segregation
and Poverty 62 to 81 96.7 23.5% 73.0% 37.0% 66.7%
20.00 1,126 9 24 1 $26,987 36.3% 71.3% 92.1% 16.5% no
High Segregation
and Poverty 49 to 59 97.2 16.0% 59.8% 36.0% 59.7%
21.00 1,547 304 153 $40,544 22.7% 70.0% 97.7% 11.1% no Low Resource 42 87.8 11.7% 60.0% 45.8% 40.3%
22.01 808 139 15 8 $29,020 41.1% 71.9% 97.2% 12.9% yes
High Segregation
and Poverty 53 to 56 97.1 8.6% 60.2% 35.9% 52.8%
22.02 1,377 29 $38,141 31.5% 65.7% 97.1% 12.9% yes
High Segregation
and Poverty 50 80.8 18.8% 60.6% 48.1% 58.7%
23.00 1,357 25 50 104 $39,423 25.5% 68.6% 96.8% 16.6% yes High Segregation
and Poverty 53 to 71 97.2 17.7% 56.1% 44.9% 70.3%
24.01 1,257 129 47 20 $41,587 31.8% 68.0% 92.1% 13.7% yes High Segregation
and Poverty 52 to 72 96.3 18.6% 63.3% 24.9% 54.2%
24.02 584 125 59 $32,317 26.2% 63.6% 95.6% 21.4% no Low Resource 45 to 54 97 18.0% 66.0% 26.3% 45.9%
25.03 661 16 $25,179 43.5% 63.1% 90.7% 21.3% no
High Segregation
and Poverty 36 86.8 4.6% 44.0% 12.3% 71.9%
28.00 1,550 78 2 $54,082 13.5% 53.7% 91.6% 10.2% no Low Resource 57 to 61 88.4 16.2% 49.9% 47.3% 34.9%
31.09 2,146 10 $66,025 9.3% 33.8% 62.8% 16.9% no Highest Resource 79 76.2 4.0% 55.7% 32.1% 47.0%
31.10 1,576 1 $50,893 21.8% 56.6% 64.4% 13.2% no High Resource 80 71.5 5.3% 54.7% 22.8% 77.0%
31.11 1,738 1 $44,000 11.2% 46.3% 71.3% 22.8% no High Resource 87 72.3 1.9% 58.4% 46.1% 73.7% Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1192
BR-136 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
CENSUS
TRACT
EXISTING
HOUSEHOLDS
RHNA CAPACITY
AFFH INDICATORS
INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY DISPLACEMENT RISK
LOW MODERATE ABOVE
MODERATE
MEDIAN
INCOME
POVERTY
RATE
LOW- TO
MODERATEINCOME
POPULATION
NON-WHITE
POPULATION
DISABILITY
RATE
R/ECAP
STATUS
RESOURCE
DESIGNATION
JOBS
PROXIMITY
INDEX
CALENVIRO
SCREEN
PERCENTILE
OVERCROWDING
RATE
RENTER
OVERPAYMENT
RATE
HOMEOWNER
OVERPAYMENT
RATE
% RENTER
HOUSEHOLDS
31.13 2,136 187 33 $36,839 26.7% 67.9% 79.9% 11.9% no
High Segregation
and Poverty 92 89.8 9.5% 64.5% 24.7% 81.5%
31.14 3,614 49 10 $105,766 3.5% 11.6% 52.9% 9.1% no Highest Resource 64 to 76 30.8 0.6% 56.8% 31.8% 29.9%
32.03 1,437 11 $73,628 5.9% 29.0% 45.2% 14.9% no High Resource 40 62.7 0.0% 70.8% 26.1% 28.3%
32.05 1,364 0 6 $73,700 16.1% 31.8% 61.0% 12.4% no Moderate Resource 16 59.3 5.4% 39.0% 19.2% 37.0%
32.08 3,887 26 1 98 $99,975 5.9% 26.5% 76.8% 10.6% no Highest Resource 2 49.8 5.9% 46.5% 22.2% 34.3%
32.10 1,040 29 92 $78,375 6.4% 20.1% 63.1% 19.5% no Moderate Resource 6 44.4 1.2% 74.4% 24.3% 40.2%
32.13 1,394 6 $54,032 20.2% 38.7% 67.3% 23.3% no Moderate Resource 4 59.9 11.1% 51.9% 36.7% 42.4%
32.15 1,736 8 77 7226 $70,060 13.6% 28.6% 65.0% 11.3% no High Resource 8 to 12 48.5 2.2% 40.1% 19.9% 70.8%
32.17 953 3 $43,720 29.6% 63.7% 86.0% 14.2% no
High Segregation
and Poverty 10 67.4 21.2% 60.0% 22.3% 77.9%
33.06 1,452 14 $52,946 15.9% 60.8% 82.9% 11.8% no Low Resource 54 70.2 7.6% 49.3% 30.5% 56.5%
33.07 1,781 2 $42,939 21.1% 63.0% 77.2% 16.5% yes High Resource 74 73.5 5.8% 57.3% 33.4% 75.9%
33.12 913 3 $30,729 41.9% 85.2% 91.1% 13.2% yes
High Segregation
and Poverty 81 68.7 21.8% 60.9% 74.3% 85.3%
34.03 1,180 94 $60,592 25.4% 40.2% 86.8% 16.5% no Moderate Resource 7 69.4 16.2% 70.5% 29.0% 40.2%
34.04 1,733 35 $42,056 20.4% 62.5% 84.0% 15.7% no Moderate Resource 17 61.7 22.6% 50.1% 39.4% 50.3%
34.05 1,023 9 $54,268 21.7% 59.8% 89.6% 14.8% no Low Resource 32 74.6 24.4% 58.0% 41.3% 56.3%
34.07 958 183 9 31 $36,200 27.2% 78.7% 82.2% 14.0% no Moderate Resource 50 to 73 74.5 9.2% 64.8% 44.8% 69.3%
34.09 1,342 83 10 $39,527 20.6% 57.2% 86.8% 12.7% no High Resource 63 68.2 10.7% 66.4% 55.8% 51.1%
34.10 1,708 7 $59,738 12.4% 45.7% 89.7% 11.8% no Moderate 50 62.5 10.9% 54.8% 45.5% 55.0%
35.00 5,947 455 222 $93,529 8.3% 32.4% 76.4% 10.5% no High Resource 45 69.4 6.2% 42.8% 29.4% 26.3%
37.00 1,019 327 4 $38,710 27.7% 52.9% 79.5% 19.6% no Low Resource 95 93.6 9.8% 43.7% 88.0% 43.2%
38.01 3,119 3 $67,094 13.5% 31.2% 90.4% 11.3% no Moderate 15 72.8 3.1% 46.7% 38.4% 37.7%
38.02 1,800 884 172 $74,861 9.7% 28.0% 87.9% 12.3% no Low Resource 22 to 26 94.4 3.8% 54.3% 44.4% 43.1%
38.03 1,054 543 20 $53,250 11.2% 44.7% 82.3% 11.6% no Low Resource 83 99.2 13.2% 64.0% 41.9% 50.2%
40.02 3,472 216 3,881 $101,319 4.8% 22.8% 60.4% 8.2% no Highest Resource 13 45.4 4.2% 38.5% 33.6% 31.7%
41.02 2,342 32 2,035 $91,364 8.1% 26.0% 77.2% 10.7% no Highest Resource 16 71.8 5.4% 28.3% 34.2% 19.9%
51.31 1,238 16 $69,864 22.9% 36.1% 56.7% 19.3% no Low Resource 64 93.5 12.4% 30.9% 38.2% 37.8%
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1193
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-137
The City of Stockton includes 174 census tracts. Of
these tracts, 56 include viable and available land for
residential development that have unit capacity
identified to meet and exceed the RHNA. While sites
within 24 of the tracts included in Table HE-48 are
distributed within only one income category; 21 tracts
include both lower- and moderate-income unit
capacity; 4 include a mix of moderate- and above
moderate-income units, no tracts include a mix of lowerand above moderate-income unit capacity; and 7 identify a mix of all affordability levels (tracts 23.00,
24.01, 34.07, 32.15, 40.20, 300, and 32.08). The
identified unit capacity in all tracts are anticipated to be incorporated into neighborhoods with existing
infrastructure and capacity to support development.
The largest proportion of the unit capacity is identified in tract 32.15 in the Trinity/Northwest neighborhood of the city, including 31.9 percent of total unit capacity, comprised of 51.5 percent of the above moderateincome units within the Sanctuary and Delta Cove pipeline projects and 2.3 percent of the moderateincome units within the Delta Cove pipeline project. A few lower-income units have been identified outside of
the pipeline projects in the vicinity of the Hammer Road interchange with I-5; although this comprises less than one percent of lower-income unit capacity it does
provide a housing mobility opportunity in a Highest
Resource area. This tract has a current median income
at $70,060, a poverty rate of 13.6 percent which is
roughly equivalent to the citywide average, and
although the majority of the site is vacant, 70.8 percent of current residents are renters, of which 40.1 percent are cost burdened. This tract has a non-White
population of 65.0 percent, below the citywide average, with almost equivalent proportions of White nonHispanic, Asian and Hispanic residents. The introduction of predominantly above moderate-income
units into this high resource area of the city will provide housing mobility opportunities for existing and future
residents and facilitate a more mixed-income
neighborhood, as well as provide additional housing
opportunities for moderate-income households, all
having access to commercial and service uses and for
commuters, direct access to I-5.
Two additional tracts along the northern perimeter of
the city include a sizeable distribution (26.9 percent) of the total unit capacity. Tract 40.02 in Trinity/Northwest Stockton identifies 17.9 percent of the total units,
including 27.7 percent of total above moderate-income
unit capacity within the Crystal Bay (9.1 percent),
Westlake at Spanos Park (17.8 percent), and Trinity
Parkway Apartments (0.7 percent) pipeline projects and
6.4 percent of moderate-income unit capacity within the above three pipeline projects, supporting an incomeintegrated neighborhood. Tract 41.02 is encompassed within the Eight Mile/Bear Creek and Morada/Holman
neighborhoods east of I-5 at the northern edge of the
city, containing 9.0 percent of the total unit capacity within the Tra Vigne, Cannery Row, and Elderberry
residential pipeline projects, accounting for 14.5
percent of above moderate-income unit capacity, and
0.9 percent of moderate-income unit capacity. Both
tracts are designated as highest resource, with high
incomes, low rates of poverty, and non-White
populations below the city average. These tracts are
primarily developed with single-family units, with renter rates between 31.7 and 19.9 percent, and rates of cost
burdened renters and homeowners between 20.0 and
40.0 percent. Similar to tract 32.15, the introduction of predominantly above moderate-income units into this
high resource area of the city will provide housing
mobility opportunities for existing and future higherincome residents, as well as provide additional housing opportunities for moderate-income households, with
access for commuters via I-5 and SR 99. Although there
is no lower-income unit capacity identified within these three tracts contributing 26.9 percent of the total unit capacity, the City is determining the potential for
requiring affordable units as part of future development agreements when initiating discussions with applicant.
Approximately 16.3 percent of the units are distributed between two adjacent tracts in the Downtown/South
Stockton neighborhoods (tract 100 with 4.7 percent of
total units, and tract 300 with 3.6 percent of total units) and tract 801 (2.1 percent of total units) located in the Port and Mt. Diablo Waterfront/Boggs neighborhood.
The largest quantity of lower-income unit capacity in this area (11.0 percent) is identified in tract 1.00, co-located with 14.3 percent of the moderate-income unit capacity, including three lower-income pipeline projects (Grand
View Village, Hunter House Apartments, and La
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1194
BR-138 ENVISION 2040 GENERAL PLAN
Passeggiata Affordable Housing) contributing 5.2
percent of the lower-income unit capacity citywide. The Cabral Station Neighborhood Plan and the Little
Manila/Gleason Park Neighborhood Plan areas are
encompassed within tract 1.00, which is a contributing
factor for the extent of unit capacity identified in this tract, and many of the identified sites correspond to the plans’ designations of priority sites, focus sites, and opportunity sites. Another 5.4 percent of the lowerincome unit capacity is identified in tract 3.00, colocated with 11.1 percent of moderate-income unit capacity. Both tracts are considered R/ECAPS in a High
Segregation and Poverty resource designation; have the
lowest incomes in the city; an average 40.0 percent rate of poverty; a high concentration of populations of color; over 91.0 percent renter households of which over 62.5
percent are cost burdened; the highest disability rate in the city; and between 14.5 and 24.8 percent of
households are overcrowded. As well, the tracts are
within the CalEnviroScreen 99th percentile, considered
a disadvantaged community based on environmental,
pollution burden, and socioeconomic conditions. The
City aims to reduce displacement risk and homelessness
for households with these additional housing
opportunity sites targeting lower-income households,
and the integration of 22.4 percent of moderate-income
unit capacity will aid in creating a more mixed-income
neighborhood to reduce the concentration of
households in poverty while providing housing mobility
opportunities with access to transit and employment
resources. The highest proportion of moderate-income
housing mobility opportunities (14.3 percent) are found in tract 1.00.
Additional lower-income unit capacity (6.2 percent) is
distributed in the greater Downtown/South and East
Stockton neighborhoods in tracts 5.00, 6.00, and 7.00,
with 10.1 percent of moderate-income unit capacity
distributed within tracts 5.00 and 7.00. These tracts are designated High Segregation and Poverty and are also
considered a R/ECAP, with low median incomes, high
rates of poverty and concentrations of populations of
color. These tracts are comprised predominantly of
renter households, of which over 60.0 percent are cost
burdened, and homeowners are also cost burdened,
with between 41.2 to 70.6 percent overpaying for
housing; reflected in high rates of overcrowding.
Although the job proximity index is high, similar to the other tracts in the Downtown neighborhood, these tracts are considered a CalEnviroScreen disadvantaged
community, and the risk of displacement for many
residents is high. While these tracts include affordable housing stock, the high rates of overpayment suggest a
shortage of affordable rental resources. The inclusion of lower-income capacity will expand the housing stock to
help to reduce existing overpayment and overcrowding
conditions contributing toward risk of displacement, and the inclusion of moderate-income units in tracts 5.00
and 7.00 will aid in creating a more mixed-income
neighborhood to reduce the concentration of lowerincome households, foster place-based revitalization and stimulate improvement of economic outcome and
educational attainment performance.
In the Midtown neighborhood, there are five tracts
(4.01, 4.02, 9.00, 12.00, and 13.00), that include 3.6
percent of the units, with potential for 4.2 percent of low-income unit capacity, 6.7 percent of moderateincome unit capacity, and 2.7 percent of above moderate-income unit capacity, including University
Park and Harding Apartments pipeline projects, and two
lower-income sites in the vicinity of California Street and the San Joaquin Catholic Cemeteries. Tracts 4.01, and
4.02 adjacent to Downtown, as well as tract 9.00 west
of Pershing Avenue (and bisected by I-5) are designated high segregation and poverty, with tracts 12.00 and
13.00 designated high resource. While tract 4.02
reflects conditions more aligned with the adjacent
Downtown, with a median income of $22,584, a
poverty rate of 33.9 percent, is considered a R/ECAP,
and comprised almost entirely of renter households, of
which 66.0 percent are cost burdened; the other tracts
have moderate-incomes and lower poverty rates, and a
more equal tenure distribution, although over 40.0
percent of renter households are cost burdened in all
tracts. The inclusion of University Park pipeline project in Tract 4.02, with 2.6 percent of above moderateincome unit capacity will aid in creating a more mixedincome neighborhood to reduce the concentration of lower-income households in the tract and provide
housing mobility opportunities for moderate- and above
moderate-income households. As well, sites in tract
13.00 with unit capacity for lower-income households
fosters housing mobility and mixed-income
opportunities in higher resource areas, and unit capacity in both tracts 9.00 and 13.00 contribute toward
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element 1195
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-139
providing additional housing stock toward deconcentration of lower-income households in the Downtown.
Outside of the greater Downtown, 34.9 percent of
lower-income unit capacity and 42.8 percent of
moderate-income unit capacity is identified in the South Stockton, East Stockton, and Industrial Annex
neighborhoods. These neighborhoods generally have
low median incomes, high rates of poverty, a proportion of renter households above 40.0 percent, non-White
populations comprising over 90.0 percent of the
residents and similar socioeconomic conditions
associated with other tracts in the city designated High Segregation and Poverty as well as those considered
R/ECAPs. However, tracts 38.03 and 51.31 in southern
portion of the Industrial Annex neighborhood have a
Low Resource designation, median incomes in the
moderate range, lower renter to homeowner ratios, and
lower rates of cost burdened households, although
residential development is more rural in nature and
scattered in clusters among industrial uses and
undeveloped land. The majority of development
potential is identified in adjacent tracts 21.00 and
22.01 in South Stockton along the major South Airport
Way and East Charter Way corridors, with 2.7 percent
of the total units, including 7.6 percent of the lowerincome unit capacity and 4.9 percent of moderateincome unit capacity. The inclusion of the Mobile Homes on El Dorado pipeline project in tract 23.00
introduces above-moderate-income units in a mixedincome project into the neighborhood to foster income integration. The inclusion of lower-income units here
provide lower-income housing mobility opportunities
and will help to reduce existing overpayment rates
(which are more moderate compared to the greater
Downtown), and concentration of poverty in the greater
Downtown, therefore reducing displacement risk, and
the inclusion of moderate- and limited above moderateincome units will advance housing mobility and incomeintegration with access to industrial employment centers and the airport.
Remaining site capacity (36.4 percent of units) is
identified in the tracts north of the Calaveras River,
including 11.0 percent of lower-income unit capacity,
and 11.0 percent of moderate-income unit capacity.
Lower-income unit capacity is generally identified on
sites along the West Lane, West March Lane, and
Thornton Road corridors to maximize access to
commercial, services, medical and public transit
resources. The northern central neighborhoods are
characterized by low to moderate median incomes,
although tracts 35.00, 31.14 and 32.08 have incomes
in the above moderate-income category in the eastern
Morada/Holman and western Upper Hammer
Lane/Thornton Road neighborhoods. Site potential for
larger lower-income projects is identified in tract 34.07 in the Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton Road
neighborhood, providing 3.3 percent of the total lowerincome unit capacity (30.0 percent of the lower-income unit capacity within the northern central
neighborhoods), with the potential sites co-located with moderate- and above moderate-income unit capacity
for income integrated development. An additional 1.5
percent of the lower-income unit capacity is identified within tract 34.09 in the lower Morada/Holman
neighborhood and 0.9 percent in tract 31.14 along
March Lane, co-located with moderate-income units to
facilitate income integration and provide housing
mobility opportunities in a higher-income and higher
resource neighborhood. Another node of mixed lowerand moderate-income unit capacity (0.6 percent of lower-income and 2.7 percent of moderate-income unit
capacity) is identified in tract 32.10 at the junction of Thornton and Davis Roads.