City Council and Concurrent Authorities
July 9, 2024

Number: 2 Author: Matt Diaz Date: 5/31/2023 1:59:00 PM
Staff will continue to explore this program and discuss findings with the Justice Coalition.

Number: 3 Author: Matt Diaz Date: 5/31/2023 1:52:00 PM
Financial options will be explored in the Housing Action Plan, while the Development Code will include amendments to ADU and JADU standards as well.

KDOIRI6WRFNWRQ¶VSRSXODWLRQ
SHUFHQW
LVFRPSULVHGRIUH QWHUKRXVHKROGV
DQG D VLJQLILFDQW QXPEHU RI UHQWHUV GZHOO LQ VLQJOHIDPLO\ KRPHV ZKLFK DUH H[HPSW IURP DQ\ SURWHFWLYH PHDVXUHV LQ$% 7KH &RDOLWLRQ ZRXOG OLNHWR VHH PRUH H[SOLFLW SROLFLHV VXUURXQGLQJ UHQWHU SURWHFWLRQV VXFKDVH[WHQGLQJMXVWFDXVH HYLFWLRQSROLFLHVWRVLQJOHIDPLO\UHQWDOXQLWVDFWXDOHQIRUFH PHQWRISUHYHQWLQJ VRXUFHRILQFRPHGLVFULPLQDWLRQDQGWHQDQWDQWLKDUDVVPHQWSROLFLHV 6,7(,19(1725<
&DO(QYLUR6FUHHQLVDVFUHHQLQJPHWKRGRORJ\WKDWFDQEHXVHGWRKHOSLGHQWLI\&DOLIRUQLD FRPPXQLWLHVWKDWDUHGLVSURSRUWLRQDWHO\EXUGHQHGE\PXOWLSOHVRXUFHVRISROOXWLRQ,WDOVRWDNHV LQWRDFFRXQWKRXVLQJEXUGHQSRSXODWLRQFKDUDFWHULVWLFVHGXFDWLRQSRYHUW\HWF0RVWRI 6WRFNWRQ¶V5+1$VLWHVDSSHDUWREHORFDWHGVRXWKRI+DUGLQJ:D\ZLWKLQQHLJKERUKRRGVWKDW

KDYH WKH KLJKHVW SHUFHQWLOH RI EXUGHQ
 DQG DERYH DV VKRZQ LQ )LJXUH 
DQG DUH
FDWHJRUL]HGDV/RZ5HVRXUFH´DQGRU³+LJK6HJUHJDWLRQ 3RYHUW\´ )LJXUH+(
7&$&+&'
2SSRUWXQLW\$UHDV
DUHDV
2Q$SULO+RXVLQJ-XVWLFH&RDOLWLRQPHPEHUVFRQGXFWHGDVLWH WRXURISURSRVHG6LWH ,QYHQWRU\ORFDWLRQV2XUREVHUYDWLRQVDUHQRWHGLQWKHIROORZLQJFRPPHQWV

Ɣ 0XOWLSOHVLWHVDUHOLVWHG DV EHLQJ OHVV WKDQDKDOIDFUHLQ VL]H 'XH WR HFRQRPLHV RI VFDOH LWLVKLJKO\XQOLNHO\WKDWORZLQFRPHDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJZRXOG EHFRQVWUXFWHGRQWKHVH SDUFHOV7KH&RDOLWLRQUHFRPPHQGVWKDWWKH&LW\UHPRYHVXFKVLW HVIURPWKHLQYHQWRU\ GXHWRWKHPEHLQJLQIHDVLEOHIRUUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQW Ɣ 7KH&RDOLWLRQXUJHV WKH &LW\ RI 6WRFNWRQ WR FRQVLGHU HQYLURQPHQWDO DQG KHDOWK LPSDFWV RI SURSRVHG LQYHQWRU\ ORFDWLRQV )RU H[DPSOH VLWHV DGMDFHQW WR IUHHZD\ DQG IUHLJKW FRUULGRUVPD\EHXQVXLWDEOHIRU KRXVLQJ GHYHORSPHQW GXH WR SROOXWLRQFRQFHUQV HJ VLWH

ORFDWLRQV

ż $31
 
&KXUFK6W

Ŷ :KLOHWKHUHDUHQRPDMRUVWUXFWXUHV RQ HLWKHU RI WKHVH SDUFHOV DW WKH WLPH RIWKH&RDOLWLRQ¶VVLWHWRXULWDSSHDUHGWKDW *UHLI 5HF\FOLQJ ZDVRSHUDWLQJ RQWKLVSDUFHODQGSRVVLEO\WKHDGMDFHQWRQH$GGLWLRQDOO\ DOWKR XJKWKHVH SDUFHOVDUH]RQHGIRU0HGLXP'HQVLW\5HVLGHQWLDO
50 WKHVXUUR XQGLQJ
DUHDKDVDKLJKFRQFHQWUDWLRQRILQGXVWULDOEXVLQHVVHV ż 0$17+(<5'672&.721&$

Ŷ 7KLVSDUFHODQGLWVDGMDFHQWRQHVDUHLQFORVHSUR[LPLW\WRW KHIUHHZD\ ,I SODQQHGGHYHORSPHQWLVFRQVLGHUHGWKH &RDOLWLRQ UHFRPPHQGV DGGLWLRQDO PLWLJDWLRQHIIRUWVWRRIIVHWWKHLPSDFWVRILWVSUR[LPLW\WRWKHIUHHZD\ ż 667$1,6/$8667672&.721&$

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
7KH
VV
7KH
VVX
7KH7KH
0XO
LW LV
0XO
LW LV
0X0X
$31$31$3$3
1 2
3 Page: 4
Number: 1 Author: Guest User Date: 5/25/2023 1:56:00 PM Revisions have been made to Program 28 in the Policy Document to address this comment• Number: 2 Author: Guest User Date: 5/25/2023 1:21:00 PM None of the sites to address the lower income RHNA are less than a half-acre in size. The part of state law concerned with sites smaller than a half-acre is specific to sites that list units to address the lower-income part of the RHNA. Sites smaller than a half-acre are only included to address the moderate and above-moderate part of the RHNA••
Number: 3 Author: Guest User Date: 5/25/2023 1:21:00 PM This site is being removed from the Draft Housing Element• Ŷ 7KLVSDUFHODQGLWVDGMDFHQWRQHVDUHLQFORVHSUR[LPLW\WR WK HIUHHZD\ ,I SODQQHGGHYHORSPHQWLVFRQVLGHUHGWKH &RDOLWLRQ UHFRPPHQGV DGGLWLRQDO PLWLJDWLRQHIIRUWVWRRIIVHWWKHLPSDFWVRILWVSUR[LPLW\WRWKHIUHHZD\ ż (+$=(/721$9(672&.721&$

Ŷ 7KLV SDUFHO LV ORFDWHG LQ D *HQHUDO &RPPHUFLDO ]RQHG DUHD DQG LV FXUUHQWO\EHLQJXVHGDVDVHPLWUXFNSDUNLQJDQGRURYHUIORZORW 
$IILUPDWLYHO\ )XUWKHULQJ )DLU +RXVLQJ
$FFRUGLQJWR$%
$IILUPDWLYHO\ )XUWKHULQJ )DLU +RXVLQJ
$))+
6WRFNWRQ LV UHTXLUHG E\ 6WDWH
ODZWRXVHDOODYDLODEOHGDWDDQG³ORFDONQRZOHGJH´VXFKDVWKH UHFHQWWHVWLPRQ\RIUHVLGHQWV DQG FRPPXQLW\ RUJDQL]DWLRQV WR FRQGXFW DQ LQGHSWK DQDO\VLV RI WKH IDLU KRXVLQJ LVVXHV LPSDFWLQJPHPEHUVRISURWHFWHGFODVVHV7KH'UDIWFRUUHFWO\GHP RQVWUDWHVWKDWUHVLGHQWVZKR DUH PHPEHUV RI SURWHFWHG FODVVHV ± LQ SDUWLFXODU SHRSOH RI FRORU ± DUH XQIDLUO\ DQG GLVSURSRUWLRQDWHO\ KDUPHG E\ KRXVLQJ FRVWV HYLFWLRQ RYHUFURZGLQJ DQG GLVSODFHPHQW +RZHYHUWKHSURSRVHG JRDOV SROLFLHV DQG SURJUDPV GR QRW H[SOLFLWO\ DGGUHVV IHHGEDFN RU LGHDV JDWKHUHGIURPVWDNHKROGHUVLQFOXGLQJLQWHUYHQWLRQVVXFKDV

Ɣ (YLFWLRQSURWHFWLRQSURJUDPV
Ɣ 5LJKWWRFRXQVHOOHJDODLGVXSSRUWIRUUHQWHU KRXVHKROGV
Ɣ 'HFRQFHQWUDWLQJSRYHUW\LQWKH'RZQWRZQDQG6RXWK6WRFNWRQQHLJKERUKR RGV $GGLWLRQDOO\ RWKHU JRDOV RI $%  DUH WR ³UHSODFH VHJUHJDWHG OLYLQJ SDWWHUQV ZLWK WUXO\ LQWHJUDWHGDQGEDODQFHGOLYLQJSDWWHUQV DQG WUDQVIRUP UDFLDOO\ DQG HWKQLFDOO\ FRQFHQWUDWHG DUHDV RISRYHUW\LQWRDUHDVRIRSSRUWXQLW\´+RZHYHU)LJXUH+( 7& $&+&'2SSRUWXQLW\$UHDV
VKRZVDVLJQLILFDQWQXPEHURIVLWHVLQ³/RZ5HVRXUFH´DQGRU³+ LJK6HJUHJDWLRQ SRYHUW\´DV ZHOO DV PXOWLSOH ³3LSHOLQH 3URMHFWV´ LQ DUHDV RI +LJK2SSRUWXQLW\DVGHILQHGE\+&'EXWGRHV QRWLQGLFDWHZKHWKHUWKHVHXQLWVZLOOEHDIIRUGDEOHWRVSHFLILFLQFRPHOHYHOV 8OWLPDWHO\WKH&RDOLWLRQIHHOVWKDWWKHFXUUHQWGUDIWHOHPHQW PDNHVWKHEHORZOLVWHG³PLVWDNHV´ LGHQWLILHGE\+&'WRYDU\LQJGHJUHHV

Ɣ $KLJKTXDOLW\$VVHVVPHQWRI)DLU+RXVLQJEXWVWDWXVTXRDFWLRQVSU RJUDPV Ɣ 'RHVQRWLQFOXGHUHJLRQDOFRPSDULVRQLQDQDO\VHV
Ɣ 'RHVQRWDVNWKHSXEOLFWRSURYLGHLQSXWRQ$))+
Ɣ 'RHVQ¶WSULRULWL]HFRQWULEXWLQJIDFWRUV FRQQHFWWRSURJUDPV Ɣ +LJKUHVRXUFHDUHDVFDQ¶WUHO\RQ$'8VDORQH
Ɣ 1RGDWDGXPSLQJ7HOOWKHVWRU\
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

DV
HV
D
HV
DVDV
'RH
'RH
'RH
'RH
'R'R
'RH
+LJ
'RH
+LJK
'R'R
1 2
3 4
Page: 5
Number: 1 Author: Guest User Date: 5/25/2023 1:21:00 PM This site is being removed from the Draft Housing Element• Number: 2 Author: Guest User Date: 5/25/2023 1:23:00 PM The units and what income levels they are affordable to for the Pipeline Projects are shown in Table HE-54• Number: 3 Author: Guest User Date: 5/25/2023 1:23:00 PM The Assessment of Fair Housing does include a regional comparison in the analysis• Number: 4 Author: Guest User Date: 5/25/2023 1:23:00 PM Contributing factors have been prioritized and connected to actions in the Policy Document. See Table HE-50 and the text above that table.• 2XWUHDFK DQG (QJDJHPHQW
7KH&LW\PXVWUHDFK$//HFRQRPLFVHJPHQWVRIWKHSRSXODWLRQ
GHVFULEHPH DQLQJIXOIUHTXHQW
DQGRQJRLQJFRPPXQLW\SDUWLFLSDWLRQFRQVXOWDWLRQDQGFRRUGLQDWLRQWKDWLVLQWHJUDWHGZLWKWKH EURDGHUVWDNHKROGHURXWUHDFKDQGFRPPXQLW\SDUWLFLSDWLRQSURFHVVIRUWKHRYHUDOOKRXVLQJ HOHPHQW
:KLOHVHYHUDOPHHWLQJVZHUHKRVWHGE\WKH&LW\&RPPXQLW\'HYHOR SPHQW'HSDUWPHQWWKHVH PHHWLQJVGLGQRWUHDFKVLJQLILFDQW SRUWLRQV RI WKH &LW\ SRSXODWLRQ QDPHO\ UHQWHUV
ZKR PDNH XS
DSSUR[LPDWHO\KDOIRIDOO6WRFNWRQKRXVHKROGV
DQGSHRSOHDWUL VNIRU RU ZKRDUHKRPHOHVV 7KH
&LW\¶VPHWKRGRIFRPPXQLFDWLRQZLWKWKHSXEOLFZDVSULPDULO\E\ RQOLQHQRWLFHVRQLWVRZQZHE VLWH+RZHYHUPRVWZRUNLQJFODVVSHRSOHOLYLQJLQWKH&LW\ ZLOO QRW YLVLW WKH &LW\¶V ZHEVLWH WR ILQG RXWDERXWWKH+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWEHFDXVHPRVWUHVLGHQWVDUHQ¶WDZD UHLWH[LVWV$OVRSHUFHQW RI6WRFNWRQUHVLGHQWVODFNLQWHUQHWDFFHVVZKLFKSRVHVDQDGGLW LRQDOFKDOOHQJHWRDFFHVVLQJ RQOLQHPDWHULDOV
$OOVHJPHQWVRIWKHFRPPXQLW\ZHUHHQFRXUDJHGE\WKH&LW\WRSD UWLFLSDWH LQ SUHSDUDWLRQ RI WKH +RXVLQJ(OHPHQWWKURXJKDVHULHVRIHIIRUWV LQFOXGLQJ QRWLFLQJ RISURSHUW\ RZQHUV RI VLWHV LQ WKH GUDIW +RXVLQJ(OHPHQWVLWHVLQYHQWRU\DQQRXQFHPHQWVRQWKH&LW\ ¶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
5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV
%DVHGRQWKHDERYHGLVFXVVLRQWKH6WRFNWRQ+RXVLQJ-XVWLFH&RD OLWLRQZRXOGOLNHWRPDNH WKH IROORZLQJUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVWRKHOSVWUHQJWKHQWKH'UDIW WK &\FOH +RXVLQJ (OHPHQW DQG HQVXUH LWVUHVSRQVLYHQHVVWRORFDOKRXVLQJQHHG

Ɣ 3ROLF\'RFXPHQW
ż $GGPRUHVSHFLILFLW\WR4XDQWLILDEOH2EMHFWLYHVDQG7LPHOLQH ODQJXDJH WR HQVXUH UHDOLVWLFDQGPHDQLQJIXORXWFRPHVRQDWLPHOLQHWKDWHQVXUHVVRPHDFFRX QWDELOLW\ ż %URDGHQ *RDO +( WR LQFOXGH H[SOLFLW UHIHUHQFH DQG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ WR 5HVLGHQW 3URWHFWLRQ SROLFLHV WR HQVXUH KRXVLQJ QHLJKERUKRRG VWDELOLW\ DQG DIILUPDWLYHGLVSODFHPHQWPLWLJDWLRQIRU6WRFNWRQLDQV
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
$OVR$OVR
JH
$OV$OV
7KH
WLV
7KH
WLV
7KH7KH
1 2
Page: 6
Number: 1 Author: Matt Diaz Date: 5/31/2023 3:09:00 PM
The City has been dispersing flyers in multiple languages at libraries, businesses, and stakeholder groups, but we can work to expand this to other areas that need them.

Number: 2 Author: Matt Diaz Date: 5/31/2023 3:07:00 PM
All shape stockton notices were in five languages, while all housing and zoning workshops were noticed in Spanish and english. These notices can be found on the City's shape stockton website.
ż ,QFUHDVHG FROODERUDWLRQ ZLWK WKH 7UDQVIRUPDWLYH &OLPDWH &RPPXQLWLHV SURJUDPV DQG SDUWQHUV WR SURYLGHSURIHVVLRQDO VHUYLFHV UHURRIVHOHFWULFDO

XSJUDGHV
WRORZLQFRPHKRXVHKROGKRXVLQJVWRFN
Ɣ 6LWH,QYHQWRU\
ż 5HPRYHDQ\H[LVWLQJLQYHQWRU\VLWHVWKDWVLWZLWKLQIHHW RIIUHHZD\WRDYRLG GLVSURSRUWLRQDWHO\ QHJDWLYH KHDOWK DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO LPSDFWV RQ ORZLQFRPH

KRXVHKROGV
ż &RQVLGHUDGGLWLRQDOVLWHVLQKLJKRSSRUWXQLW\QHL JKERUKRRGV ż $GGLWLRQDOUHYLHZRISDUFHOVZLWKORZDFUHDJHWKDWKDYHORZHULQFRPHFD SDFLW\ Ɣ 2XWUHDFK(QJDJHPHQW
ż 7KH&LW\VKRXOGLPSURYHLWVRXWUHDFKPHWKRGVDQGH[SDQGLWVU HDFKWRLQFOXGH \RXWK WKRVH IURP GLIIHUHQW ODQJXDJH FRPPXQLWLHV DQG XQKRXVHG UHVLGHQWV 7KHVHDUHSRSXODWLRQVZKRDUHGLVSURSRUWLRQDWHO\DIIHFWHGE\WK H&LW\ VKRXVLQJ
SROLFLHVDQGWKHODFNRILQFOXVLRQRIWKHLUIHHGEDFNLVHYLGHQW LQWKHSROLFLHVDQG SURJUDPVVHOHFWHG
ż &RQGXFWDGGLWLRQDORXWUHDFKLIWLPHDOORZVDQGSDUWQHUZLWK FRPPXQLW\EDVHG RUJDQL]DWLRQVWRVXSSRUWDGGLWLRQDOHQJDJHPHQW
:HORRNIRUZDUGWRZRUNLQJZLWKWKH&LW\RI6WRFNWRQWRGHYHORSSROLFLHVDQ GSURJUDPVWKDWPHHW WKHKRXVLQJQHHGVRIDOO6WRFNWRQLDQV
6LQFHUHO\
6WRFNWRQ+RXVLQJ-XVWLFH&RDOLWLRQ
2UJDQL]DWLRQDODQGLQGLYLGXDOPHPEHUVLQFOXGH

Ɣ 67$1'$IIRUGDEOH+RXVLQJ7UXVWEXLOGHUV
Ɣ &RQZD\+RPHV5HVLGHQW& RXQFLO
Ɣ 3DQGRUD&URZGHU
Ɣ (QWHUSULVH&RPPXQLW\3DUWQHUV
Ɣ )DLWKLQWKH9DOOH\
Ɣ 5HVLGHQWV8QLWHG1HWZRUN9LVLRQDU\+RPH%XLOGHUVRI&$,QF Ɣ &DWKROLF&KDULWLHV
Ɣ 'LVDELOLW\5LJKWVRI&DOLIRUQLD
Ɣ &DOLIRUQLD&RDOLWLRQIRU5XUDO+RXVLQJ
Ɣ 6WRFNWRQ1$$&3
Ɣ 6DQ-RDTXLQ)DLU+RXVLQJ
Ɣ 1HZ*HQHVLV+RXVLQJ&RUSRUDWLRQ
Ɣ 5HLQYHQW6RXWK6WRFNWRQ&RDOLWLRQ

&RDOLWLRQ FRPPHQWV GR QRW QHFHVVDULO\ UHIOHFW WKH YLHZV RI LQGLYLGXDO PH PEHU RUJDQL]DWLRQV Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
7KH
\RX
7KH
\RX
7KH7KH1
Page: 7
Number: 1 Author: Matt Diaz Date: 5/31/2023 3:06:00 PM
The city's response letter dated 6/2/23 outlines additional outreach options. We look forward to working with the justice coalition to explore ways to reach more residents in 2023 and beyond.
2Q0D\WKH6WRFNWRQ+RXVLQJ-XVWLFH&RDOLWLRQKHOGDSXEOLFFRP PXQLW\PHHWLQJWR GLVFXVVWKH'UDIWWK&\FOH+RXVLQJ(OHPHQW7KHIROORZLQJKRXVLQJEDUULHUVDQGGHVLUHG SROLFLHVDQGSURJUDPVZHUHLGHQWLILHGE\SDUWLFLSDQWV

,VVXH%DUULHUV
Ɣ /DFNRIKRXVLQJIRUORZLQFRPHUHVLGHQWVHPHUJHQF\SODFHPHQWV Ɣ &UHDWLQJKRXVLQJLQYDFDQWSURSHUWLHV
Ɣ +RXVLQJIRUSHRSOHZLWKGLVDELOLWLHV
ż 2Q 66,
ż (YHQZLWKEHQHILWVVWLOOXQDIIRUGDEOHĺQHHGWRKDYHDXQLYHUVDOG HILQLWLRQRI ZKDWORZLQFRPHLVDQGZKDWLVDIIRUGDEOH
Ɣ .HHSLQJSHRSOHLQWKHLUKRPHVĺWHQDQWSURWHFWLRQV
Ɣ /RZLQFRPHSHRSOHRIFRORURQO\DEOHWROLYHLQSROOXWHGXQGHVLUDEOH SODFHV Ɣ $FFHSWDQFHRIKRXVLQJYRXFKHUVĺGLVFULPLQDWLRQ
Ɣ 7UDQVLWLRQDOKRXVLQJIRUIRUPHUO\LQFDUFHUDWHG
Ɣ +RXVLQJVWRFNTXDOLW\
ż 7HQDQWUHVRXUFHVĺQDYLJDWLRQ
Ɣ &ULPLQDOL]DWLRQRIXQKRXVHGUHVLGHQWV
Ɣ $ORWRIYDFDQWEXLOGLQJVLQGRZQWRZQ
Ɣ 7HQDQWELOORIULJKWVLQFOXGLQJ5LJKWWR&RXQVHO
Ɣ (QYLURQPHQWDO
UDFLDOVRFLDO
MXVWLFHĺKRXVLQJQHDUSROOXWHGVL WHV
Ɣ &RQFHQWUDWLQJSRYHUW\ĺQHZXQLWVDOOWRJHWKHUZLWKRXWDPHQLWLHV 'HVLUHG SROLFLHV DQG SURJUDPV
Ɣ 1HZWHQDQWSURWHFWLRQSROLFLHV
ż )XQGLQJOHJDODLG
Ɣ 3UHVHUYDWLRQSURJUDPVIRUH[LVWLQJPDUNHWKRXVLQJ
Ɣ &RPPXQLW\ODQGWUXVWV
Ɣ 9DFDQWEXLOGLQJWD[
Ɣ (QIRUFHPHQWDJDLQVWGLVFULPLQDWLRQ
Ɣ 3XEOLFHGXFDWLRQRQULJKWVSURFHVVHV
UDGLRFODVVURRPV

Ɣ 1DYLJDWLRQIRUXQKRXVHG
Ɣ +'$3DW&$'66ĺKRXVLQJZKLOHDSSO\LQJIRU66,
ż 1HHGVWREHELJJHU
Ɣ ([WHQGLQJ³-XVW&DXVH´WRVLQJOHIDPLO\
Ɣ 8QLYHUVDO,QFRPHIRUUHQWHUV
Ɣ 0LWLJDWLRQUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUVLWLQJLQLQGXVWULDOKLJKZD\DUHDV Ɣ (YLFWLRQGLYHUVLRQSURJUDP
Ɣ ,QFOXVLRQDU\UHTXLUHPHQWVIRUVSHFLILFJURXSVĺGRPHVWLFYLROHQFHY LFWLPV Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
'HV'HV'H'H 1
Page: 8
Number: 1 Author: Matt Diaz Date: 5/31/2023 3:17:00 PM
Most of these are included in the revised Policy Chapter of the Housing Element either as programs or directions for staff to explore. Some will be explored in the Housing Action Plan for recommendations (vacant buildings, etc.), while others (ADU, etc.) may be included in the Development Code Update.

Ɣ 6LGHZDONV
Ɣ $XGLWRIH[LVWLQJSURJUDPV
Ɣ 0RUHPL[HGLQFRPHVLWLQJĺFKRLFH
Ɣ &LW\VKRXOGEX\PRUHODQGHYHU\ZKHUHIRUIXWXUHGHYHORSPHQW Ɣ 3DUWQHULQJZLWKVFKRROGLVWULFWVIRUWHDFKHUKRXVLQJ Ɣ 5HQWFRQWUROORZHUHQIRUFHPHQWUHQWFDS
Ɣ +HOSIRUSHRSOHUHPRYHEDUULHUVRQUHQWDODSSOLFDWLRQV ż &UHGLW
ż 'RPHVWLFYLROHQFHYLFWLPV
ż ([FHSWLRQVRUPLQLPXPV
Ɣ 0LWLJDWHODQGORUGFRQFHUQVĺFOHDQXSIXQGVHWF
Ɣ 0RUHODQGORUGWHQDQWPHGLDWLRQ
Ɣ 5HTXLUHSURYLVLRQRIZULWWHQOHDVH
Ɣ 5HQWDOUHJLVWU\
Ɣ *UDQWVIRUUDPSV
Ɣ 6XEVLGLHVIRU$'8VĺVWUHDPOLQLQJ
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
1 LEGAL ADVOCACY UNIT
1831 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4114
Tel: (916) 504-5810
Fax: (916) 504-5811
[email protected]
www.disabilityrightsca.org
May 15, 2023
Sent via e-mail
To: Stephanie Ocasio, Director of Community Development- stephanie.ocasio@s
tocktonca.gov
Matt Diaz, Advanced Planning Manager- [email protected] Tristan Osborn, Senior Planner, Advanced Planning-
[email protected]
Placeworks- [email protected]
Mayor Kevin Lincoln- [email protected]
Vice Mayor Kimberly Warmsley- [email protected] Councilmember Michelle Padilla- [email protected] Councilmember Dan Wright- [email protected]
Councilmember Michael Blower- [email protected] Councilmember Susan Lenz- [email protected]
Councilmember Brando Villapudua- [email protected] Cc: David Zisser, Assistant Deputy Director, HCD- [email protected] Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD-
[email protected]
Jose Ayala, Housing Policy Specialist- [email protected] RE: Disability Rights California’s Comments on the City of Stockton’s April 2023 Housing Element Public Draft
Dear Planning Department Staff, Consultants, Mayor Lincoln, and City Councilmembers:

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
2 Disability Rights California submits these initial comments on the 2023- 2031 City of Stockton Housing Element April 2023 Public Review Draft (“Draft”).

Disability Rights California is a private, non-profit disability rights organization federally mandated to advance and protect the human and legal rights of Californians with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 15001, et. seq., 42 U.S.C.§ 10801, et seq., 29 U.S.C. § 794(e), 29 U.S.C. § 3011, 29 U.S.C. § 3012; see also Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 4900-49005. DRC’s comments on the Draft pertain to people with disabilities in the City of Stockton.

We appreciate the effort that went into this first draft and support many of the Draft p
rograms. However, we believe the Draft needs further development to address housing needs and barriers for peop le with disabilities in the City. We provide the following comments and proposed changes to assist the City with creating a more inclusive Housing Element:

I. To Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, the City must outreach to all segments of the community, ensure housing opportunity throughout the community, set AFFH priorities, and set appropriate metrics and milestones.

Assembly Bill 686 (2018) defines Affirm atively Furthering Fair Housing as, “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.” Gov. Code § 8899.50, subd. (a)(1). Stockton must administer its programs in a way that affirmatively furthers fair housing for members of a protected class and take no action inconsistent with that obligation. Gov. Code, § 8899.50(b)(12); Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 3608(e)(5). These requirements exist to combat discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation, and foster inclusive communities.

While the federal duty to AFFH has existed for over 50 years, AB 686 creates new requirements for housing elements for: (1) Outreach, (2) Assessment of Fair Housing, (3) Site Inventory, (4) Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors, and (5) Goals and Action. The California Department of Housing and Community Development’s publication: Implementing AB686: Duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Guidance for Housing Elements states that common mistakes and pitfalls include:
 A high-quality Assessment of Fair Housing, but status-quo actions/programs;
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
3  A local jurisdiction refers to a county-level Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing previously completed;
 Does not include regional comparison in analyses;
 Only analyzes patterns of low-income sites, not all sites;  Does not ask the public to provide input on AFFH;
 Doesn’t prioritize 4-5 contributing factors & connect to programs;  High resource areas can’t rely on ADUs alone; and,
 No data dumping! Tell the story.

The City’s Draft contains some of these common mistakes. We offer the following c
omments to help avoid some of these pitfalls.

1. Outreach
The City must reach all economic segments of the population; describe meaningful,
frequent, and ongoing community participation, consultation, and coordination that is integrated with the broader stakeholder outreach and community participation process for the overall housing element. 1 Gov. Code, § 8899.50 subd. (a)(2) further requires a summary of fair housing outreach and capacity, and the City must “receive public input and local knowledge on the Assessment of Fair Housing.”
The Planning Department hosted several meetings , but did not reach renters and
people at risk for or who are unhoused. The City primarily communicated with the public by online notices on its web site; however, most working people in the City do not visit the City’s website. The Draft also does not incorporate local knowledge other than input from service providers.

While we appreciate the outreach to organizations serving low-income and other specia
l needs populations, including our own, representatives who serve members of the community are not the same as community members themselves. Noticing property owners but not those who rent and those who are unhoused ignores extensive economic segments of the community. Moreover, there are no examples of the City reaching out to the Spanish-speaking community in a way that is meaningful. Additionally, people with disabilities and older adults are often unable to participate in community meetings due to communication barriers, segregation, and lack of transportation access. Thus, 1 The CA Dept. of Housing and Community Development,
Implementing AB686: Duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Guidance for Housing Elements, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_webinar_slides.pdf Commented [MD1]: In 2023, all Shape Stockton
notices were sent in five languages, while all
workshops were noticed in Spanish and English. The
City will continue to work with residents and groups to extend its reach. In addition, the Housing Element has
been revised to encourage more noticing in various
languages so the practice will continue beyond the
Housin
g Element Update process.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
4 they are often not considered in the planning processes that directly and disproportionately impact them, and are undercounted in data collection. Hearing directly from people with disabilities is critical to figuring out what housing issues they face and what types of housing works for them. Having a robust community outreach and engagement plan that ensures access to meetings and planning processes will allow program participan ts to gather invaluable data and information from people with disabilities and bridge the equity gap.

To better incorporate the views of all Stocktonians, the City should implement a Housin g
Element education campaign to educate young people,
those from different language communities, and those awaiting appointments at the County’s Health and Human Services Agency (333 E. Washington St.), among others. The City should reach out to the community via local radio stations in both English and Spanish. There is no other way to reach the vast working poor, disabled, renting, and homeless populations of Stockton. The people of Stockton deserve to have their voice heard in the Housing Element process.

Under AB686, it is mandated.

2. Assessment of Fair Housing
Among the Assessment of Fair Housing’s Requirements, we primarily addr
ess disparities in access to opportunity, displacement risk, ongoing segregation, and sites selection in this comment letter.

The City of Stockton has a population of 322,120.2 People of color make up 78 percent of the population where Latinx people account for more than 40 percent of that total. Id. Stockton is the native land of the Yatchicumne, a group of Northern Valley Yokuts people.3
A. Disparities in Access to Opportunity
a. Environmental Justice
A major fair housing concern in Stockton is environmental injustice.

Importantly, “[p]eople with di
sabilities are specifically exposed to and vulnerable
to environmental injustice” as a result of decades of ableist and racially exclusionary policies and land use decisions. And, some are also more vulnerable 2 Rich Ibarra, Stockton Named the Most Racially Diverse City in America, Capradio, (Jan. 2020) 3 City of Stockton: A Look into Stockton’s Past
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
5 to environmental injustice because of the nature of their disability. 4 These communities are the most impacted by pollution and other poor environmental conditions because of historic land-use decisions. For example, the percentage of people with disabilities living in areas with greater exposure to PM2.5 pollution is significantly higher than in areas with less exposure, even when controlling for other variables; this is especially true for individuals with cognitive and independent living difficulties.
5 As a result, explicitly requiring consideration of
such issues when furthering fair housing is critical.

CalEnviroScreen 4.0 is a screening methodology that can be used to help identify
California communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. Much of Stockton falls above the 90th percentile for pollution burden in the state. In the map below, Red indicates communities with the highest pollution burdens: most of Stockton’s RHNA sites are within those red zones. As shown in Figure 1 below6, limited RHNA sites are located in the green CALENVIROSCREEN and deeper blue, high and highest resources areas, as the majority of sites are in South Stockton. However, as the table below shows, South Stockton are the lower opportunity areas, and are also the areas hit by some of the worst pollution in the entire state. This will not AFFH.

Figure 1
4 Catherine Jampel, Intersections of dis ability justice, racial justice, and environmental justice, Environmental Sociology (2018).
5 Jayajit Chakraborty, Disparities in ex posure to fine particulate air polluti on for people with dis abilities in US, Science of the Total Environment (June 2022).
6 Stockton 6 th Cycle Housing Element, UC Berkeley, prepared by Bailey Schweitzer, Weiyang Tang, Joann Martinez (Dec. 2022).

Commented [MD2]: The Housing Elements Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) housing capacity
sites include approved housing projects in North
Stockton that account for over ten thousand units. The
maps and description below only show vacant infill
properties that account for 50-percent or less than the total sites listed towards complying with RHNA.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
6 b. Transportation
Transportation access is a critical piece of fair housing. However, jurisdictions often focus narrowly on the Americans with Disabilities Act’s technical requirements for fixed route and paratransit, but overlook its broader mandate for equal access to the transportation system as a whole. The type of transportation necessary varies by disability and need, and it should be clear that jurisdictions should consider not only fixed-route public transportation, but also specialized services such as paratransit, dial-a-ride, reduced-fare taxis, or volunteer driver programs. Stockton should also consider availability of parking, drop off locations, bus stops, and shelters. A stronger transportation system would expand and improve affordable mobility options includ ing: paratransit, door-to-door services; wheelchair accessible transportation network companies, and demand response real time ride systems; volunteer driver program expansions; nonprofit service provider systems; stipends/free rides for caregivers; gas subsidies, and more.

The City’s analysis of parking standards notes that some parking minimums have been waived for affordable housing, or that built via TOD. Unfortunately, the ADA’s only technical requirement regarding parking spots for people with disabilities is that there be a percentage of spots for disabled persons. Any percentage of zero is zero. Not all disabled people can use public transit, and require a parking spot, a spot for their caregiver, or a pickup spot for paratransit vehicles. As explained below, We recommend that the City amend Program 27, Addressing the Needs of Those with Disabilities, to develop an overall accessibility program that includes ensuring that disabled parking spots are available even where parking minimums have been waived. Accessible, available, and affordable travel options make it possible for diverse groups of people to stay active and engaged in their communities. c. Houselessness
As discussed below, unhoused individuals have a high prevalence of disability.

A discussion of barriers to fair housing is not complete without recognizing that Stockton recently passed one of the most onerous and restrictive encampment sweep ordinances in California, which bans “camping” (defined as “to place, pitch or occupy camp facilities; to live temporarily in a camp facility or outdoors; to use camp paraphernalia”) in areas broadly defined as “critical infrastructure” at the risk of misdemeanor charges and up to $25,000 in daily fines. The term critical infrastructure is defined to include locations ranging from hospitals to parks.

Stockton, California Municipal Code, Charter, and Civil Service Rules, Title 8 Health and Safety, Chapter 8.100 Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Wildlife Commented [GU3]: Revisions have been made to
Program 29 to address this comment
Commented [GU4]: Revisions have been made in the
Potential Housing Constraints section in the Parking
Standards subsection to address this comment.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
7 Risk Areas. 7 Further, while the Ordinance was specifically created to address symptoms of homelessness8, it does not include a requirement that people have true access to services or housing before being removed or having their property taken. This must be assessed as a barrier.

B. Displacement
We appreciate that the City recognizes that preservation and creation of affordable housing is critical to minimizing displacement risk. However, the City has recognized that the City is at risk of losing naturally occurring affordable housing due to an influx of Bay Area residents. Research and experience demonstrate that effective anti-displacement measures include housing preservation (especially for naturally occurring affordable housing), tenant protection, and affordable housing strategies.
9 The City commits to programs
addressing housing preservation and affordable housing development, but not tenant protection. And some of its programs, for example, Program 14, is listed as a place-based revitalization strategy; but fails to address how to ensure that weatherization does not result in higher rents and ensuing displacement. A deeper level of analysis is necessary. Similarly, if not done with anti-displacement protections in place, Code Enforcement can do, and has done, the same. 10 Indeed, the City discusses revitalizing “blighted” areas but does not explain what “blighted” means, which neighborhoods might be impacted, and how. Historically, revitalization of blighted neighborhoods has been paired with displacement of low-income communities. Indeed, the City is removing its 5 th Cycle Element program that noted that development in blighted areas would be done with an eye toward preventing gentrification. The City must engage in a deeper analysis of such risk and how its own programs can exacerbate or mitigate that risk.

Displacement can create unique harms to people with disabilities, who may have developed formal and informal systems of care, developed accessible transportation routes, and/or modified their homes to accommodate their needs.

Displacement can disrupt these systems in a way that is devastating to a person’s health. And, the stress of displacement alone can exacerbate symptoms of 7 https://library.qcode.us/lib/stockton_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_8-chapter_8_100 8 https://www.stocktonmayor.org/files/Legislation%20Text%20(9).pdf 9 Karen Chapple and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, White Paper on Anti-Displacement Strategy Effectiveness, February 28, 2021, available at www.urbandisplacement.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/19RD018-Anti- Displacement-Strategy-Effectiveness.pdf.
10 See, e.g. Price v. City of Stockton , 394 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (2005)(holding pr ivate right of action of federal relocation laws where aggressive code enforcement shut down SROs).

Commented [MD5]: Staff believes this does not
create a barrier to establishing or being housed in a
new shelter as defined by state law.

Commented [MD6]: City staff agrees that some
programs could impact other programs regarding the
need to rehabilitate housing and inclusionary fees and
housing costs. The Housing Element directs staff to
further explore the implementation of all programs
(including funding), while the Housing Action Plan will make further recommendations to better implement
housing policy. These programs will be monitored
annuall
y as required per state law.

Commented [MD7]: The previous element did not
discuss displacement, while the current element
includes new policies to address state law and
feedback received.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
8 disabilities. Therefore, we also believe it is important to include programs that have the most immediate impact on preventing displacement. “[N]eighborhood stabilization and tenant protection policies have the most direct and immediate effect on mitigating displacement”11 – this includes a strong local rent stabilization program, including for mobilehome parks. Therefore, as explained below, we urge the City to include such a program in its anti-displacement programs. Given the City’s indication that it will create neighborhood action plans in neighborhoods that are susceptible to gentrification, like Little Manila, this is a critical AFFH issue.

C. Legacy of Redlining, Segregation, and Urban Renewal: RECAPS and RCAAs
The discrimina
tory impacts of Stockton’s past redlining endure to this day as well. Redlining is the term for the process that spatially segregated the affluent white population from the predominantly Black and "economically disinvested".

The zones were categorized by a color scale, and Green indicated the most affluent and white neighborhoods. While Red, represented the non-white areas.

Comparing the 1930s Home Owner's Loan Corporation redlining map to today's demographic makeup proves this segregation persists in modern-day Stockton.

The map on the right displays the original Redlining zones within modern-day Stockton boundaries.

Figure 2
12 11 Id.
12 Stockton 6th Cycle Housing Element, UC Berkeley, prepared by Bailey Schweitzer, Weiyang Tang, Joann Martinez (Dec. 2022).

Commented [MD8]: Housing Analysis and interviews
with the development community have indicated that
the housing market (rental/sales) in Stockton does not
have the capacity to absorb significant fee increases or significant losses in revenue that would impact the net operating income (NOI). While the Housing Element
policy has been revised to direct staff to continue to
explore financial assistance (upfront and ongoing cost), topics like rent stabilization will need to be explored in more detail with additional market research and
outreach.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
9 According to AFFH mapping tools by HUD and HCD we see that segregation still exists and has affected housing policies. (See Figure 3).

Figure 313
For example, decision makers built a freeway through the Filipino Neighborhood
of Little Manila in Downtown Stockton, destroying family homes, businesses, community centers, and much more. Redlining has also excluded many communities of color from homeownership; now over 77% of extremely low income households in San Joaquin County pay over half of their income on rent

14. We also know that renters of color face the highest rates of cost burden in San Joaquin County

15. While the City notes that it will work with the housing authority to market vouchers in higher resourced areas, that is not enough to create authentic housing choice. The City should consult with community members to understand better their barriers to housing choice. Further, we understand the Stockton hired consultants to conduct an inclusionary zoning ordinance feasibility analysis, however the results are not included in the current Draft, other than a conclusory statement that such a program is not feasible. The City should at minimum explain why such an ordinance is not feasible in its AFH. The City must also consider how to incentivize affordable housing in RCAAs while also ensuring 13 Id.
14 California Housing Partnership, Housing Need Dashboard, (May 2023). 15 Id.

Commented [GU9]: Programs 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 24
and 25 in in the Policy Document address RCAAs
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
10 that deed-restricted affordable housing will be prioritized in RE/CAPs that are sensitive to displacement risk. The sites inventory does not currently reflect that.

The City also must address how its existing policies contribute to segregation in its Assessment of Fair Housing. For example, it must analyze how the City’s policies toward the unhoused (e.g. towing policies, shelter zoning, etc.) exacerbate segregation. A report completed by students at U.C. Berkley and attached here as exhibit A, highlights the historical segregation patterns of Stockton. Unsurprisingly, the majority of unhoused persons in Stockton are Black and Latinx and continue to exist in the segregated areas of Southern Stockton, whether in shelters, the health and human services system, or in the encampments scattered throughout the City’s proposed majority RHNA sites.

The Housing Needs Analysis demonstrates that existing low-income renters are living in rent-burdened, overcrowded, and substandard conditions.

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of households with the lowest incomes are severely rent-burdened. We encourage the City to account for this disparity when accounting for housing needs. Additionally, when considering resources, the City should identify ones that can be feasibly used. While working with the County housing authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program is a laudable undertaking, it is unclear how residents could, once they make it to the top of the lengthy waitlist, obtain housing in the City given the already significant overcrowding and unavailability of appropriately sized units. Market rate housing is clearly not meeting the needs of the City’s lowest income households, the overwhelming majority of whom are renters.

3. Site Inventory
AB 686 modified Hous ing
Element Law such that a jurisdiction’s
Assessment of
Fair Housing (e.g. segregation & integration, R/ECAP, etc.) should inform the identification of sites in a manner that AFFH. The site identification requirement must assess whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns. Do they transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity?
Stockton’s sites inventory is predominantly located in South Stockton. Per SB6 and AB2011, Stockton should consider doing a more in depth review of failing commercial corridors in high resource areas, rather than in places like South Stockton. Comparing the sites inventory to CalEnviroScreen 4.0 indicates Commented [MD10]: The City would like to know
more about what policies contributed to segregation.

The Housing Element requires analysis of the existing
General Plan and zoning policy and standards that
impact housing in the City. City staff is unaware of any existing policy that results in segregation or increases in unhoused populations.

Commented [GU11]: State required analysis of where
and how emergency shelters are allowed in the City's
Development code is included in the Potential Housing
Constraints section.

Commented [MD12]: City staff will rely on guidance
from the state on how to analyze sites to address the
RHNA and compliance with under SB 6 and AB 2011.

In addition, City staff is proposing a revision to the
Housing Element that would result in a Development
Code update to include performance measures for
potential housing within AFFH-designated sites to
include enhanced design and building materials before
construction to help mitigate any surrounding
environmental impacts.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
11 that most of the selected sites are located in the heavily polluted downtown and south of downtown. (See Figure 4).

Figure 4: “The housing burden indicator measures the percent of households in the census
tract that are both low income (making less than 80% of their counties’ median family income) and severely burdened by housing costs (paying greater than 50% of their income to housing costs)…The percentile for this tract is 96, meaning the percent housing burdened is higher than 96% of the rest of the state.”
DRC is concerned by the overlap between some of the largest selected parcels and clean-up sites. For instance, the site consisting of parcels 14523013 and 14523012 appear to be the largest selected at just under 40 acres, yet any residential development there would require brownfield mitigation. We commend Stockton for using EPA Brownfield Assessment Grant funds to assess how the city can revitalize current brownfield sites in the city’s downtown waterfront.

However, the aforementioned parcels are not one such site.

According to the EPA, long-term stewardship of former brownfield sites is costly, and the costs of remediation are unknown prior to a site assessment. This means that building housing atop brownfield sites might be financially unviable without a local financial contribution for brownfield clean-up. If Stockton chooses to include numerous brownfield sites in its RHNA inventory, it must be able to Commented [MD13]: While City staff has recently
worked with the owner to rezone the site from medium
density housing to commercial general which could
allow more commercial and high density residential
options, the site will be removed from being calculated towards meeting RHNA. This is due to owner interest
to explore other commercial uses in the near term.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
12 justify that these sites can be cleaned within the eight-year housing element cycle.

Otherwise, the city should exclude these sites from their inventory.

The above 40-acre site also contends with significant air pollutants as it is surrounded
by multiple highways, a highway interchange, and abuts a rail line.

Therefore, even if a brownfield clean-up is conducted, we believe Stockton should avoid encouraging residential development there. More importantly, surrounding areas are often polluted brownfield sites. So, although residents may not be breathing in toxins from the parcel their apartment is on, they may suffer from pollutants on adjacent sites. As such, focusing affordable housing construction on brownfield sites would be a violation of both AFFH and SB 1000 Environmental Justice Element requirements. Given this, we ask Stockton to avoid heavily relying on brownfield sites to meet Stockton’s low income RHNA allocation, without having a plan for remediation in place.

Further, Disability Rights California participated in a site tour of roughly 25 sites in South Stockton on April 12, 2023 to verify this analysis. Consistent across all 25 sites were the proximity to industrial businesses, lack of transportation, lack of grocery stores, closeness to the I5 and 4 freeways i.e. concerns for pollution, and in some areas, lack of sidewalk s and proper lighting. Disability Rights California has talked to community members with disabilities and learned how the lack of sidewalks and proper lighting can prevent neighborhood access and access to opportunity, especially when an extremely limited access to food, goods, and services in the area already exists.

4. Identification & Prioritization of Contributing Factors The housing element must identify and prioritize significant contributing factors to
segregation, R/ECAPS, opportunity access, & disproportionate housing needs. A Fair housing contributing factor is a factor that creates, contributes to, perpetuates, or increases the severity of one or more fair housing issues.

Contributing factors should be based on all prior AFFH analyses (Outreach, AFH, Site Inventory). Identification and evaluation of contributing factors must: Identify fair housing issues and significant contributing factors; Prioritize contributing factors, giving highest priority to those factors that most limit or deny fair housing choice, access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance. It must discuss strategic approaches to inform and strongly connect to goals and actions. Goals and actions should stem directly from Contributing Factors. Prioritization is important (4-5 max), and they must be tailored to local conditions.

Commented [MD14]: None of the sites listed for
RHNA compliance are official brownfield or super fund
sites. The city acknowledges some analysis may be
required as part of the construction review process;
however as the sites allow housing by-right, it is
reasonable to assume remediation and construction
will be achieved within the 8-year cycle. Staff will
coordinate this with the State as part of their review.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
13 The City did not complete this portion of the required AFFH analysis. Fair housing contributing factors have been identified by community members. For example, at the May 3, 2020, Stockton Housing Justice Coalition meeting, Stockton residents cited the following: lack of affordable housing for low income residents, low-income people of color segregated to polluted, undesirable locations; widespread housing discrimination on the basis of disability and source of income; lack of transitional housing or other housing opportunities for formerly incarcerated persons; poor quality of existing housing stock; criminalization of the unhoused; and displacement pressures generally. These are all significant contributing factors to segregation, R/ECAPS, opportunity access, and disproportionate housing needs of communities and individuals because of protected characteristics. The City must complete this analysis and prioritization.

5. Goals, Actions/Programs, Metrics and Milestones
While the
Draft Element has a broad AFFH program, many of those
programs are existing ones, and the City does not lay out metrics and milestones to determine whether its actions are meaningful.

Program 28, “Practices to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing,” at H17-H18 of the Draft stat e
s that the City w ill implement the following strategies to affirmatively further fair housing in coordination with the efforts of this action:
 Strategies to facilitate housing mobility/expand affordable housing in high opportunity areas:
o Programs 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 24, 25
 Strategies to reduce or prevent displacement/place-based revitalization strategies:
o Programs 4, 7, 9, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 29
The Draft further states that the City will continue to support fair housing monitoring and enforcement.

While the Draft includes raw demographic data and points to some of its Housing Element Progra
ms as furthering fair housing, it fails to assess whether individuals have actual housing choice an d does not identify how it will measure whether its programs are making a meaningful impact. After completing such an analysis of housing choice, the City can turn to fashioning appropriate goals and programs. We have made comments on those below, including suggested revisions to those in the draft; however, the City should ensure that it explains how the programs it suggests will AFFH will actually do so, and how they are Commented [MD15]: City staff is confident that the
proposed AFFH analysis complies with State Law.

Other groups and factors that could impact housing
(i.e., incarceration) could be explored as part of the
Housing Action Plan or other housing efforts conducted
with the City's regional partners.

Commented [MD16]: There are a variety of influences
that impact a renter's or homeowner's choice beyond
financial ability and market conditions. Many of these
are discussed in the housing element, but City staff is not sure what "actual housing choice" is alluding to.

While Staff is confident the choices described in the
draft housing element are consistent with state law, we welcome the chance to elaborate with the DRC further
as part of the housing action and neighborhood action
plans currently in progress.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
14 connected to the assessment of fair housing. From there, the City must also that include concrete milestones and metrics to evaluate the progress on the programs and fair housing results – otherwise, how will the City know that its programs are meaningfully affirmatively furthering fair housing? Also, individuals who are chronically homeless, by definition, have a disability; the draft element fails to consider this intersection of needs. Please see below for more comments regarding the City’s Homeless Programs.

II. Housing Needs Assessment for People with Special Needs § 65583(a)(7) The City fails to ad
equately quantify and analyze the housing needs of
people with disabilities. Gov. Code § 65583(a)(7) requires “An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of th e elderly, persons with disabilities, large families, farmworkers, families with female heads of households, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter.”
While the Draft includes a breakdown of the percentage of people with different types of disabilities was provided via U.S. Census data, the census data breaks down disability into only four categories for hearing, vision, independent living, and cognitive. Different types of disabilities require different types of accommodations and modifications in housing, and the residents of the City of Stockton have various combinations of disability, all with their own unique combination of resultant functional limitations possibly needing housing accommodations. Without planning explicitly for accessibility of all kinds, disabled Stocktonians will not have adequate homes to live in. This Draft does not do so and therefore fails to account for every economic segment of the community and is contrary to the duty to AFFH.

The City spends a fair amount of effort discussing people with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, which DR C appreciates. The City’s Draft also states that “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… 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).”
However, the word “at home” is misleading here as what this truly means is that 76.8% live “at hom
e” with their families. Most of these families include aging Commented [MD17]: The city has added quantifiable
objectives to certain programs. While the city welcomes additional use of existing and new programs, as some
of these programs rely on a third party for success
(outside funding sources, residential loans for
purchase/remodel, etc.) some of the success is
contingent on the activity of those third parties. While the proposed policies comply with providing
quantifiable objectives, the plan cannot force third
parties act upon the quantifiable objectives.

Commented [MD18]: City staff will discuss this with
the state for compliance with special housing needs
requirements.

Commented [MD19]: The City is confident that the
element complies with state law regarding the state-
required "special housing needs" and "AFFH"
requirements. The City is open to exploring various
types of subgroups beyond what is required by state
law and the census.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
15 parents from the baby boomer generation with children with I/DD, putting those children at risk of homelessness when their family members pass, as their SSI is not sufficient to afford market rate housing. And because they have been living with family, they will not have any other benefits established. Indeed, the City acknowledges in its Draft that “many persons with disabilities rely solely on Social Security Income, which is insufficient for market rate housing.” Draft at BR-32. A significant portion of this 76.8% of those being served by the Regional Center could live independently, but for any affordable, accessible, safe, inclusive and non-segregated housing options.
16 In addition, per the City’s own data, a rather shocking statistic coming out of U.S. Census shows that in Stockton, among school age children, nearly half (48.6 percent) have a “cognitive impairment.” For persons with disabilities ages 18 to 64 years, 27.4 percent have trouble walking, 23.2 percent have cognitive impairments, and 20.8 percent have difficulty with independent living.

Many people with mental health disabilities require supportive services to maintain stable housing. The City should separately analyze the housing needs of people with mental health disabilities and create programs to specifically address those needs. Those needs include: supportive housing, crisis housing, shared housing, and other innovative housing models. Without addressing this issue, people too often cycle between houselessness and institutionalization.

Further, there is no discussion of the unique needs of Blind residents, or those of Deaf residents.

In addition, the City should recognize that people who are homeless are by definition people with disa bilities for their analysis of special populations. Those who are formerly incarcerated face incredible barriers to housing in Stockton as they face criminal background checks for rental housing, credit checks. and a myriad of other barriers. People who are formerly incarcerated are mostly people of color and people with disabilities and Stockton’s Housing Element Draft does not account for the housing needs of this special population. As such, it is also not AFFH.

The Draft states, “[t]he unhoused are a fair housing concern, and it is often difficult to collect infor
mative data that accurately reflects the magnitude of the 16 Two reports attempt to assess the housing needs of people with intellectual/developmental disabilities, despite a dearth of accurate data: https://scdd.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/2018/12/STATEWIDE-STRATEGIC-

FRAMEWORK-FOR-EXPANDING-HOUSING-OPPORTUNITIES-FOR-PEOPLE-WITH-INTELLECTUAL-AND- DEVELOPMENTAL-DISABILITIES-10.16.pdf and
Commented [MD20]: The City is confident that the
element complies with state law regarding the state-
required "special housing needs" and "AFFH"
requirements. The City is open to exploring various
types of subgroups beyond what is required by state
law and the census.

Commented [MD21]: This is included in the proposed
element.

Commented [MD22]: The City welcomes the chance
to speak with the DRC about how we can provide more
services to different population groups. Whether in the Housin
g Action Plan or other effort.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
16 population at risk, resulting in undercounting.” The data source the City uses is a Point-in-Time count led by the San Joaquin County Community Development Department and the Central Valley Low Income Housing Corporation in late January 2022. The City estimates it has “921 persons without nighttime shelter as of the 2022 Point-in-Time (PIT) Count. The size of shelters in Stockton is based on building and fire code allowances and there is no maximum number of beds.” The City’s analysis is as follows:

Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(I) requires a minimum of 200 square
feet per person to meet the unsheltered need. To address the unsheltered needs of 921 people, this would be a minimum of 184,200 square feet or 4.2 acres. The 21 vacant parcels in the IL, IG, and PF districts range in size from 0.11 to 5.11 acres. Therefore, there are sufficient sites in the city to address the potential need for emergency shelters to accommodate 921 unsheltered persons experiencing homelessness.

However, the total number of homeless people living in the City is admitted to be undercounted. According to Community Based Organizations working with homeless in the many encampments in Stockton, the number is closer to 5,000 people who may need emergency shelter on any given night. Additionally, Stocktonians experienced extreme flooding and heat waves in 2022 which have resulted in increased homelessness. The City states in the draft that “[wh]ile 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.” However, DRC participated in the 2022 Point-in-Time Count and observed various issues with the City’s methodology for counting people experiencing homelessness in the City. The City chose to allot only one day to conduct a PIT count for Stockton—the largest city in San Joaquin County, and conducted the entire count for approximately no more than six hours total.

Further, even if a person had no home or a regular place to sleep, the City instructed volunteers not to count someone as experiencing homelessness if they had not slept on the street the night before the PIT count. This approach and methodology surely resulted in a lo w count. Inaccurate counts of those experiencing homelessness stand to hamper the City’s efforts to end homelessness and likely decrease the ability to get appropriate funding from state, federal, and philanthropic sources. Data from, for example, the school district, could help supplement the PIT data to create a fuller picture of the number of unhoused in Stockton.

Commented [MD23]: These numbers are based on
local projections provided by our regional partners. The city will continue to monitor these counts as they are
updated by our qualified providers.

Commented [MD24]: The City will continue to explore
the best practices for homeless counts and funding
options.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
17 The City must also make diligent efforts to evaluate the level to which its shelters and transitional housing present barriers for people with disabilities. For instance, many people with disabilities cannot access housing without reasonable accommodations (e.g. emotional support animals or other policy changes to strict rules) or reasonable modifications (e.g. grab bars installed or other physical accessibility changes). In our outreach to unhoused community members, we have encountered many who cannot access congregate settings like shelters or transitional housing in Stockton due to lack of accommodations for their disability, or because a shelter environment just cannot work for them (e.g. people with significant mental health conditions, or people with autoimmune diseases).

In our work, we often hear from municipalities that they have put policies in place to ac count
for the needs of people with disabilities, and that they expect their contractors and employees to follow those policies and the relevant laws.

However, in our experience, such an approach is not enough to actively prevent harm to people with disabilities. There must be a proactive and continued effort made to assess barriers, implement a plan to address identified barriers, and ongoing training and technical assistance. Without these additional steps, we have found that many people with disabilities will continue to be locked out of suitable shelter and/or housing opportunities, thus continuing the homelessness cycle. The difficult truth is that for some people, living on the streets feels better for them and their disabilities than residing in a shelter or transitional housing environment. The shared goal for us all is to ensure that people are not made to feel this way. And, lastly, the City’s numbers must include people who are not technically homeless, but who cycle through homelessness and institutions regularly, such as those with mental health disabilities, and formerly incarcerated populations.

III. Programs
Overall, DRC is pleased with the Cit y
’s goals to create more housing for all
income levels and for special populations. However, the quantified objectives articulated for each program do not match the actual needs according to the City’s own analysis and data. As an overall comment, policies refer to a Housing Action Plan (e.g. Goal HE-1 and Policy HE1.13, Program), but the policies guiding that plan are not incorporated into this Housing Element, and should be included in the Draft to ensure that they are consistent.

A. Program 15. Development Code Revisions
Commented [MD25]: City staff agrees that the
Housing Element must be consistent with the Housing
Action Plan and the Neighborhood Action Plans in
progress; however, the action plans are implementing
tools that will make additional recommendations for
action beyond what is required as part of the housing
element. The Housing Element Goals, Policies, and
Programs have been revised to reflect this consistency
and be the foundation for future recommendations
discussed in action plans.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
18 Currently the zoning code defines supportive housing in Municipal Code section 16.240.020 and indicates that it is a permitted use by right in special purposes or commercial zones. The zoning code must be amended to allow supportive housing by right in all zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted. Government Code section 65583(c)(3). This is in addition to the requirement that transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use subject only to the same restrictions that apply to other residential units of the same type in the same zone. Id.

B. Program 21. Code Enforcement Program
This progra m
states the City shall continue to inspect housing units in “targeted areas” to check for building code violations. In situations where properties cannot be rehabilitated, the City will “continue to enforce the removal and replacement of substandard units.” Here, 2,000 units annually is the quantifiable objective and completed via the “Police Department: Neighborhood Services Division”, which houses code enforcement. DRC actively engages in frequent, ongoing conversations with Stocktonians who are unhoused, renting, people of color, and people with disabilities. Conditions of the current housing stock in Stockton are a major concern.

To better address this major concern, we recommend that the City commit to moving from
a complaint-based code enforcement system to a proactive one, and one that includes tenant protections to prevent displacement (see displacement discussion above). This could include creating a rent escrow account program as well as engaging in proactive inspection. We can provide sample programs if needed.

Concerningly, Policy 4.4, which cross-references Program 21, states that the City will continue to implement a Crim e Free Multi-Family Housing Program.

HCD’s AB 686 Guidance explicitly recognizes such programs as barriers to AFFH.

Such programs most often serve to discriminate against Black and Latinx households, disabled people, and domestic violence survivors.17 The City should identify this program as a barrier to AFFH and create a program to remove it.

Similarly,
given the barriers to reentry faced by people leaving institutions 17 See Liam Dillon, Ben Poston, Julia Barrajas, Black and Latino renters face eviction, exclusion amid police crackdowns in California, Los Angeles Times, November 19, 2020, available at https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2020-11-19/california-housing-policies-hurt-black-latino- renters; See also, e.g. Alisha Jarwala & Sejal Singh, When Disability is a “Nuisance”: How Chronic Nuisance Ordinances Push Residents with Disabilities Out of Their Homes, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol. 54, Page 875, available at https://harvardcrcl .org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/07/54.2-Jarwala- Singh.pdf
Commented [GU26]: City is already in compliance
with this law. This is discussed in the Potential Housing Constraints section.

Commented [MD27]: The City will coordinate with the
State to assess if the program is a barrier under current housing law.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
19 including jail and prison, Code Enforcement should not be housed in the City’s Police Department, so as to ensure that residents can work proactively with Code Enforcement.

C. Program 24. Continue to Assist the Disabled in Community Development Block Grant Project Areas.

DRC is pleased with Program 24: The City shall continue to include special provisions for hous ing
the disabled in CD BG project areas, including mobility grants for homes (e.g., Emergency Repair Program) and accessibility features for 120 low-income individuals and households in Stockton, including rental units for owners of 4 or fewer rental units. Will the program be available to renters? If not, the City should identify funds to expand the program to renters who need modifications to make their unit accessible. This would also allow older adults to age in place.

D. Program 25. Universal Design
We suppor
t the City’s Program 25, but note that while universal housing design is an important, the Housing Element should be clear that universal design is not synonymous with full accessibility; the needs, goals, and programs should clarify that the City will encourage both. The City should inventory the amount of its housing stock that is accessible and affordable to people with vision and/or mobility impairments. If the City cannot track these, it should include a program to monitor and track such units, and to make such information available to the public. The City should also make its list of affordable units available to the public.

As part of this program, the City should include enforcement of existing accessibility standards. Local governments can affirmatively further fair housing by ensuring that Code Enforcement staff understand accessibility standards and are enforcing those laws.

E. Program 27. Addressing the Needs of Those with Disabilities As outlined above, Stockton is home to a large number of people with disabilities, includin
g low-income people of color with disabilities. However, the City’s programs address only a small portion of their housing needs. After the City identifies the needs of people with mental health and sensory disabilities, in addition to mobility and I/DD, it should include specific information on how to address their needs in this program.
a. Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities
Commented [MD28]: City staff is working on
conducting a housing condition survey and monitoring
the housing capacity sites but is not sure how a list like this would be implemented as there are a variety of
factors that go into a residential unit being deemed
ADA accessible in general. More feedback from groups
like the DRC is needed for future discussion.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
20 The City says is will 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.

However, the “quantified objectives” for this program are described as “N/A.” Draft pg. HE-17. This is unacceptable. Se nate Bill 812 mandates a discussion of potential housing resources for people with I/DD and this is absent from the Draft.

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 community18
 Section 8 Apartment/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.

The City should also ensure that the Housing Authority is complying with the obligation to exclude IHSS income of family members serving as caregivers when it calculates household income. Overall, individuals with I/DD should have choice to live in the most integrated, non-segregated settings possible. Only when absolutely necessary, the following may also be appropriate: Licensed and unlicensed Single Family homes, modified, of 3-5 bedrooms, or housing specially modified for the Medically Fragile (SB 962 Homes)
b. Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance
We appreciate that the Cit y
will amend Chapter 16.214 of its Municipal
Code, pertain
ing to reasonable accommodations. We support that Program 27 proposes to remove two of the findings that are part of the City’s Reasonable Accommodation approval process for consistency with State law: (1) whether the requested reasonable accommodation adequately considers the physical attributes of the property and structures, and (2) whether alternative reasonable accommodations could provide an equivalent level of benefit. DRC would like to state this change should be made immediately. However, additional changes are needed to bring the ordinance into compliance with state law. We urge the program include a commitment to make the following changes:
18 For an example of integrated, disability-forward housing models for people with I/DD, see https://thekelsey.org/.

Commented [GU29]: This information has been used
to update the section on those with Developmental
Disabilities in the Existing Needs Assessment section.

Commented [GU30]: These items have been added to
Program 27 in the Policy Document
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
21  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 must strike the word “substantially”. The City should also include 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 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 should be made to ensure confidentiality of the person with a disability’s contact and medical information. Further, this section should 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: Reasonable accommodation requests do not require that the City notify neighbors of the request. Such notification will in most circumstances, invade the applicant’s privacy rights, or possibly result in discriminatory or not-in-my-backyard behavior.

This requirement should be removed, both 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: We recommend that the City add a clause making 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.

Commented [MD31]: As indicated in the proposed
programs, updates to the reasonable accommodations
standards are already underway and are anticipated to
be completed with the development code update in
early 2024.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
22  Section 16.214.090 Appeals: We recommend that appeals are directed to the City Manager in consultation with the ADA Coordinator, in order to ensure confidentiality.

F. Program 23. Continue to Support Organizations Assisting Homeless Persons
Program 23 seeks to incr
ease shelter and transitional facilities and provide
short term financial assistance for households at risk of becoming homeless, however, exactly how this would work is not defined. Program 23 states:
“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.” [emphasis added] First, under the Housing Element, the City must plan for all economic segments of
the community and that includes those with little to zero income; it includes homeless people. So, to say the City will “support” additional development of shelter facilities, but only “as requested by shelter providers,” is not a proper metric to AFFH or substantiate a meaningful program to address the actual needs findings. Further, in order to end homelessness, emergency shelters and even transitional housing cannot continue to be the City’s primary mode of addressing the issue.

Under Program 23, the City aims to assist up to 2,000 unduplicated homeless perso
ns; and 1,000 households at-risk of homelessness with limited- term rental assistance or utility payments. As part of this, the City will increase the number of board and care or other types of residential or transitional care facilities for vulnerable populations by 300-500 beds. DRC opposes increasing the use of institutional-type settings to house people, which often includes board and cares. Through our role as the state’s Protection and Advocacy agency, we hear about such institutional conditions from clients and stakeholders. Housing options should be community-based, allow for freedom to come and go, and not have onerous rules.

G. Additional Program Recommendations
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
23 As explained above, the City’s AFFH analysis indicates that programs are needed in the following areas: tenant protections to mitigate displacement, environmental justice, and programs to increase opportunities to preserve affordability via innovating community ownership models.

The City’s Housing Element programs do not address tenant protections – which are critical to ensuring that existing residents can continue to live in their homes. Moreover, community members have identified such protections as a major issue. For example, the Stockton Housing Justice Coalition held an event on May 3, 2020 in which a tenant bill of rights, right to counsel, strong just cause protections, and universal income for renters were indicated as needed policies.

Further, ending tenant harassment and discrimination as well as rent stabilization policies are also critical to mitigating displacement. We urge the City to include a tenant protection program committing to the creation of such policies.

With regard to environmental justice, the City should both ensure a dispersal o
f sites so that neighborhoods with the highest pollution burdens are not the location of most future building, while also creating a remediation program to seek funding for site remediation. The City should also include EJ policies that specifically address the needs of the elderly, people with disabilities, and people with chronic respiratory conditions including establishing a program to distribute air conditioning to these vulnerable populations. For example, the City could identify sources of funds that prioritize elderly residents and residents with disabilities access to in-home HEPA air filters at little or no costs. Furthermore, the City should explore an EJ policy, similar to Los Angeles County’s Green Zones Ordinance, to create air pollution buffers to prevent the future zoning of residences, schools, childcare facilities, elderly care facilities, parks, and health care facilities away from heavy industrial areas.

In addition to these recommendations, community members have identified others that the City should consider. For example, at the May 3, 2020, Stockton Housing Justice Coalition community meeting, City residents suggested: a renters’ right to counsel; adoption of a tenants’ bill of rights; repurposing vacant buildings, e.g., those downtown, for affordable housing; the City’s acquisition of land for development of lower income housing; extending just cause eviction protections to single family homes; and universal basic income for renters. These are all appropriate and valid program considerations for the housing element that would also affirmatively further fair housing.

Commented [MD32]: The City will explore additional
performance standards with the Development Code
update in 2023.

Commented [GU33]: Revisions have been made to
Program 28 in the Policy Document to address this
comment
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
24 Increasingly, jurisdictions are creati ng programs to preserve affordability through community-based models such as promoting community land trusts, developing tenant opportunity to purchase ordinances, and land banking. We urge Stockton to do the same in order to create long-term community-led affordability.

IV. Conclusion
DRC submits
these initial comments and recommendations, but plans to supplement these in th e
coming weeks. Please reach out to DRC at (619)814-
8501 if we can be of any assistance as the Planning Department considers these recommendations and comments.

Thanks,
Nichole Mendoza
Senior Attorney
Civil
Rights Practice Group
Disability Rights California
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
25 Attachment A
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Stockton 6th Cycle Housing
Element

Bailey Schweitzer, Weiyang Tang, Joann Martinez
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Table of contents

1. Overview of Stockton

2. Stockton’s Housing Element Timeline & RHNA Allocation

3. Alleviating Patterns of Racial and Income Segregation

4. Overlapping RHNA Inventory and Polluted Neighborhoods

5. Commercial Zoning

6. Summary

7. Recommendations
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Overview of Stockton, CA
● Medium-sized city of 322,000
● Located in the Central Valley, 80mi
east of Berkeley
● Racially diverse - plurality Latinx
● Median HH income of $58,393

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Source: US Census
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Housing Market Conditions
● 50% owner-occupied
● 72% single family
● Despite a significantly more
affordable housing market than CA,
it has similar levels of housing
burden

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Source: Stockton’s 5th Cycle Housing Element Source: Stockton, CA Facebook page Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Stockton’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Timeline
● Stockton’s 6th Cycle Housing Element isn’t due to HCD until December 2023 ● As of December 2022, they released a preliminary map of RHNA sites ● Focused on advising the city on how to create a compliant housing element that affirmatively furthers fair housing per AB 686
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Draft Housing Element Sites Inventory

Income Group RHNA Entitled
Projects
Sites* Total Capacity Surplus
Lower Income
(<80% AMI)
4,013 0 5,273 5,273 1,260
Moderate Income
(81%-120% of
Median Income)
2,587 2,050 2,193 4,243 1,656
Above Moderate
Income
(>120% of Median
Income)
6,072 11,620 2,177 13,797 7,725
TOTAL 12,672 13,670 9,643 23,313 10,641
*573 acres
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Alleviating Patterns of Racial and Income Segregation

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Alleviating Patterns of Racial and Income Segregation
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Redlining Archives of California's Exclusionary Spaces:

White Pop. and Redlining African American Pop. and Redlining Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Redlining Archives of California's Exclusionary Spaces:

Latino Pop. and Redlining
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Redlining Archives of California's Exclusionary Spaces:

Race Poverty and Redlining
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

AFFH Data From HUD

Publicly Supported Housing and Race/Ethnicity
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

AFFH Data From HUD

Location of Affordable Rental Housing (% Rental Units Affordable to 50% AMI) Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

AFFH Data From HUD

Demographics and Environmental Health
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

RHNA Site Selection and Polluted Neighborhoods
● Most sites are located in
neighborhoods
CalEnviroScreen 4.0
considers heavily polluted
and highly disadvantaged
● Unclear number of units
they expect for selected
sites
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Stockton Brownfields
● EPA awarded Stockton a $600,000
Brownfield Assessment Grant
● City appropriated funds through
September 2021
● Conducted an assessment of
redeveloping the industrial
waterfront
● City is actively recruiting developers
○ Local financial assistance is
unclear
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Example Site: Overlapping Clean-up and RHNA Inventory Site ● 39.72 acres
● Overlaps clean-up site
● Surrounded on all sides by
highways and rail
● Located adjacent to the I5 and
highway 4 interchange and
abuts rail
● Development unlikely without
local financial assistance
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

5th Cycle Housing Element Deed
Restricted Affordable Housing
● Constructed and approved deed restricted
affordable housing between January 2014 and
December 2023
● Sites are located across the city in less polluted
areas
● Promising for 6th cycle
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Incorporate Commercial Lots into
RHNA Inventory
Case Study Area 1:

1. Brookside March Lane

2. Case Study Area 2:

Miracle Mile
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

2022 TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map

CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Stockton RHNA
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Case Study Area 1:

Brookside March
Lane
3404 Shadowbrook Dr.

APN 11628002

Acres 1.20; Sq. Ft. 52,008.99
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Case Study Area 2:

Miracle Mile
A.

1828 Pacific Ave

APN 13702042

Acres 0.69 Sq. Ft. 30,795.91

B.

2402 PACIFIC AV

APN 12506001

Acres 0.13 Sq. Ft. 6,073.93
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Summary
● Far too soon to tell what Stockton’s housing element will look like ● Stockton will have met its moderate and high-income RHNA allocation through entitled projects
● Redlining has lasting implications
● Sites concentrated in distressed and high polluted neighborhoods Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Recommendations
1) Future stages of site selection must seriously consider high opportunity communities
2) The large site located near downtown should receive local financial assistance if the city wants to actually build there
3) Incorporate environmental justice into housing element Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Recommendations
4) Incorporate unpolluted commercial zones, namely Miracle Mile & Brookside March Lane, into element
5) Government should not just focus on investing on North Stockton. South of the crosstown freeway also need some attention.
6) City should stop subsidizing unprofitable public golf courses in north Stockton and put money toward affordable housing fund.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

QUESTIONS?
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
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, the 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, the City departments with primary responsibility for carrying out the program, the funding source(s), and the 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 po licies 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, but should establish the Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HE‐2  ENVISION      2040  GENERAL PLAN
maximum  number  of  housing  units  that  can  be  constructed,  rehabilitated,  and  conserved,  or  households assisted over an eight‐year time frame.

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 ENSURINGE THE 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 thatwhich requires the City to maintain 130‐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 Ccity, 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. (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 to provide more affordable housing opportunities for all residentsexpand programs that would allow densities increase beyond the maximum allowable density range for projects that adhere to Housing Element policies. This include the existing 100‐percent Density Bonus program and new programs as part of the Development Code Overhaul. (Program 1 and 18) Policy HE‐1.6 Residential Mixed‐Use Development: The City shall encourage the development of mixed‐use residential‐office and residential‐retail projects. (Programs 2, 5, and 7) 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)
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HOUSING   HE‐3
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 29) 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 Sstate, 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.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HE‐4  ENVISION      2040  GENERAL PLAN
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.

Program 2. Downtown Implementation: The City shall continue to implement measures to enable development of 4,400 residential units in the Greater Downto
wn 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 forto  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  end  of  2023  or  early  2024;  and  annually thereafter to identify any additional strategies to address the settlement agreementGeneral 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 CycleRound and 4th CycleRound 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  CycleRound  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: 437 residential units on 16 repeat sites identified in Appendix A that don’t already allow residential development by right.

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 identify and target 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 Potential Funding: CDBG
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HOUSING   HE‐5
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 Ccity 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.  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 three 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: Permit 1,000 residential units
Potential Funding: LEAP, REAP, General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Late 2023
Program 6. Accessory Dwelling Units: The City will update its ADU regulations as needed throughout the planning period to address changes to Sstate law. The City will encourage the construction of ADUs throughout the city through the following actions.  These  actions,  which  are  aimed  at  providing  an  increased  supply  of  affordable  units  and  therefore  help  reduce 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 the existing ADUs pre‐approved construction plans and explore moreadditional  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
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HE‐6  ENVISION      2040  GENERAL PLAN
Time  Frame:  Starting  in  November  2024,  evaluate  the  consistency  of  Stockton’s  ADU  regulations  with  Sstate  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 program identifies actions and incentives to promote infill development, including brownfield remediation. 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.  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 increases allowances for infill projects to exceed the maximum density requirement through an existing 100‐percent Density Bonus or through a new process for market rate housing.  . As needed, Aadditional strategies and incentives will be considered andto plan and fund  implemented  and could include allowing less restrictive development standards; planning infinfrastructure improvements.  ;  and  sWays  to  further  treamliningstreamline  the  ministerial  design  review  permitting  process  for  infill development.

Quantified  Objectives:  100  extremely  low  incomelow‐income  units  and  150  other  lower  income  units;  funding  for  10 brownfield sites minimum
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department, Community Development Department Time Frame: Adopt Housing Action Plan by the end of 2023. 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.

Infill  Site  Assembly:  The  City  shall  actively  work  with  local  property  owners  and  developers  to  assist  in  the consolidation and assembly of small infill parcels for residential projects, particularly as related to parcels listed in the sites inventory  and  parcels  with  multiple  owners.  The  City  shall  continue  to  process  lot  mergers  ministerially  and  shall  offer incentives,  such  as  expedited  processing,  in  addition  to  the  incentives  already  offered  to  infill  development.  The City  is
updating infill requirements in the Development Code 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, current underway (see Programs 5 and 15). The City shall also conduct meetings or some other type of public outreach to connect owners of properties with potential developers.

Quantified  Objectives:  Facilitate  lot  consolidation to produce sites for 2,300 moderate and above moderate  residential units
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HOUSING   HE‐7
Time Frame: Ongoing, as projects come forward; establish program to connect property owners and developers by June 2026.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HE‐8  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 Ffederal and State housing assistance programs designed to help meet the needs of extremely low‐, very low‐, low‐, and moderate‐income households. (Program 10) Policy  HE‐2.2  Networking  and  Collaboration:  The  City  shall  continue  to  collaborate  with  public  agencies  and  private  and nonprofit entities to access State, Ffederal, and other sources of funding to provide housing to lower‐ and moderate‐income households. (Program 9)
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, 11 and 18) 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 10)
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 11)
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 12) 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 12, 13, and 14) 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 12)
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 12, 13, and 14)
Policy HE‐2.10 Green‐Up Stockton: The City shall encourage voluntary residential energy efficiency assessments and retrofits for existing dwelling units. (Program 13)
GOAL HE-2 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HOUSING   HE‐9
Program 9. 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 (Section 8), and in providing housing and supportive services to special needs households and individuals. 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 Ccity, tho
ugh 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.

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.

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 10. State and Federal Funding: The City shall continue to apply annually for Ffederal entitlement funds under the CDBG, HOME and ESG Programs, and shall pursue additional State and Ffederal 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.  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.

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 11. Priority Sewer and Water Service for Afforda ble 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 UpdateN/A Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: City Council, Municipal Utilities Department, Community Development Department Time Frame: Include in Development Code as part of Comprehensive Update by December 31, 2023early 2024 Program  12.  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.

Quantified  Objectives:  Connect  60  eligible  Stockton  residents  with  energy‐  and  cost‐saving  programs  to  reduce overpayment on housing costs.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HE‐10  ENVISION      2040  GENERAL PLAN
Potential Funding: Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Program 13. 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.

Quantified  Objectives:

Connect  60  eligible  Stockton  residents  with  energy‐  and  cost‐saving  programs  to  reduce overpayment on housing costs.

Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Program 14. Weatherization Activities: The City shall advertise local weatherization programs by posting information on the City website and distributin
g fliers and brochures, and shall refer elderly homeowners, low‐income households within certain income limits, and the general public to agencies offering weatherization programs.

Quantified Objectives: 200 units weatherized
Potential Funding: Home Energy Assistance Program HEAP
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
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 15, 16, and 17) 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 15, 17 and 18) 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 16) 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 16)
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HOUSING   HE‐11
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 18) GOAL HE-3 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
Program 15. 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 without a Uuse Ppermit, to comply with State law.
• State  explicitly  in  the  Development  Code  that  100  percent  residential  projects  are  allowed  in  CD,  CN,  and  CG districts as is currently allowed in practice.
• Expand Development Code to allow residential projects in all residential and commercial zoning designations. • 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 findings to be objective.
• Update Design Review Guidelines (subjective) to Standards  to increase their (objectivitye). • Amend the Development Code to allow employee housing for six persons or fewerless in the same way residential structures are allowed in zones allowing residential uses. • Amend the Development Code to update standards for emergency shelters, including parking, minimum distance, and any other updates needed for consistency with current State law. • Include a State‐compliant definition of “family” in the Development Code. • Amend  the  Development  Code  and  possible  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.
• Evaluate the possibility of implementing SB 10 (Planning and Zoning Law) in appropriate areas of the city. • 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. • Explore additional 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, increase land dedications for future city services, and join‐lease agreements for schools and civic uses.

Quantified Objectives: N/A
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: December 31, 2023Early 2024
Program 16. 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 Develop ment Public
Facilities Fees Exemption Program, and Stockton Economic Stimulus Plan (SESP) fee reduction components to ensure they Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HE‐12  ENVISION      2040  GENERAL PLAN
are  addressing  potential  constraints.  The  City  is  considering  modifying  the  SESP  program  to  only  address  multi‐family projectswill exploreconsider possible revisions to the aforementioned programs and explore additional programs as part of the HAP and Public Facilities Fees (PFFs) updates that are occurring in 2023/2024 .

Quantified Objectives: Provide exemptions and reductions to 200 housing units to reduce overpayment for housing costs and reduce displacement risk.

Potential Funding: General Fund
Who  Is  Responsible:  Community  Development  Department,  Public  Works  Department,  Administrative  Services 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.

Program 17. Streamline Approvals 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.

Quantified Objectives: 300 new units perm
ittedN/A
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Develop or adopt HCD’s SB 330 preliminary application form by December 2024. Develop an SB 35 streamlined approval process by June 2025 and implement as applications are received.

Program  18.  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 will  explore  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 December 31, 2023early 20234; annually review Development Code and revise as needed; produce brochures and make information available on the City’s website by December 2024.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HOUSING   HE‐13
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 19 and 22)
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 20)
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 21 and 22) 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 21) GOAL HE-4 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
Program 19. 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 mark
et‐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 Ccycle 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 athe desire to convert properties, consider 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 websiste.
• 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  (Section 8) 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  Ccity.  In  addition,  notice  shall  be  required  prior  to Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HE‐14  ENVISION      2040  GENERAL PLAN
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 mark
et 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 Ccity. 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 45‐ or 55‐year restriction shall be “rolled over” for another 45 or 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.

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 20. 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.  The  City  is  currently conducting a study that included a windshield survey of the former r edevelopment 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 priorities for rehabilitation during the planning period. In addition, tThe HAP and Neighborhood Action Plans will outline underutilized and vacant parcels as well as complete a housing condition survey to indicate units in need or repair.

Quantified Objectives: Assist 300 lower‐income units to address potential displacement, especially in areas of the city with the poorest housing conditions.

Potential Funding: HOME, CDBG, CalHOME
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Complete study and survey in 2023. Rehabilitation program is ongoing.

Program  21.  Code  Enforcement  Program:  The  City  shall  continue  to  inspect  housing  units  in  targeted  areas  to  check  for building code violations. In situations where properties cannot be rehabilitated, the City will conti nue to enforce the removal
and replacement of substandard units.

Quantified Objectives: Inspect 2,000 units annually
Potential Funding: CDBG
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HOUSING   HE‐15
Who Is Responsible: Police Department: Neighborhood Services Division Time Frame: Ongoing
Program 22. 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 65915(c)(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 lower‐income households at any time during the previous five years. 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 or repair. 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 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27) 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 23) 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 23) Policy HE‐5.4 Large Households: The City shall encourage the development of single‐family and multifamily housing affordable to large households. (Program 28)
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 28) Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HE‐16  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 24, 25, and 27) Policy  HE‐5.7  Reasonable  Accommodation:  The  City  shall  ensure  equal  access  to  housing  by  providing  reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities.  (Program 27) Policy HE‐5.78 Farmworkers: The City shall work with San Joaquin County in efforts to increase the availability of safe, sound, and affordable housing for farmworkers.   (Program 26)
Policy HE‐5.89 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 28 and 30)
Policy HE‐5.910 Affirmatively Further Fair Housing: The City shall affirmatively further fair housing consistent with State and Ffederal law through implementation of programs in this Housing Element and in all other City practices. (Program 28 and 29)
GOAL HE-5 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS
Program 23. Continue to Support Organizations Assisting Homeless Persons: The City shall annually apply for and continue to pursue State and Ffederal 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.

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. 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.

Potential Funding: ESG, CDBG
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Depar
tment
Time Frame: Apply for funding annually
Program 24. 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 in Stockton, including rental units for owners of four (4) or fewer rental units.

Potential Funding: CDBG
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department, Public Works Department Time Frame: Annually, contingent upon CDBG funding
Program 25. 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.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HOUSING   HE‐17
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 December 31, 2023early 2024 Program  26.  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 12.

Quantified Objectives: Assist other organizations
in developing at least 500 units of housing for farmworkers in Stockton or in the Ccounty during the planning period.

Potential Funding: CDBG, HOME, CalHOME
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Meet twice per year to explore opportunities for farmworker housing Program 27.  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 Ccity about housing and services available for persons with developmental disabilities. The program includes informational brochures, and information is available on the  City’s  website.  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.) Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HE‐18  ENVISION      2040  GENERAL PLAN
• 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.

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: N/A
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is
Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time  Frame:  Revise  the  Reasonable  Accommodation  findings  procedure  including  the  findings  as  part  of  the Comprehensive Development Code Update by December 31, 2023early 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  28.  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 Secti
on 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:
• Strategies to facilitate housing mobility/expand affordable housing in high opportunity areas: Programs 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 24, 25
• Strategies to reduce or prevent displacement/place‐based revitalization strategies: Programs 4, 7, 9, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 29
• 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  Ccity  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 poste d on the City's website. The City shall distribute fair housing information at City offices, the library, community centers, Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HOUSING   HE‐19
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 at the City Attorney's off ice of all complaints received. The initial Ttraining of City staff will start  in  2024;  with  updated  conduct  updated  training  with  new  staff  and  to  keep  up  with  changes  in  the  law everyoccurring two (2) years thereafter to align with changes to state law. • The City will also work with San Joaquin Fair Housing to provide explore additional training to housing providers to prevent discriminatory actions and behaviors. If the City does not have enough staff capacity to conduct The City  will  contract  with  a  fair  housing  provider  to  provide  housing  audits  in  order  to  reduce  displacement  risk, particularly in lower opportunity areas of Stockton, the City will explore contracting with a fair housing provider or outside housing consultant to provide assistanceing b. By March 2025, and then later reviewed annually. , The steps  in  the  process  would  be  the  City  will  issuinge  a  Request  for  Proposals  for  partnership  with  an  external consultant to provide theis service of conducting housing audits annually.. The City will initiate solicitation and contracting with an organization to assist the City with providing housing audits annually. The City wouldill 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 av ailable. • In order to assist with the high percentage of households living in overcrowded situations, the City will continue to encourage rental developments to  add  additional bedrooms  and  will consider prioritizing 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
.
• Incentivize on‐site child care in mixed use and multifamily development, particularly for projects in areas with higher proportions of single parent households.
• 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 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.

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

HE‐20  ENVISION      2040  GENERAL PLAN
Program  29.  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 fro
m 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.

Implem
ent 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.
• 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.
• 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. 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. • Implement new commercial/industrial zoning in South Stockton (details are provided in Program 15) Implement  new  industrial  zoning  zoning  standards  and  processing  for  reviewing  existing  and  future  industrial projects adjacent to residential uses (details are provided in Program 15) •
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.

Program 30. 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 th e
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HOUSING   HE‐21
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 an
d remove restrictive covenants.

Quantified Objectives: Remove all racially restrictive covenants from Stockton City‐owned properties by June December 2025  and  assist  in  the  removal  of  all  from  known  privately  owned  properties  by  the  end  of  the  planning  6th  housing cycleperiod. 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  June  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

HE‐22  ENVISION      2040  GENERAL PLAN

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

2. Downtown Implementation   4,400 residential units in the Greater Downtown Area by 2040  Adopt Comprehensive Development Code Update and HAP by early 2024; and annually thereafter to identify any additional strategies to address General Plan goals.Adopt Comprehensive Development Code Update by end of 2023; annually thereafter identify any additional strategies to address the settlement agreementGeneral 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.246 residential units on 9 repeat sites 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  Annually

5. Housing and Neighborhood Action
Plans
Permit 1,000 residential units  Late 2023

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.

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.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 for funding to support ADU incentives.

7. Infill Strategy  100 extremely low‐ income units and 150 other lower income units; funding for 10 brownfield sites minimum
Adopt Housing Action Plan by the end of 2023. 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.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HOUSING   HE‐23
IMPLEMENTATION  QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES  TIME FRAME

8. Infill Site Assembly  Facilitate lot consolidation to produce sites for 2,300 moderate and above moderate residential units
Ongoing, as projects come forward; establish program to connect property owners and developers by June 2026.

Goal HE‐2: Provide High Quality Housing for All Income Groups

9. 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
Ongoing; establish education program by the end of 2024 and distribute information. Then distribute information at least annually through th e end of the planning period.

10. 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.

Review funding opportunities annually; down payment assistance program is ongoing

11. Priority Sewer and Water Service for
Affordable Housing
Include in Development Code as part of Comprehensive UpdateN/A  Include in Development Code as part of Comprehensive Update by December 31, 2023early 2024

12. Property Assessed Clean Energy
(PACE) Program
Connect 60 eligible Stockton residents with energy‐ and cost‐saving programs to reduce overpayment on housing costs.

Ongoing

13. Green‐Up Stockton  Connect 60 eligible Stockton residents with energy‐ and cost‐saving programs to reduce overpayment on housing costs.

Ongoing

14. Weatherization Activities  200 units weatherized  Ongoing Goal HE‐3: Remove Governmental Constraints

15. Development Code Revisions   N/A  December 31, 2023Early 2024

16. Fiscally Positive Impact Fees   Provide exemptions and reductions to 200 housing units to reduce overpayment for housing costs and reduce displacement risk.

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.

17. Streamline Approvals for Affordable
Housing Projects
300 new units permitted N/A  Develop or adopt HCD’s SB 330 preliminary application form by December 2024.

Develop an SB 35 streamlined approval process by June 2025 and implement as applications are received.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HE‐24  ENVISION      2040  GENERAL PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION  QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES  TIME FRAME

18. 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 early 2024; annually review Development Code and revise as needed; produce brochures and make information available on the City’s website by December 2024.Complete as part of Comprehensive Development Code Update by December 31, 2023; 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

19. 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.

20. Housing Rehabilitation Programs   Assist 300 lower‐income units to address potential displacement, especially in areas of the city with the poorest housing conditions.

Complete study and survey in 2023. Rehabilitation program is ongoing.

21. Code Enforcement Program   Inspect 2,000 units annually  Ongoing

22. Replacement of Existing Affordable
Units
N/A  Ongoing
Goal HE‐5: Provide Equitable Housing and Supportive Services

23. 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 limited‐term rental assistance or utility payments. As part of this, increase the number of board and care or other types of residential or transitional care facilities for vulnerable populatio ns by 300‐500 beds.  .

Apply for funding annually

24. Continue to Assist the Disabled in
Community Development Block
Grant Project Areas
Provide mobility assistance home‐repair grants for 120 low‐income individuals and households in Stockton, including rental units for owners of four (4) or fewer rental units.Provide mobility assistance home‐repair grants for 120 low‐income individuals and households in Stockton, including rental units for owners of 4 or fewer rental units.

Annually, contingent upon CDBG funding

25. 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 Make updates as part of the Comprehensive Development Code update by early 2024Make updates as part of the Comprehensive Development Code update by Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HOUSING   HE‐25
IMPLEMENTATION  QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES  TIME FRAME
services.100 housing units with universal design features to facilitate accessibility for persons with disabilities and seniors; encouraging at least 5 of these units to be located near transit stations and services.

December 31, 2023

26. Assist Farm Workers and other
Members of the Workforce
Assist other organizations in developing at least 100 units or housing for farmworkers in Stockton or in the Ccounty during the planning period.

Meet twice per year to explore opportunities for farmworker housing

27. Addressing the Needs of Those with
Disabilities
N/A  Revise the Reasonable Accommodation procedure including the findings as part of the Comprehensive Development Code Update by early 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.Revise the Reasonable Accommodation findings as part of the Comprehensive Development Code Update by December 31, 2023. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. Removal of Racially Restrictive
Covenants
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 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 racially restrictive covenants from Stockton City‐owned properties by June 2025 and from privately owned properties by the end of the planning period. 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.

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.Remove all covenants on City‐owned properties by June 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

HE‐26  ENVISION      2040  GENERAL PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION  QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES  TIME FRAME
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.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HOUSING   HE‐27

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  ABOVE‐

MODERATE
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 At‐
Risk Units3  600  957  985  825  825  4,192
Notes:

1. Corresponds to the City’s RHNA.

2. Corresponds to objectives in Programs 14, 20, and 21.

3.  Corresponds  to  the  at‐risk  affordable  assisted units  in  the  city  (see  Housing  Needs  Assessment,  Table  HE‐42  and  Program  19)  and  objectives  from Programs 9 aiming to conserve existing housing.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

HE‐28  ENVISION   2040 GENERAL PLAN
This page intentionally left blank.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Shape Stockton Housing and Neighborhood Feedback Summary‐updated June 2023 1 The following comments summarize feedback received from all workshops, study sessions, neighborhood meetings, go‐ to‐them‐events, stakeholder interviews, and one‐on‐one meetings.

HOUSING
General Comments
 Existing buildings have problems with windows and egress.  Need to maintain and improve the code to allow mixed‐use and downtown residential more viable.  Having to meet all residential and all commercial development codes is expensive.  People who moved into live‐work lofts were living but not working there.  Residential is by‐right in CD zone, which helps.
 If Stockton wants more housing, it need
s to create business and make it easier to develop  3‐story garden apartments with stairs and no elevator. can’t do 4 stories with elevators or podiums and justified by the rents.

Three stories usually hit around
24 units/acre.
 The city didn’t want apartments previously but has changed its tune and now supports them.  Notice more than just property owners directly impacted by the efforts.  Consider inclusionary housing policies for the City.
 Concern about equity and housing justice; protect against gentrification.  Consider inclusionary housing and a community land trust.  60
‐80 units per acre is the minimum number of units some need for a new affordable housing project. Mutual Housing is working on a project that is about 120 units per acre, but this project could be up to 200 units per acre.
 Infrastructure and environment can be a big issue in infill sites.  What ha
ppens if the City does not hit its RHNA numbers?
 Explore the affordable gap in private project development.  Explore or encourage the use of Master Development Plans.  Does the City give bonds to help out with construction costs?  How is th
e Housing Action Plan (HAP) useful if it is not legally binding?  Include more CEQA streamlining recommendations and allowances.  City doesn’t do anything to help low‐income communities on the edges/fringes.  Are there sub‐categories within lower  income?
 Some sites identified have constraints, so they haven’t been developed yet. For example, title issues, infrastructure issues, and environmental constraints.
 The City process of working with applicants and saying yes to projects has improved, but more work is needed.

The City could be more proactive than reactive in helping projects progress.  Need exemptions for offsite
infrastructure improvements for affordable housing ‐ cost kills projects.  City must find funding for outdated offsite infrastructure (streetlights/sidewalks).  EIFDs to attract developers.
 Nonprofit projects shouldn’t be treated like for‐profit development.  Infill costs of deferred maintenance put off onto affordable projects makes the m no longer affordable.  The City should maintain impact fee waivers for affordable projects.  Priority sites should follow the dollars/funding sources, be transparent with funding sources, and encourage flexibility with sites.
 Further streamlining of the permit process.
 Pre‐designed plans or approvals would help, especially with infill/scattered  site development.  Need the ability for waivers on oddly shaped parcels.  Funders avoid items that trigger prevailing wages.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Shape Stockton Housing and Neighborhood Feedback Summary‐updated June 2023

2  Interested in Adaptive Reuse of buildings downtown and any potential waivers/incentives in the Development Code that could help them attract developers.
 Parking reductions don't help them, as tenants are not located near quality transit want to park.  Stockton lacks quality transit as compared to Sacramento, and maybe when we get there, less parking outside
the downtown will help, but not now.
 The area needs a better bike/ped system.
 SESP has made projects pencil out. With rising interest rates, without SESP, they would stop building in Stockton due to financial constraints.
 RSSC is forming a Housing Justice
coalition creating separate entity. Will the City be a part of that effort.

NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS
General Comments
 Do not concentrate on affordable housing in one place.  People need help beyond housing, including education and jobs. Some people do not want government assistance or housing support.
 Improve homelessness and safety in all three Study Areas.  Landlords are pushing people out of their homes. Address emergency housing situations in the plans. Police are also clearing
encampments and belongings.
 Allow an environment that is conducive to promoting/improving properties; improve customer service at the Planning counter.
 People drive fast on Pock Lane, there is a need for speed bumps.  There is a need for police patrol at the farmer’s market.  Re‐stripe streets where needed. There are inoperable
cars on the street that need to be removed.
 Improve and maintain parks throughout the City, especially the basketball courts. Most parks are safe during the day but feel unsafe at night.
 There is a need for remodeling and renovation of old dilapidate d businesses. Perhaps more City money or grants could help with this.
 Addressing safety concerns should be the main focus.
 There is a need for duplex/triplex/fourplex units in these neighborhoods. Could be rentals or ownership units, but they need to be attainable. It would be nice to have a program to help people purchase these un its.  Provide resources and housing opportunities for the homeless.  Reach out to the community and ask them what they would like to see in their neighborhood. The Dorothy Jones Community Center could be a venue option for an open house in South Airport Way. Talk with the churches in these areas to spread the wor
d about the open house. Lueathel from the African American Chamber of Commerce San Joaquin is part of the Ministerial Alliance that meets at a church near South Airport Way. They can help spread the word about the open house. Work closely with Assembly Bill 617.  Community ambassadors can help address safety concerns in these neighborhoods, especially in South Airport Way.
 The wages for jobs in Stockton must equal the cost of living. People that live here commute outside of Stockton for work. There are not a lot of hig
h‐paying jobs in San Joaquin County.
 People cannot afford to buy homes because they are getting priced out by bay area investors.  There are multiple generations living in the same home in Stockton. The COVID‐19 pandemic increased this issue.
 Take into consideration parking
when planning new housing in these areas.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Shape Stockton Housing and Neighborhood Feedback Summary‐updated June 2023

3  There is a need for affordable housing in Stockton, especially in North Stockton. Prioritize higher‐density multifamily housing that is affordable and near transit.  There are no benches at many bus stops.
 Support the placement of new housing in walkable area s near grocery stores. Help ensure single‐family homes are being purchased by individuals and families instead of organizations.  Are there plans to form a committee as part of the Neighborhood Action Plan effort?  Reach out to the community to ask them about their housing needs. Hold pop‐ups at an exis ting event or maybe at a park. Attend resource fairs. Use Stockonia.org to advertise events. Go to churches and have a booth (St.

George's is the main church). Utilize Council Members to spread the word.  Barriers to housing include community opposition and drug abuse. There is also not enough space to build housing.
 People can
not afford homes because they are getting priced out.
 There are vacant industrial buildings that are underutilized.  High development impact fees can be a barrier to housing development, one of our developers was charged a significant amount of school fees.
 Timing is important for
developers; they lose money each month their project is delayed. Treat developers as customers.
 Support adaptive reuse of buildings like the Anaheim Packing building.  There is a need for hotels, especially in downtown Stockton.  Hatch workshop could benefit from some type of support.  Build relationships with hotels and support the conve rsion of hotels to homes.
 Recommends the City create a homeownership training course that is available for the public. Do workshops in the encampments to boost the morale of the people living there.  Support mixed‐use housing development in these neighborhoods. There is a need  for housing with wrap‐around services, including a pharmacy, health services, and food. Also recommends live/work units.  There is land that is underutilized and could be used for housing, but the owners do not want to do anything with the land.
 Housing needs to be accessible for the elderly and people with disabilities.

 There are people that commute to Amazon but do not live in Stockton. Consider how we can provide housing and activities for young people to entice them to live in the City. Young people need a place to live with parking.

Provide nice walking trails or tracks wh
ere people can walk and play games.
 Some neighborhoods have a liquor store instead of a grocery store.  Encourage the San Joaquin Regional Transit District bus to run more often.  Infrastructure can be a barrier to housing development in all three neighborhoods, especiall y sewer and water upgrades. Funding for infrastructure upgrades can also be an issue. Some grants kick in prevailing wages which increases the cost to build new housing.
 Building affordable housing tends to pencil out more than market‐rate housing in Stockton because of the funding opportunities.
 Look into the GreenMeansGo program fr
om the Sacramento Area Council of Governments as a potential funding source.
 Environmental cleanup can also be a constraint.
 It could be costly to upgrade the telecom boxes, but this does not come up often when developing housing.  It would help if the owner could give the land to an a ffordable housing developer and/or not charge the holding cost.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Shape Stockton Housing and Neighborhood Feedback Summary‐updated June 2023

4  Enterprise is working on a displacement assessment for the City. Maybe some of the actions can tie into the action plans.
 There is a need for quality education, jobs, and housing in all study areas.  Safety and drug use is a concern.
 Hold a trai
ning session for the board members and youth before starting the project's engagement efforts.

Maybe hold a charette style workshop. Provide a one to two‐month notice before scheduling an outreach event or training.
 Look into the Reconnecting Communities Pilot program. The National Parks Service  has a History of Equal Rights grant opportunity.
 Consider the Hatch Workshop as a venue for outreach.
 The City does not have the funding needed for new affordable housing development. There is typically a need for local money to build affordable housing. Fee waivers or free land helps affordable housing  developers. Also, the monthly rates housing developers can charge in San Joaquin County is much lower compared to other Counties. There is a need for project‐based vouchers to get rental assistance for affordable projects.  The more concessions and incentives the City can provide for affordable housing projects the better. Parking can be an issue, requiring
less parking in areas that are near public transit.
 The City has opportunities to tap into State funds that could help pencil out affordable housing projects.

Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) grants are one example.  Lessening the permit review time can help since affo rdable housing developers cannot apply for grants until the entitlement process is finished. It can be burdensome for affordable housing development. Also, having one point of contact throughout the development review process is helpful instead of having multiple contacts.  Basic amenities nearby are needed for new affordable housing development, including scho ols, transit, and grocery stores. New affordable housing near high quality transit opens up additional funding sources from the State, such as the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities grant.  To qualify for a large family affordable housing project, a developer needs a minimum of 25 percent two‐ bedroom and 25 per
cent three‐bedroom units.
 For a senior or supportive housing project, a developer might need a one‐acre site. 2.5 to 3 acres could be needed for a family affordable housing project.
 Job training, workforce development and education would help the unhoused population. Encourage small business oppo
rtunities.
 The roads are unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists, people drive fast on the roads in these neighborhoods. Make sure the bikeways are connected.
 Reinvent South Stockton Coalition is working with the Community Foundation to create a Stockton housing innovation fund that would be Citywide. It would be a private housing trust fund.  Low‐income apartments ar
e needed in these neighborhoods. Visionary Homebuilders is a good partner, they build great properties. Maintenance of apartments is also important.  The three study areas were hard to reach and hard to count for the census. An aging group of seniors and youth may not have services or amenities in th
ese areas. Everyone is trying to figure out how to address issues in these neighborhoods.
 The lack of broadband and internet access is also an issue. There is no broadband in Little Manila/Gleason Park.

Communication is very important; look into how to incr ease access in these neighborhoods.  Transportation is an issue in these areas. The elderly need support to get to and from the doctor’s office.  Educational attainment is a concern in these neighborhoods.  Health disparities exist in these neighborhoods. A lot of people do not want to live on the freeway because of air pollution.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Shape Stockton Housing and Neighborhood Feedback Summary‐updated June 2023

5  The parks are not safe in these neighborhoods.
 There is a lot of veterans in these neighborhoods and registered sex offenders. There is a need for mental health services.
 To reach these communities, recommend sending out people that can be trust ed by each community group should knock on doors. The San Joaquin County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce had success during the Census gathering because of this effort. They also handed out information through paychecks. The utility bill is also a good place to insert information.
 We need homes with four to five bedrooms because m ultiple families could live in the same home.  Better wi‐fi is needed in new apartments. Work with the creator of Pac West to increase internet access in these neighborhoods.
 All three areas are uniquely different, but they have the same need for affordable and market‐rate housing  that can bring some new life to it. There is a need for missing middle housing.  If there are environmental issues at any site, reach out to the State to see what can be done in terms of funding to clean up the site.
 San Joaquin Partnership is working with the County Office of Educ ation, University of Pacific, Worknet and Delta
College on a program for the next generation of workers. Look at the Volt Institute in Modesto. Focus on text generation programs that include mechanics, artificial intelligence, and robotics.  Set up a working group or some type  of meeting with housing developers.  Support for infill development with wrap‐around services.  There is a need for housing for families, such as duplexes, triplexes, apartments with two or more bedrooms.  Cost of materials and labor is a barrier to housing development. The cost has gone down re cently, but it is still expensive.
 There are absentee owners that change the dynamic of the neighborhood.  Transportation can be an issue since some households in the area might only have one car per family.  Educate landowners and homeowners about accessory dwelling units and junior dwelling units.  Engage the landowners in the neig
hborhoods to ask them why they are not developing the sites.  Resident input is very important. Talk with Reinvent Stockton Coalition, Little Manila Rising, Seventh Day Adventist Church, San Joaquin Council of Governments, public health services. Attending the farmers market event STAND holds. STAND also has two trust builders that go door to door. Identify the communi ty member
that is willing to be a leader to spread the word. STAND also sends out an eblast we can include information on.

Work with the Housing Authority. Keep the messaging simple. Visuals work well. Talk with Saint Linus Church.

Loop in
the police department.
 The Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) applications can be challenging. They are on a point system, and you need to show where the amenities are in proximity to the proposed housing development.  Look for vacant land where no one is living.

Cabral/East Cabral Comments
 There has been at least one walking study completed from the Cabral station to the Amtrak station. The study found it was difficult to cross the streets in some areas and there are also handicap issues. There is also an issue with lighting during the wintertime since it gets dark earlier. Some of the lights under the freeway are broken.

The homeless might
be breaking the lights so people are not able to see where they are sleeping.  There are key neighborhood commercial nodes in the Cabral/East Cabral/East Cabral Station Area, including along Wilson Way, Weber, and California. Think about how the action plans will promote sustainable corridors.

This area needs more green space. Is the City working on a Downtown Station plan? Think about connectivity to
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Shape Stockton Housing and Neighborhood Feedback Summary‐updated June 2023

6 the Cabral Train Station. Maybe the City can provide pedestrian friendly wayfinding from the train station.

SJCOG is working with the rail commission to install bicycle parking at the rail station. There are not a lot of activities in downtown. Maybe live/work and mixed ‐use housing could work here. Look at circulation and mobility. How can we improve circulation in this neighborhood?  Nonresponsive owners in the Cabral/East Cabral Station Area are an issue. There is a need for services and amenities in this area. Be mindful of building housing next to freeways.  There is a need for
streetlights that work and improved sidewalks. The walk from Amtrak to the Cabral Train station does not feel safe.
 There must be a mix of market‐rate and affordable housing in the Cabral/East Cabral Station Area. Build housing that provides a certain percentage  of market‐rate and affordable units. Find ways to incentivize market‐rate housing. Maybe the City can waive certain fees. The City of Modesto has a forgiveness program the City can look into which waives certain planning and building fees for new development downtown.  There is a need for rental housing. However, in the Cabral/East Cabral Station Area, lower  the number of rental units so there are also homeownership opportunities for those living in this neighborhood.  Cabral/East Cabral Station Area has been a big interest for a mixed‐use development with complimentary amenities for some time.
 Make building multifamily, affordable housing near the trai n station easier. There are examples out there that
we can look at to see how can build market‐rate housing near rail. Make sure vacancy rates are low. Corridors need to be cleaned up. Larger sites are owned by a handful of entities, so getting them togeth er can be challenging.
 Pedestrian scale lighting standards should be added for safety as well as a wayfinding program.  For smaller lots, the City should explore infill allowances for zero and/or small setbacks.  The City should explore a transit‐oriented development overlay to encourage more development by allowing no height restrictions, greater densities, flex
ible parking standards, and prohibiting specific auto‐oriented uses (drive‐throughs, fueling stations, carwashes, storage, etc.).

Little Manila/Gleason Park Comments
 There is an opportunity for placemaking and orienting people to the history of the Little Manila/Gleason Park study area. Maybe some improvements can be made to signify that this area is a gateway into the City. Market this area as a place that is worthy of people visiting. Access to the train station is challenging. We need  a clear access point from the train station. Orient buildings and development towards the Mormon Slough. Maybe we can add a greenway along the Mormon Slough.
 During the walking tour of Little Manila/Gleason Park, the consultant team noticed: broken, uneven sidewalks; lack of trees and shade; no crosswalk on South San Joaquin Street and East Son ora Street; cars drive fast; and there are no trash bins. A schoolteacher cleans the street where she lives because there is daily trash in the street (a nearby restaurant that opens VERY early – the primary clientele is day laborers.)  Live/work units could work well in Little Manila/Gleason Park and in the Cabral/ East Cabral Station Area. Provide
a space where artists can work and live.
 Gleason Park is the last major development that has occurred in the Little Manila/Gleason Park neighborhood.  Ideas for reimagining Mormon slough include s bike lanes and a community garden.  There will be a new navigation center near Little Manila/Gleason Park that will provide case management.  There is a need for champions in Little Manila/Gleason Park that will encourage neighbors to maintain their properties.
 There are corner store markets in Little Manila/Gleason Park, but they do not offer healthy food options.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Shape Stockton Housing and Neighborhood Feedback Summary‐updated June 2023

7  The lot sizes in Little Manila/Gleason Park constrain housing development. Housing preservation could work in this area.  GRID has a single‐family retrofit program the project team could look into.  In the Little Manila/Gleason Park neighborhood, multiple families live in one home. There are also very few grocery stores in this neighborhood. Sev
eral agencies serve the unhoused community living in this neighborhood, people are fearful of the homeless. Talk to the police department.  Improvement ideas proposed for the Mormon Slough include a bike trail, community center or a place for the youth, park, walking trail, and affordable housing near the slough.  A potential new housing site in Little Manila/Gleason Park could in clude the parking lot on Sutter Street next to
the community garden. It is an underutilized parking lot. Can also consider the parking lot and house at 520 South Hunter Street. Little Manila Rising is planning to build housi ng on the top floors of their two buildings.
 Lack of curb cuts and inaccessible sidewalks is an issue in Little Manila/Gleason Park. The tree wells are also not large enough for tree planting. There are concerns about asthma in this neighborhood. Buildings in Little Manila migh
t not be up to code.
 Little Manila Rising may become a Community Development Corporation in a few years. How often does the Mormon Slough get water? Think about why the unhoused population congregates there. Maybe the City can build tiny homes. Bakersfield received an award for its plan on river access. Promote nontraditional  models of housing for the homeless.
 The Little Manila/Gleason Park area could be developed further. Mormon Slough should be a priority, addressing the challenges occurring here. To address the small lot size issues in this study area, talk to the property owners to get buy in to adjust the lot sizes. Give people options.
  Maybe live/work units could work near the Mormon slough.  The Central Valley is trying to target tech and 30 year old’s that are not ready to buy a home yet.  The San Joaquin Partnership have been receiving calls related to data centers.  The area needs ped
estrian‐scale lighting standards and increased coverage standards.  Traffic calming measures should be included (Bulb‐outs, safe pedestrian crossings, etc.).  For smaller lots, the City should explore infill allowances for zero and/or small setbacks.  Larger tree wells to accommodate trees provide benefits beyond ornamental/a esthetic function.

South AirPort Area Comments
 There are commercial needs along the South Airport Way corridor.  A lot of families in the South Airport Way neighborhood do not have transportation. Create a lively vibrant place where people can walk.
 Acknowledge the County fairgrounds When talking with people about the South Airport Way study area.  One of the strategies is a community land trust.
 The 8th Stree
t and South Airport Way project is a catalyst project for this neighborhood; moving this project along as much as possible is very important.
 In the South Airport Way study area, the City could help housing developers by showing the environmental issues in this area.
 Faith‐based housing development could also be inve
stigated.
 Consider extending the area boundary further south to examine how the industrial plays into the residential areas. There may be climate‐related funding opportunities in this area. South Airport Way also needs rapid bus transit.
 Access to fresh foods is a need for the Sout
h Airport Way neighborhood. There is also a need for thriving businesses, parks, outdoor open spaces, and grocery stores in this neighborhood. There is a safety concern in this area.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Shape Stockton Housing and Neighborhood Feedback Summary‐updated June 2023

8  Put beds or tiny homes on the old racetrack for the homeless.  Think about what can be developed in the South Airport Way study area. There is a need for commercials as there is a food desert. Need to have access to grocery stores and other amenities.  Reinvent Sout
h Stockton Coalition is looking at a low‐income homeowner rehab program that could be for Fairview Terrace or Citywide.
 There is a plan for bikeways along South Airport Way. There is an opportunity for transit‐oriented development near the bus transit stop. Provide transportation opportunities to the job cent er area to the south. There are
challenges for people to get to the job center after hours. Consider where there are opportunities to put housing and other amenities along the South Airport Way corridor.  South Airport Way is a very busy street. The streets are not con ducive or safe for walking. The levee could be a nice place where people can walk, but there are homeless people in this area and some people feel unsafe.

From Carpenter Street to Fair Street there are at least six schools. Promote safe routes to schools along this route. Build a walking path from the Sierra Vista affordable housing development to the Dorothy Jones
Community Center. Have a participatory list where people can rotate and walk kids to school.  Lots along South Airport Way might have environmental contamination issues which is a barrier to development since it is expensive to clea
n up the site. For example, the site located at the southeast corner of Ophir Street and 8th Street has environmental issues. The lot adjacent to Rancho San Miguel is also contaminated.  South Airport way needs more multifamily housing and commercial development to support housing.  South Airp
ort Way has the highest rates of asthma, lowest education rates. There is also a concern about crime and safety. Trees are needed in this neighborhood. South Airport way is a food desert. The corridor also needs more streetlights.
 The South Airport Area study area is pretty built in from a residential perspectiv e. Look down Mariposa Road.  Look at the internet cable and where the water connection is located. Cable was very expensive to bring out there.
 Expand the boundary to Charter Way and encourage a grocery store or shopping center. There are also other dilapidated areas in
the City to consider. The area around Ponce is worse than Sierra Vista.  The City should explore minimum heights and/or stories to require larger nonresidential uses along Airport.  Encourage the creation and use of more private and public owed spaces.  Increase the amount of street trees/landscaping along Airport and side streets.  Enhan
ced paving materials along Airport and side streets.
 Specific options for benches/trash receptacles/lighting/etc.  Pedestrian‐scale lighting standards.

SAFETY ELEMENT UDPATES

 Climate change is an issue and adaption, and resiliency must be addressed in City standards.  Service and evacuation routes should be updated to reflect environmental and climate change impacts.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
1 LEGAL ADVOCACY UNIT
1831 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4114
Tel: (916) 504-5810
Fax: (916) 504-5811
[email protected]
www.disabilityrightsca.org

August 18, 2023

Sent via e-mail

To: Stephanie Ocasio, Director of Community Development- [email protected]

Matt Diaz, Advanced Planning Manager- [email protected] Tristan Osborn, Senior Planner, Advanced Planning-
[email protected]

Placeworks- [email protected]

Mayor Kevin Lincoln- [email protected]
Vice Mayor Kimberly Warmsley- [email protected] Councilmember Michelle Padilla- [email protected] Councilmember Dan Wright- [email protected]
Councilmember Michael Blower- [email protected] Councilmember Susan Lenz- [email protected]
Councilmember Brando Villapudua- [email protected]

Cc: David Zisser, Assistant Deputy Director, HCD- [email protected] Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD-
[email protected]
Irvin Saldana, Housing Policy Specialist- [email protected]

RE: Follow Up Letter Regarding Stockton’s Revised Housing Element, June 2023 Public Draft

Dear Planning Department Staff, Consultants, Mayor Lincoln, and City Councilmembers:

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
2 DRC appreciates the City of Stockton’s incorporation of some of the comments DRC made regarding the City’s April 2023 Draft of its Housing Element – notably a commitment to update its reasonable accommodation ordinance and to coordinate with the regional transit authority to ensure accessible transit for people with disabilities. Please find DRC’s May 15, 2023 original comment letter here as Attachment A.

Notably, the City did not integrate important recommendations such as:

(1) a Program for Supportive Housing for People with Disabilities, (2) Meaningful Housing Programs for Unhoused Stocktonians, (3) Programs for the expansion of Tenant Rights; or,
(4) other recommendations for disabled Stocktonians.

While we thank the City’s Planning Department for the revisions it did adopt, we still urge the City to make changes to align with our recommendations in Attachment A, DRC’s May 15, 2023 Letter to the City with Comments on Stockton’s Public Draft Housing Element, April 2023.

The City Fails to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing in the Current Draft

A. The City of Stockton’s Revised Housing Element Contains Zero Plans for Permanent Housing for Stockton’s 5,000 and Counting Houseless Individuals.

The City’s needs assessment, assessment of governmental constraints, and programs regarding unhoused are inconsistent with state and federal law. The State has committed to Housing First principles, affirmatively furthering fair housing, and must abide by the federal Fair Housing Act, Constitution, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

First, the City needs to proactively commit to exploring its own data and analysis, as well as the analysis provided by trusted community partners like the Stockton Housing Justice Coalition, St. Mary’s Dining Hall, and DRC. The City should utilize the data and analysis it has, and use it to craft Programs which reflect the verifiable needs of the Stockton community for housing. These Programs must have well-articulated steps, timelines, and quantifiable objectives proportional to the needs for housing for the people of Stockton.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
3 In response to DRC’s initial comments that the City’s estimate of its unhoused population is low, the City states that it will continue to monitor counts of unhoused as they are updated by qualified providers. See City of Stockton, Revised Draft Housing Element, pg. 378/454, June 2023.

According to Community Based Organizations working with homeless in the many encampments in Stockton, the number is closer to 5,000 people who may need emergency shelter on any given night. These numbers are based on local projections provided by our regional partners. For example, DRC holds a free legal clinic at St. Mary’s Dining Hall, a community based organization which substantiates the 5,000 homeless it serves in Stockton; a qualified source. The majority of the people who visit the clinic do not have their SSI or General Relief; though they meet definitions for various disability listings per the federal Social Security Administration and/or are categorically eligible at 65 years of age or older. There is also an apparent dearth of shelters and services for LGBTQIA+ Homeless Youth and Adults, undocumented people, undocumented farmworkers, DV Survivors, undocumented DV survivors, and/or undocumented DV survivors with children, or people with disabilities with children. So, we urge the City to commit to evaluating its data regarding the unhoused population, as well as their intersectional needs.

Further, the needs assessment should address the intersection of disability, homelessness, and criminal legal system involvement: (1) the City should recognize that people who are chronically homeless are by definition people with disabilities for their analysis of special populations, (2) unhoused Stocktonians who are formerly incarcerated face incredible barriers to housing in Stockton as they face criminal background checks to obtain it, and (3) people who are formerly incarcerated are mostly people of color and people with disabilities. When we add the intersection of homelessness to a person who is formerly incarcerated and disabled, the actual housing choice this person has in Stockton amounts to essentially none.

Second, as discussed in DRC’s First Letter- Attachment A, Stockton Municipal Code, Title 8, Chapter 8.100 “Protection of Critical Infrastructure” must be addressed as a barrier to housing for people who are unhoused and disabled.

This Ordinance is among the most punitive and restrictive in the State. It broadly defines “critical infrastructure” to include locations ranging from hospitals to parks and then bans “camping” near those areas at the risk of misdemeanor charges and up to $25,000 in daily fines. Criminalization, hefty fines, and loss of resources resulting from sweeps authorized by this Ordinance will inevitably lead to a cycle of homelessness that is impossible for a person, especially a Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
4 person with disabilities, to escape. It is widely known that houselessness has a significant disparate impact based on race1 and disability.

The City states, regarding this Ordinance, that: “Staff believes this does not create a barrier to establishing or being housed in a new shelter as defined by state law.” See City of Stockton, Revised Draft Housing Element, pg. 369/454, June 2023. The City does not analyze whether the Ordinance is a barrier or not, it misconstrues shelter as housing, and does not address what the cycle of displacing people without providing services does to contribute to worsened housing stability. The City must address the impact of such an Ordinance both as a governmental constraint as well as an impediment to AFFH.

Even if the City’s camping ban were not so punitive, the City has not identified appropriate services and housing for its unhoused community and has no program to address that issue. Community groups in the City of Stockton such as the Stockton Echo Chamber, Faith in the Valley, and the Stockton Housing Justice Coalition, have told the City: “No Displacement Without Navigation.” However, through DRC’s community work, it knows there are not adequate public benefit services, shelter services, housing, food, transportation, housing or housing-related services to navigate people to.

To address this in a meaningful way, the City cannot undercount those who need to be housed. Under Program 23, the City states it aims to assist up to 2,000 unduplicated homeless persons; and 1,000 households at-risk of homelessness, with limited-term rental assistance or utility payments. As part of this, the City states it will increase the number of board and care or other types of residential or transitional care facilities for vulnerable populations by 300-500 beds. The ADA’s integration mandate and Olmstead v. L.C. et al, 527 US 581 (1999), the landmark Supreme Court case finding that the Americans with Disabilities Act ensures the right of people with disabilities to live and receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate, including to live in their homes and communities instead of in institutions, and to have greater independence, autonomy, and opportunities to participate fully in civic life:
demands more of the City. Through our role as the state’s Protection and Advocacy agency, we know that board and cares and other residential facilities are institutional settings and not the “most integrated” setting appropriate for the vast majority of unhoused individuals. See Olmstead v. L.C. et al, 527 US at 591-92, 596.

1 See University of California San Francisco, Toward a New Understanding: The California Statewide Study of People Experiencing Homelessness, June 2023.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
5 Indeed, a federal Department of Justice investigation into Alameda County noted that county’s lack of permanent supported housing and stated that:
“Unable to access this evidence-based service, many individuals go to board and care homes instead. Board and care homes provide some minimal care and supervision, but residents frequently lack access to needed services and meaningful community life; further, these facilities tend to be overcrowded and highly variable in quality.”2 Instead, as articulated by Welfare and Institutions Code § 8255 et seq: permanent, evidence-based, housing solutions are necessary. But the Housing Element only indicates that there are 34 permanent supportive housing units for foster youth and 40 for people who are chronically homeless. See City of Stockton, Revised Public Draft, pg. 76/454, June 2023.

Yet, Program 23 makes no mention of assisting unhoused individuals through permanent housing. Housing options should be community-based, allow for freedom to come and go, and not have onerous rules. The current Revised Element’s focus on the creation of shelter beds or board and cares does not satisfy the City’s duty to AFFH: a bed is not a home. We urge the City to refer to Attachment A, and meaningfully explain what programs will be put in place to address the housing needs of the 5,000 and counting unhoused people living in Stockton.

B. The City’s Revised Housing Element has Zero Programs to Prevent Displacement of Stockton’s Tenants Who Comprise Half of All Households in Stockton—Approximately 150,000 Households.3

As discussed in DRC’s previous letter (Attachment A), displacement can create unique harms to people with disabilities, who may have developed formal and informal systems of care, developed accessible transportation routes, and/or modified their homes to accommodate their needs. Displacement can disrupt these systems in a way that is devastating to a person’s health.

1.Tenant Protection Policies

2 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Letter to Alameda County Board of Supervisors, County Sheriff/Coroner, and Alameda Health System: Notice Regarding Investigation of Alameda County, John George Psychiatric Hospital, and Santa Rita Jail, April 22, 2021.

3 U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts , Stockton [C]ity, California: Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2017- 2021: 51.2%, accessed August 17, 2023.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
6 We advocated for neighborhood stabilization and tenant protection policies which have the most direct and immediate effect on mitigating displacement– this includes a strong local Rent Stabilization Program, including for mobile home parks. The City replied that interviews with the development community have indicated that the housing market (rental/sales) in Stockton do not have the capacity to absorb significant fee increases or significant losses in revenue that would impact net operating income. However, this does not absolve the City of responsibility to create meaningful programs to AFFH under AB 686.

While we are heartened to see that the draft Housing Element now includes a specific action under Program 28 (Practices to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing) to “explore best practices for Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Evictions,” and references the 2019 Tenant Protection Act (Civ. Code § 1946.2), the City must commit to doing more than merely “explore best practices” given the urgent needs of City residents.

We urge the City to implement tenant protections which include a Right to Counsel Program, a Tenant Bill of Rights, a Housing Trust Fund, Land banking, and Rent Stabilization, as discussed in more detail in Attachment A. Notably, half of all households in the City of Stockton are renters. This is for a City of approximately 300,000 households, meaning over 150,000 households rent in the City. A significant number of these 150,000 households are on the brink of homelessness for reasons discussed in Attachment A. Stronger tenant protections are needed to meaningfully AFFH for over half of Stockton’s population under AB 686.

Regarding code enforcement, we recommended that the program include tenant protections to prevent displacement (see displacement discussion above). This could include creating a Rent Escrow Account Program as well as engaging in proactive inspection. DRC can provide sample programs if needed.

As part of this program, the City should include enforcement of existing accessibility standards. Local governments can affirmatively further fair housing by ensuring that Code Enforcement staff understand accessibility standards and are enforcing those laws.

In addition, concerningly, Policy 4.4, which cross-references Program 21, states that the City will continue to implement a Crime Free Multi-Family Housing Program. However, the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s AB 686 Guidance explicitly recognizes such programs as barriers to AFFH. The City replied, the City will coordinate with the state to Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
7 assess if the program is a barrier under current housing law. However, this is not a meaningful response to DRC’s comment. See Attachment A. Moreover, the state Attorney General has released guidance to all cities and counties, including Stockton, stating that such policies are discriminatory.4 Nonetheless, enforcement of Stockton’s ordinance remains in the Housing Element, violating the duty to AFFH.5 Not only should the City remove this from the Housing Element, but instead it should commit to removing the Ordinance in order to comply with fair housing law.

2. Housing Preservation and Affordable Housing Development Program

Preventing displacement includes preserving existing affordable housing.

Program 19 (Preserve At-Risk Units) does not outline specific actions that would, in fact, preserve at-risk affordable units from conversion to market-rate.

The City only commits to monitor the status of at-risk units and “Should the property owner(s) indicate a desire to convert properties, consider providing technical and financial assistance, when possible, to incentivize long-term affordability.” See City of Stockton, Revised Draft Housing Element, pg. 429/454, June 2023. This puts the onus on the property owner to contact the City, and even then, the City only commits to considering to help, and states it will work to help residents get Housing Choice Vouchers instead. While the Revised Draft Housing Element now states that the City will “provide information on at-risk housing as well as other housing options and programs for residents and housing advocates on the City’s website,” this does not preserve at-risk units. The City must do better. At minimum, it should proactively facilitate preservation purchases by local nonprofit developers, community land trusts, and/or tenant organizations.

3. The City’s Value Capture Programs are Inadequate or Unlawful

Further, the City’s Program 7 suggests that it will develop a density bonus for 100% market rate units: “Density increases allowances for infill projects to

4 State of California Office of the Attorney General, Rob Bonta, E-mail to All Cities and Counties in California regarding “Crime-Free Housing Policies,” April 21, 2023.

5 See also 2 CCR § 12162: (a) Practices requiring persons to take actions against individuals based up on broad definitions of nuisance activities (such as considering a phone call to, or receipt of a visit or service by, law enforcement or emergency servic es as a nuisance), or based upon broad definitions of unlawful conduct or criminal activity. For purposes of this section, practices requiring persons to take actions against individuals include mandating initiation of eviction procedures against tenants o r occupants, prohibiting renewal of an existing tenancy, or requiring the initiation of adverse action s against one or more tenants, occupants or guests.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
8 exceed the maximum density requirement through an existing 100-percent Density Bonus or through a new process for market rate housing.” While we support local density bonus ordinances that provide for greater affordability, ordinances that do not require such affordability are impermissible under Government Code § 65917, which states:

In enacting this chapter it is the intent of the Legislature that the density bonus or other incentives offered by the city, county, or city and county pursuant to this chapter shall contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of lower income housing in proposed housing developments.

In the absence of an agreement by a developer in accordance with Section 65915, a locality shall not offer a density bonus or any other incentive that would undermine the intent of this chapter.

As explained by a court determining that a city that did grant such a density bonus violated that law, a “City’s approval of a density bonus for a residential project that would not qualify for a bonus under the [Density Bonus Law], and is not ‘proportionately lower’ than what is required by the DBL, conflicts with the language and intent of the statute.” See Attachment B, Page 11 (the court’s tentative ruling, which was adopted by the court in Kennedy Commission et al. v. Costa Mesa et al. Case No. 30-2016-00832585, Los Angeles Superior Court (2016)). This means that if a local density bonus ordinance requires less affordability than the DBL, then it can only allow increased density that is lower than what is provided for in the state law – the DBL sets the floor of affordability.

So, the City should clarify that any updated local Density Bonus Ordinance will increase affordability.

The City Notes in Policy HE-1.11 Transit Oriented Development that it “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).” Nothing in the implementing programs suggests that such overlays will include any affordability requirements. Given that the City is creating Neighborhood Action Plans for neighborhoods at high risk of gentrification and displacement (e.g. Little Manila and Cabral Station), it is critical to include some level of affordability (e.g. 15%) in new transit oriented construction.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
9 C. The City’s Current Housing Element Does not Plan for Supportive, Accessible, Safe, Non-segregated Housing for Stocktonians with Disabilities.

Government Code Section 65583(a)(4) requires: “an analysis of potential and actual government constraints upon the maintenance, improvement or development of housing… for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting … the need for housing for persons with disabilities (see Screen 7).”

Further, Government Code Section 65583(c)(3) requires the housing element provide a program to “address and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.”

In addition to the Housing Element Law, the City must abide by its obligations under federal and state fair housing laws as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For example, Olmstead v. L.C. et al, 527 US 581 (1999) is the landmark Supreme Court case which establishes an Integration Mandate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) finding that the ADA ensures the right of people with disabilities to live and receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate, including to live in their homes and communities instead of in institutions, and to have greater independence, autonomy, and opportunities to participate fully in civic life.

However, the City’s needs analysis is incomplete – it only includes some disabilities. The requirement to analyze the needs of people with disabilities includes all disabilities, not just certain subsets. And, here, the programs and quantified objectives articulated for each program do not match the actual needs according to the City’s own analysis and data. The City does not provide or identify the current total, or a goal regarding the potential number of supportive, accessible, safe, inclusive homes to be built for people with disabilities. The City thus fails to adequately quantify and analyze the housing needs of people with disabilities as required under Gov. Code § 65583(a)(7).

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
10 We urge the City to implement these objectives in its Housing Element Programs for people with disabilities.

1. Blind/Low-Vision and Deaf/Hard of Hearing Stocktonians

First, there is no discussion of the unique needs of Blind residents, nor those of Deaf residents. The City says it welcomes the chance to speak with DRC about how it can provide more services to different population groups. DRC is happy to collaborate, but the City must do more under the Housing Element Law. A common issue for people with sensory disabilities is the lack of accessible housing. In January 2012, DRC represented three nonprofit disability and fair housing advocacy groups, filing a lawsuit in federal court against the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Redevelopment agency, alleging that the City’s housing programs were inaccessible to people with mobility and sensory (vision and hearing) disabilities. See Independent Living Center of Southern California et al. v. the City of Los Angeles, et al., Central District of California, Case No. 2:12-cv-000551-FMO-PJW (“ILCSC”).6 In 2016, the case settled against the City, with a separate settlement against the Redevelopment Agency. It is one of the largest affordable housing accessibility victories, if not the largest, in the country. The agreement, among other things, requires the City to ensure that at least 4,000 of its affordable housing units meet the highly accessible standards required by federal law and to enforce policies that those units are rented to people who need those specific accessibility features. In August 2019, HUD entered into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement with Los Angeles based on similar allegations, with additional obligations, resulting in additional accessible units and policies.

From that evidence and data, as well as our statewide advocacy, we know the following are widespread barriers to access to housing for people with sensory disabilities:
• A large need for affordable, accessible housing;
• Lack of affordable accessible units and units with accessible features;
• Lack of funding for accessibility features and accommodations/ modifications;
• Little to no oversight, reporting, and enforcement regarding accessibility and fair housing compliance;

6 Disability Rights California, Independent Living Center of Southe rn California et al. v. the City of Los Angeles, et al., (August 2016).

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
11 • A lack of familiarity with legal obligations, resulting in widespread noncompliance;
• Failure to rent the few accessible units that do exist to people with disabilities who need the features; and,
• The Coordinated Entry System’s failure to address physical accessibility.

Extensive research explains the need for increased accessibility. California’s Final 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice lists lack of accessible housing stock as the tenth major impediment to fair housing in the state.7 It explained, for example, that 62% of respondents could not find accessible units with accessibility features regardless of price.8 We also know that most subsidized housing built prior to the last few years does not include the required accessible units. Key takeaways in the Analysis of Impediments included:

“California has over 4 million Californians with disabilities, many of whom face extreme challenges finding housing that is affordable, accessible, and located near transit and supportive services.

Nearly 75 percent of the state’s housing stock was built prior to 1990 and the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the earliest federal mandate on accessible development. This means that the majority of California’s housing stock is inaccessible for people with disabilities.

Lower-income households are more likely to include members with disabilities than higher-income households. Extremely low-income households are more than twice as likely to include an individual with a disability than households earning above moderate-income.”9 [emphasis added].

The City should assess its own needs for housing accessible to people with sensory disabilities, create a program for the same, and ensure that it includes

7 See California Department of Housing and Community Development, Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice at pg. 433: Impediment #10 Insufficient Accessible Housing Stock, 2020.

8 Id. at 40 ( 62% of respondents could not find an accessible units with accessibility/handicapped features regardless of price). Id. at 54 (23% of persons 65 and older have an ambulatory disability). Id. at 57 (12.8 percent of income eligible households include someone with a hearing or visual disability, 17.9 percent of income eligible households includes someone with an ambulatory disability). Id. at 381 (noncompliance with FEHO physical accessibility requirements frequently found in FEHO reviews of 19 California jurisdictions). 9 Id. at 18.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
12 quantifiable objectives for Stocktonians with vision and hearing disabilities. We also again urge the City to make the funding discussed in Program 24 available to multifamily buildings of more than 4 units.

2. Stocktonians with Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities (I/DD)

In California, less than 16% of adults with developmental disabilities own or rent their own homes; the overwhelming majority live with an aging caregiver – usually a parent or guardian.10 Few have options or plans in place for when those parents or guardians die. In regard to DRC’s previous comment, the City wrote, “this information has been used to update the section on those with Developmental Disabilities in the Existing Needs Assessment Section.” See City of Stockton, Revised Draft Housing Element, pg. 382/454, June 2023. However, the City should more clearly articulate a program to address those needs.

Regarding housing for people with I/DD, programs and quantifiable objectives were not added per DRC’s recommendations in its first letter. (See Attachment A). The only plans for people with I/DD appear to be institutions: “…These residential homes are for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities who also have medical, behavioral, or age related support needs…” The City says is will 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. However, what those are is left unknown.

The lack of affordable, accessible, inclusive housing results in prolonged institutional stays and escalated crises and traumas. And because California serves people with I/DD regionally, individuals might not be referred to units outside that region, raising fair housing concerns. Additionally, many individuals with I/DD highly value routine and familiarity. These values mean that remaining in one's own home is preferable for some than to moving into new, project- based units. While usually cost-effective, few opportunities to support someone through rental assistance exist; and, this can cause turmoil when an aging caregiver dies. We had one situation where a sibling-caregiver passed away, leaving two siblings, both with disabilities, but only one eligible for I/DD services, in the unit. Finding a way for both to remain housed required enormous advocacy and creativity that most people do not have access to.

DRC recommends the City work with Valley Mountain Regional Center and other organizations to assess the number of unhoused Stocktonians with I/DD.

10 The Kelsey, Cal. State Council on Dev’al. Disabilities, and the Lanterman Housing Alliance, A Crisis within a Crisis: Housing for Californians with Developmental Disabilities, Fact Sheet, (Nov. 2019).

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
13 We also urge the City to explicitly identify some of the following issues in the Housing Element for the topics below, and collaborate with the regional center on:

• (1) committing to obtaining resources for rent-subsidized affordable housing (with services if necessary) for people with I/DD, • (2) creating and preserving accessible housing; and,
• (3) ensuring rental-based tenant assistance meets the unique needs of people with I/DD and includes housing navigation supports for this subpopulation of people with disabilities.

Few regional centers contract with housing navigators – but people with specialized training to help place individuals in housing can be critical. Also, only relying on institutions is a potential violation of the ADA and Olmstead, as people with disabilities have the right to live independently in their communities.

Additionally, the City should work with the County to assess whether the Public Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin is complying with the obligation to exclude In-home Supportive Services I ncome of family members serving as caregivers when it calculates household income. See Reilly v. Marin Hous ing Authority,10 Cal. 5th 583 (2020). In addition, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has updated its regulations to reflect the holding from Reilly, such that, effective January 1, 20 24, IHSS income will be specifically excluded by regulation. See 24 CFR 5.609 (b)(19).

If the housing authority is not complying, that should be identified as a governmental constraint on the maintenance of housing for people with disabilities. Overall, individuals with I/DD should have the choice to live in the most integrated, non-segregated settings possible.

3. Stocktonians with Mental Health Disabilities

As recommended in our first letter, the City should separately analyze the housing needs of people with mental health disabilities and create programs to specifically address those needs. Though the City is open to exploring various types of subgroups beyond what is required by state law and the census, it has not done so in this Housing Element. See City of Stockton, Revised Draft Housing Element, pg. 376/454, June 2023. By not assessing the needs of people with mental health disabilities, the City has failed to adequately assess the needs of people with disabilities.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
14 Individuals with mental health or substance use disabilities experience numerous challenges in securing affordable housing. These include denials of reasonable accommodations, crime-free policies (such as Stockton’s), criminal records screening policies, credit screening policies, problems with CES programs, and requiring treatment for substance use disorder before entering housing.

As noted above, crime-free ordinances are discriminatory. But they have a uniquely negative impact on people with mental health disabilities. Individuals with disabilities, including mental health and substance use disabilities, often require emergency services to get assistance with medical issues that result from their disability.11 And such policies disproportionately impact Black and Latinx renters12 and people with disabilities, including mental health disabilities.13 “[Chronic nuisance ordinances] thus force people with physical or mental disabilities to make an impossible choice between calling 911 and risking eviction or foregoing medical assistance in a crisis.” So, again, the City should commit to removing its crime-free multihousing program.

DRC investigations have found that people with mental health disabilities, particularly those with serious mental illness and/or co-occurring Substance Use Disorder, are at serious risk of institutionalization and/or being unable to transition out of institutions due to the lack of affordable, accessible housing with appropriate voluntary supports. Instead of providing such housing, local authorities rely on involuntary commitment and misdemeanor criminal laws to move individuals off the street and into psychiatric institutions, emergency departments, or jails and juvenile detention facilities.14 This often leaves people with mental health disabilities and/or SUD either institutionalized and/or houseless.

11 Alisha Jarwala et al., When Disability Is a “Nuisance”: How Chronic Nuisance Ordinances Push Residents with Disabilities Out of Their Homes, 54 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 875 (2019).

12 Liam Dillon, Ben Poston & Julia Barajas, Black and Latino renters face eviction, exclusion amid police crackdowns in California, Los Angeles Times (Nov. 19, 2020); Deborah N. Archer, Racial Exclusion Through Crime-Free Housing Ordinances, Am. Const. Soc’y (Nov. 2019); State of California Department of Justice, California Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans, (June 2023).

13 Alisha Jarwala et al., When Disability Is a “Nuisance,” 54 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 875 (2019).

14 Disability Rights California Lawsuit against Alameda County, Disability Rights California (Sep. 9, 2021).

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
15 This cycling of individuals between houselessness and institutionalization also has a disparate impact based on race. In Disability Rights California v. County of Alameda, DRC challenged the unnecessary segregation of people with mental health disabilities in psychiatric institutions and the failure to ensure people with disabilities are provided the housing and services they need. DRC found that the County institutionalized people at a rate more than three-and-a- half times California’s statewide average. DRC also found significant racial disparities in the behavioral health and housing systems. For example, even though Black residents make up 11% of Alameda County’s population, DRC found that half of the homeless and jail populations are Black, and more than half of the people psychiatrically institutionalized ten or more times over a two-year period were Black. Thus, unnecessary institutionalization resulted in greater segregation of Black disabled individuals. As discussed above with regard to houselessness, this means that the City must identify its own ordinances that contribute to this cycle of criminalization and identify programs to increase the production of permanent supported housing – not the institutional, segregating settings currently described in the Housing Element.

4. Stocktonians with Environmental Sensitivity Disabilities

Disability Rights California participated in a site tour of roughly 25 sites in South Stockton on April 12, 2023. Consistent across all 25 sites were the proximity to industrial businesses, lack of transportation, lack of grocery stores, closeness to the I5, 99, and 4 freeways i.e. concerns for pollution, and in some areas, lack of sidewalks and proper lighting. Disability Rights California has talked to community members with disabilities and learned how the lack of sidewalks and proper lighting can prevent neighborhood access and access to opportunity, especially when an extremely limited access to food, goods, and services in the area already exists. This is particularly true for people with environmental sensitivity disabilities, which limit a person's ability to enter environments where there are certain factors including scents, pollutants, or chemicals, which make a person unable to control their allergic reactions. The scope can be mild to severe – from skin allergies to anaphylactic shock. The City must plan for housing for Stocktonians with environmental sensitivity disabilities.

5. Stocktonians with Physical Disabilities

As discussed above, with regard to people with vision and/or hearing disabilities, lack of affordable, accessible housing for people with physical disabilities is a massive problem, and identified by California as a major impediment to fair housing. DRC supports the City’s Program 25, but notes that Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
16 while universal housing design is important, the Housing Element should be clear that universal design is not synonymous with full accessibility: the needs, goals, and programs should clarify that the City will encourage both. We again urge the City to inventory the amount of its housing stock that is accessible and affordable to people with vision and/or mobility impairments. If the City cannot track these, it should include a program to monitor and track such units, make such information available to the public, and enforce existing accessibility requirements. The City should also make its list of accessible, affordable units available to the public in a variety of formats.

The City states City staff are working on conducting a housing condition survey and monitoring housing capacity sites, but is not sure how a list like this would be implemented as there are a variety of factors that go into a residential unit being deemed ADA accessible in general, and that feedback from groups like DRC is needed for future discussion. See City of Stockton, Revised Draft Housing Element, pg. 381/454, June 2023. DRC is happy to connect on those issues, and urges the City to explicitly include the monitoring, tracking, and enforcement of ADA accessibility into its Housing Element.

We also reiterate our comment that Program 24 should be available for multifamily housing of more than 4 units. This would be an invaluable resource for disabled Stocktonians. The City should also commit to work with the regional Continuum of Care to ensure that the Coordinated Entry System 1) identifies accessibility needs of individuals in their system; 2) identifies accessible units in housing; 3) pays attention to the needs for accessibility when implementing their acuity index (assessment of needs) system; and, 4) matches un-housed people who need accessible features with units with such features.

D. Transportation for people with Disabilities is an AFFH issue

We appreciate the City has committed in Program 29 to working with its regional transit authority to address the multifaceted transit needs of people with disabilities. That said, many people with mobility disabilities have a difficult time accessing public transit, and paratransit is scarce and unreliable. These individuals often rely on adaptive vehicles.

We appreciate that the City has amended the Housing Element on page BR- 195 to say that "Despite parking reductions on many projects, parking spaces for those with disabilities continue to be provided. No projects have requested to waive inclusion of parking spaces for those with disabilities." We recommend that the sentence after that be amended to state: "The City will continue to Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
17 explore best practices for parking standards and provide additional incentives to reduce costs and align standards with current housing market demands, including the needs and demands of residents with disabilities."

As explained previously, we further recommend that the City amend Program 27, Addressing the Needs of Those with Disabilities, to ensure that disabled parking spots are available even where parking minimums have been waived entirely. Accessible, available, and affordable travel options make it possible for diverse groups of people to stay active and engaged in their communities, and this is not achieved by the draft Housing Element. We also note that as the state phases out new gas vehicles in coming years, accessible electric vehicle (EV) charging stations/parking spaces should be required. Without accessible transportation, people with disabilities are left isolated and segregated.

E. The City’s Current Draft Sites Inventory Will Not Satisfy HCD Requirements for AFFH Because Plans for Low Income Housing and Extremely Low Income Housing Only in South Stockton, Not Only Fails to Address the History of Racial Segregation in Stockton, it also Fails to Meet Requirements for the Environmental Element.

As discussed in DRC’s first letter, the City has not shown Low Income and Extremely Low Income housing are planned anywhere in North or Central Stockton where there is less pollution. While the City certainly needs affordable housing in South Stockton, it must also identify sites in communities with lower pollution burden and greater access to resources and open space. The City’s reply that, “[t]he Housing Elements Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) housing capacity sites include approved housing projects in North Stockton that account for over ten thousand units,” does not address DRC’s concern articulated in our first comment letter regarding the majority of low income and extremely low income sites being implemented in South Stockton where there is pollution actually known to cause greater instances of disability, as is reflected in Stockton’s census data. See Attachment A. Indeed, the City notes that it has zero currently entitled lower income units, as opposed to 11,620 above- moderate sites. The City must identify affordable RHNA sites in the high opportunity areas of Stockton.

The City’s current Housing Element violates California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act Regulations in this regard. According to specific practices related to land use, it is illegal discrimination to make housing opportunities unavailable where others are able to access those same housing opportunities, due to a protected class, of which there are: race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
18 identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, genetic information, national origin, source of income, veteran or military status, or ancestry. See Cal. Gov't Code § 12955(l); CA Code of Regs. tit. 2, § 12162; Admin. Code tit. 2, § 12162, 2 CA ADC § 12162. Law; Cal. Gov't Code § 65000.

Discrimination under this subdivision specifically includes, at 2 CCR § 12161(b)(10), a policy or practice that “[r]esults in the location of toxic, polluting, and/or hazardous land uses in a manner that denies, restricts, conditions, adversely impacts, or renders infeasible the enjoyment of residence, land ownership, tenancy, or any other land use benefit related to residential use, or in connection with housing opportunities or existing or proposed dwellings.”

Lastly, in regards to intersecting environmental and housing elements, the City mentions but does not include the 2008 Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Stockon, the CA Office of the Attorney General, and The Sierra Club.

A copy of this document is included as Attachment C. DRC recommends it accompany all future versions of the Housing Element; and, that the City put it back on its Government website.

F. Conclusion

Please reach out to DRC at (619)814-8501 or e-mail to
[email protected] if we can be of any assistance as the Planning Department and HCD consider these recommendations and comments. DRC is happy to continue to meet with the Planning Department and other departments of the City of Stockton to assist the City in creating its Sixth Cycle Housing Element.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

LEGAL ADVOCACY UNIT
1831 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4114
Tel: (916) 504-5810
Fax: (916) 504-5811
[email protected]
www.disabilityrightsca.org

May 15, 2023

Sent via e-mail

To: Stephanie Ocasio, Director of Community Development- [email protected]

Matt Diaz, Advanced Planning Manager- [email protected] Tristan Osborn, Senior Planner, Advanced Planning-
[email protected]

Placeworks- [email protected]

Mayor Kevin Lincoln- [email protected]
Vice Mayor Kimberly Warmsley- [email protected] Councilmember Michelle Padilla- [email protected] Councilmember Dan Wright- [email protected]
Councilmember Michael Blower- [email protected] Councilmember Susan Lenz- [email protected]
Councilmember Brando Villapudua- [email protected]

Cc: David Zisser, Assistant Deputy Director, HCD- [email protected] Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD-
[email protected]
Jose Ayala, Housing Policy Specialist- [email protected]

RE: Disability Rights California’s Comments on the City of Stockton’s April 2023 Housing Element Public Draft

Dear Planning Department Staff, Consultants, Mayor Lincoln, and City Councilmembers:

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Disability Rights California submits these initial comments on the 2023- 2031 City of Stockton Housing Element April 2023 Public Review Draft (“Draft”).

Disability Rights California is a private, non- profit disability rights organization federally mandated to advance and protect the human and legal rights of Californians with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 15001, et. seq., 42 U.S.C.§ 10801, et seq., 29 U.S.C. § 794(e), 29 U.S.C. § 3011, 29 U.S.C. § 3012; see also Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 4900 -49005. DRC’s comments on t he Draft pertain to people with disabilities in the City of Stockton.

We ap
preciate the effort that went into this first draft and support many of the Draft programs. However, we believe the Draft needs further development to address housing needs and barriers for people with disabilities in the City. We provide the following comments and proposed changes to assist the City with creating a more inclusive Housing Element:

I. To Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, the City must outreach to all segments of the community, ensure housing opportunity throughout the community, set AFFH priorities, and set appropriate metrics and milestones.

Assembly Bill 686 (2018) defines Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing as, “tak
ing 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.” Gov. Code § 8899.50, subd. (a)(1). Stockton must administer its programs in a way that affirmatively furthers fair housing for members of a protected class and take no action inconsistent with that obligation. Gov. Code, § 8899.50(b)(12) ; Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 3608(e)(5 ). These requirements exist to combat discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation, and foster inclusive communities.

Whil
e the federal duty to AFFH has existed for over 50 years, AB 686 creates new requirements for housing elements for: (1) Outreach, (2) Assessment of Fair Housing, (3) Site Inventory, (4) Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors, and (5) Goals and Action. The California Department of Housing and Community Development’s publication: Implementing AB686: Duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Guidance for Housing Elements states that common mistakes and pitfalls include:

• A high-quality Assessment of Fair Housing, but status-quo actions/programs;
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
• A local jurisdiction refers to a county-level Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing previously completed;
• Does not include regional comparison in analyses;
• Only analyzes patterns of low-income sites, not all sites; • Does not ask the public to provide input on AFFH;
• Doesn’t prioritize 4-5 contributing factors & connect to programs; • High resource areas can’t rely on ADUs alone; and,
• No data dumping! Tell the story.

The City’s Draft contains some of these common mistakes. We offer the following comments to help avoid some of these pitfalls.

1. Outreach

The City must reach all economic segments of the population; describe meaningful, frequent, and ongoing community participation, consultation, and coordination that is integrated with the broader stakeholder outreach and community participation process for the overall housing element. 1 Gov. Code, §
8899.50 subd. (a)(2) further requires a summary of fair housing outreach and capacity, and the City must “receive public input and local knowledge on the Assessment of Fair Housing.”

The Planning Department hosted several meetings , but did not reach renters and people at risk for or who are unhoused. The City primarily communicated with the public by online notices on its web site; however, most working people in the City do not visit the City’s website. The Draft also does not incorporate local knowledge other than input from service providers.

While we appreciate the outreach to organizations serving low-income and other special needs populations, including our own, representatives who serve members of the community are not the same as community members themselves. Noticing property owners but not those who rent and those who are unhoused ignores extensive economic segments of the community . Moreover, there are no examples of the City reaching out to the S panish-speaking community in a way that is meaningful . Additionally, people with disabilities and older adults are often unable to participate in community meetings due to communication barriers, segregation, and lack of transportation access. Thus, 1 The CA Dept. of Housing and Community Development,
Implementing AB686: Duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Guidance for Housing Elements, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_webinar_slides.pdf Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
they are often not considered in the planning processes that directly and disproportionately impact them, and are undercounted in data collection. Hearing directly from people with disabilities is critical to figuring out what housing issues they face and what types of housing works for them. Having a robust community outreach and engagement plan that ensures access to meetings and planning processes will allow program participants to gather invaluable data and information from people with disabilities and bridge the equity gap.

To better incorporate the views of all Stocktonians , t he City should implement a Housing Element education campaign to educate young people, those from different language communities, and those awaiting appointments at the County’s Health and Human Services Agency (333 E. Washington St.) , among others. The City should reach out to the community via local radio stations in both English and Spanish. There is no other way to reach the vast working poor, disabled, renting, and homeless popu lations of Stockton. The people of Stockton deserve to have their voice heard in the Housing Element process.

Under AB686, it is mandated.

2. Assessment of Fair Housing

Among the Assessment of Fair Housing’s Requirements, we primarily address disparities in access to opportunity, displacement risk, ongoing segregation, and sites selection in this comment letter.

The City of Stockton has a population of 322,120.
2 People of color make up
78 percent of the population where Latinx people account for more than 40 percent of that total. Id. Stockton is the native land of the Yatchicumne, a group of Northern Valley Yokuts people.3

A. Disparities in Access to Opportunity

a. Environmental Justice

A major fair housing concern in Stockton is environmental injustice.

Importantly, “[p]eople with disabilities are specifically exposed to and vulnerable to environmental injustice” as a result of decades of ableist and racially exclusionary policies and land use decisions. And, some are also more vulnerable 2 Rich Ibarra, Stockton Named the Most Racially Diverse City in America, Capradio, (Jan. 2020) 3 City of Stockton: A Look into Stockton’s Past
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
to environmental injustice because of the nature of their disability. 4 These communities are the most impacted by pollution and other poor environmental conditions because of historic land -use decisions. For example, the percentage of people with disabilities living in areas with greater exposure to PM2.5 pollution is significantly higher than in areas with less exposure, even when controlling for other variables; this is especially true for individuals with cognitive and independent living difficulties.
5 As a result, explicitly requiring consideration of
such issues when furthering fair housing is critical.

CalEnviroScreen 4.0 is a screening methodology that can be used to help identify California communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. Much of Stockton falls above the 90th percentile for pollution burden in the state. In the map below, Rred indicates communities with the highest pollution burdens: most of Stockton’s RHNA sites are within those red zones. As shown in Figure 1 below6, limited RHNA sites are located in the green CALENVIROSCREEN and deeper blue, high and highest resources areas, as the majority of sites are in South Stockton. However, as the table below shows, South Stockton are the lower opportunity areas, and are also the areas hit by some of the worst pollution in the entire state. This will not AFFH.

Figure 1
4 Catherine Jampel, Intersections of disability justice, racial justice, and environmental justice, Environmental Sociology (2018).
5 Jayajit Chakraborty, Disparities in exposure to fine particulate air pollution for people with disabilities in US, Science of the Total Environment (June 2022).
6 Stockton 6 th Cycle Housing Element, UC Berkeley, prepared by Bailey Schweitzer, Weiyang Tang, Joann Martinez (Dec. 2022).

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

b. Transportation

Transportation access is a critical piece of fair housing. However, jurisdictions often focus narrowly on the Americans with Disabilities Act ’s technical requirements for fixed route and paratransit, but overlook its broader mandate for equal access to the transportation system as a whole. The type of transportation necessary varies by disability and need, and it should be clear that jurisdictions should consider not only fixed-route public transportation, but also specialized services such as paratransit, dial-a-ride, reduced -fare taxis, or volunteer driver programs. Stockton should also consider availability of parking, drop off locations, bus stops, and shelters. A stronger transportation system would expand and improve affordable mobility options including: paratransit, door -to-door services; wheelchair accessible transportation network companies, and demand response real time ride systems; volunteer driver program expansions; nonprofit service provider systems; stipends/free rides for caregivers; gas subsidies , and more.

The City’s analysis of parking standards notes that some parking minimums have been waived for affordable housing, or that built via TOD. Unfortunately, the ADA’s only technical requirement regarding parking spots for people with disabilities is that there be a percentage of spots for disabled persons. Any percentage of zero is zero. Not all disabled people can use public transit, and require a parking spot, a spot for their caregiver, or a pickup spot for paratransit vehicles. As explained below, We recommend that the City amend Program 27, Addressing the Needs of Those with Disabilities, to develop an overall accessibility program that includes ensuring that disabled parking spots are available even where parking minimums have been waived. Accessible, available, and affordable travel options make it possible for diverse groups of people to stay active and engaged in their communities. c. Houselessness
As discussed below, unhoused individuals have a high prevalence of disability.

A discussion of barriers to fair housing is not complete without recognizing that Stockton recently passed one of the most onerous and restrictive encampment sweep ordinances in California, which bans “camping” (defined as “to place, pitch or occupy camp facilities; to live temporarily in a camp facility or outdoors; to use camp paraphernalia”) in areas broadly defined as “critical infrastructure” at the risk of misdemeanor charges and up to $25,000 in daily fines . The term critical infrastructure is defined to include locations ranging from hospitals to parks .

Stockton, California Municipal Code, Charter, and Civil Service Rules, Title 8 Health and Safety, Chapter 8.100 Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Wildlife Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Risk Areas. 7 Further, while the Ordinance was specifically created to address symptoms of homelessness8, it does not include a requirement that people have true access to services or housing before being removed or having their property taken. This must be assessed as a barrier.

B. Displacement
We appreciate that the City recognizes that preservation and creation of affordable housing is critical to minimizing displacement risk. However, the City has recognized that the City is at risk of losing naturally occurring affordable housing due to an influx of Bay Area residents. Research and exp erience demonstrate that effective anti -displacement measures include housing preservation (especially for naturally occurring affordable housing), tenant protection, and affordable housing strategies.
9 The City commits to programs
addressing housing preservation and affordable housing development , but not tenant protection. And some of its programs, for example, Program 14 , is listed as a place-based revitalization strategy; but fails to address how to ensure that weatherization does not result in higher rents and ensuing displacement. A deeper level of analysis is necessary. Similarly, if not done with anti-displacement protections in place, Code Enforcement can do, and has done, the same. 10 Indeed, the City discusses revitalizing “blighted” areas but does not explain what “blighted” means, which neighborhoods might be impacted, and how. Historically, revitalization of blighted neighborhoods has been paired with displacement of low-income communities. Indeed, the City is removing its 5 th Cycle Element
program that noted that development in blighted areas would be done with an eye toward preventing gentrification. The City must engage in a deeper analysis of such risk and how its own programs can exacerbate or mitigate that risk.

Displacement can create unique harms to people with disabilities, who may have developed formal and informal systems of care, developed accessible transportation routes, and/or modified their homes to accommodate their needs.

Displacement can disrupt these systems in a way that is devastating to a person’s health. And, the stress of displacement alone can exacerbate symptoms of 7 https://library.qcode.us/lib/stockton_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_8-chapter_8_100 8 https://www.stocktonmayor.org/files/Legislation%20Text%20(9).pdf 9 Karen Chapple and Anastasia Loukaitou- Sideris, White Paper on Anti -Displacement Strategy Effectiveness, February 28, 2021, available at www.urbandisplacement.org/wp-content /uploads/2021/08/19RD018-Anti- Displacement-Strategy-Effectiveness.pdf.
10 See, e.g. Price v. City of Stockton, 394 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (2005)(holding private right of action of federal relocation laws where aggressive code enforcement shut down SROs).

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
disabilities. Therefore, we also believe it is important to include programs that have the most immediate impact on preventing displacement . “[N]eighborhood stabilization and tenant protection policies have the most direct and immediate effect on mitigating displacement”11 – this includes a strong local rent stabilization program, including for mobilehome parks . Therefore, as explained below, we urge the City to include such a program in its anti-displacement programs. Given the City’s indication that it will create neighborhood action plans in neighborhoods that are susceptible to gentrification, like Little Manila, this is a critical AFFH issue.

C. Legacy of Redlining, Segregation, and Urban Renewal: RECAPS and RCAAs
The discriminatory impacts of Stockton’s past redlining endure to this day as well. Redlining is the term for the process that spatially segregated the affluent white population from the predominantly Black and "economically disinvested".

The zones were categorized by a color scale, and Green indicated the most affluent and white neighborhoods. While Red, represented the non-white areas.

Comparing the 1930s Home Owner's Loan Corporation redlining map to today's demographic makeup proves this segregation persists in modern-day Stockton.

The map on the right displays the original Redlining zones within modern -day Stockton boundaries.

Figure 2
12 11 Id.
12 Stockton 6th Cycle Housing Element, UC Berkeley, prepared by Bailey Schweitzer, Weiyang Tang, Joa nn Martinez (Dec. 2022).

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
According to AFFH mapping tools by HUD and HCD we see that segregation still exists and has affected housing policies. (See Figure 3).

Figure 313

For example, decision makers built a freeway through the Filipino Neighborhood of Little Manila in Downtown Stockton, destroying family homes, businesses, community centers, and much more. Redlining has also excluded many communities of color from homeownership; now over 77% of extremely low income households in San Joaquin County pay over half of their income on rent

14. We also know that renters of color face the highest rates of cost burden in San Joaquin County15. While the City notes that it will work with the housing authority to market vouchers in higher resourced areas, that is not enough to create authentic housing choice. The City should consult with community members to understand better their barriers to housing choice. Further, we understand the Stockton hired consultants to conduct an inclusionary zoning ordinance feasibility analysis, however the results are not included in the current Draft, other than a conclusory statement that such a program is not feasible. The City should at minimum explain why such an ordinance is not feasible in its AFH. The City must also consider how to incentivize affordable housing in RCAAs while also ensuring 13 Id.
14 California Housing Partnership, Housing Need Dashboard, (May 2023). 15 Id.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
that deed -restricted affordable housing will be prioritized in RE/CAPs that are sensitive to displacement risk. The sites inventory does not currently reflect that.

The City also must address how its existing policies contribute to segregation in its Assessment of Fair Housing. For example, it must analyze how the City’s policies toward the unhoused (e.g. towing policies, shelter zoning, etc.) exacerbate segregation. A report completed by students at U.C. Berkley and attached here as exhibit A, highlights the historical segregation patterns of Stockton. Unsurprisingly, the majority of unhoused persons in Stockton are Black and Latinx and continue to exist in the segregated areas of Southern Stockton, whether in shelters , the health and human services system, or in the encampments scattered throughout the City’s proposed majority RHNA sites.

The Housing Needs Analysis demonstrates that existing low -income renters are living in rent -burdened, overcrowded, and substandard conditions.

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of households with the lowest incomes are severely rent-burdened. We encourage the City to account for this disparity when accounting for housing needs. Additionally, when considering resources, the City should identify ones that can be feasibly used. While working with the County housing authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program is a laudable undertaking, it is unclear how residents could, once they make it to the top of the lengthy waitlist, obtain housing in the City given the already significant overcrowding and unavailability of appropriately sized units. Market rate housing is clearly not meeting the needs of the City’s lowest income household s, the overwhelming majority of whom are renters.

3. Site Inventory

AB 686 modified Housing Element Law such that a jurisdiction’s Assessment of Fair Housing (e.g. segregation & integration, R/ECAP, etc.) should inform the identification of sites in a manner that AFFH. The site identification requirement must assess whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns. Do they transform racially and ethnically concentr ated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity?

Stockton’s sites inventory is predominantly located in South Stockton. Per SB6 and AB2011, Stockton should consider doing a more in depth review of failing commercial corridors in high resource areas, rath er than in places like South Stockton. Comparing the sites inventory to CalEnviroScreen 4.0 indicates Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
that most of the selected sites are located in the heavily polluted downtown and south of downtown. (See Figure 4).

Figure 4: “The housing burden indicator measures the percent of households in the census tract that are both low income (making less than 80% of their counties’ median family income) and severely burdened by housing costs (paying greater than 50% of their income to housing costs)…The p ercentile for this tract is 96, meaning the percent housing burdened is higher than 96% of the rest of the state.”

DRC is concerned by the overlap between some of the largest selected parcels and clean-up sites. For instance, the site consisting of parcels 14523013 and 14523012 appear to be the largest selected at just under 40 acres, yet any residential development there would require brownfield mitigation. We commend Stockton for using EPA Brownfield Assessment Grant funds to assess how the city can re vitalize current brownfield sites in the city’s downtown waterfront.

However, the aforementioned parcels are not one such site.

According to the EPA, long- term stewardship of former brownfield sites is costly, and the costs of remediation are unknown prior to a site assessment. This means that building housing atop brownfield sites might be financially unviable without a local financial contribution for brownfield clean-up. If Stockton chooses to include numerous brownfield sites in its RHNA inventory, it must be able to Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
justify that these sites can be cleaned within the eight-year housing element cycle.

Otherwise, the city should exclude these sites from their inventory.

The above 40-acre site also contends with significant air pollutants as it is surrounded by multiple highways, a highway interchange, and abuts a rail line.

Therefore, even if a brownfield clean-up is conducted, we believe Stockton should avoid encouraging residential development there. More importantly, surrounding areas are often polluted brownfield sites. So, although residents may not be breathing in toxins from the parcel their apartment is on, they may suffer from pollutants on adjacent sites. As such, focusing affordable housing construction on brownfield sites would be a violation of both AFFH and SB 1000 Environmental Justice Element requirements. Given this, we ask Stockton to avoid heavily relying on brownfield sites to meet Stockton’s low income RHNA allocation , without having a plan for remediation in place.

Further, Disability Rights California participated in a site tour of roughly 25 sites in South Stockton on April 12, 2023 to verify this analysis. Consistent across all 25 sites were the proximity to industrial businesses, lack of transportation, lack of grocery stores, closeness to the I5 and 4 freeways i.e. concerns for pollution, and in some areas, lack of sidewalks and proper lighting. Disability Rights California has talked to community members with disabilities and learned how the lack of sidewalks and proper lighting can prevent neighborhood access and access to opportunity , especially when an extremely limited access to food, goods, and services in the area already exists.

4. Identification & Prioritization of Contributing Factors

The housing element must identify and prioritize significant contributing factors to segregation, R/ECAPS, opportunity access, & disproportionate housing needs. A Fair housing contributing factor is a factor that creates, contributes to, perpetuates, or increases the severity of one or more fair housing issues.

Contributing factors should be based on all prior AFFH analyses (Outreach, AFH, Site Inventory). Identification and evaluation of contributing factors must: Identify fair housing issues and significant contributing factors; Prioritize contributing factors, giving highest priority to those factors that most limit or deny fair housing choice, access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance. It must discuss strategic approaches to inform and strongly connect to goals and actions. Goals and actions should stem directly from Contributing Factors. Prioritization is important (4-5 max), and they must be tailored to local conditions.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

The City did not complete this portion of the required AFFH analysis . Fair housing contributing factors have been identified by community members. For example, at the May 3, 2020, Stockton Housing Justice Coalition meeting, Stockton residents cited the following: lack of affordable housing for low income residents, low -income people of color segregated to polluted, undesirable locations; widespread housing discrimination on the basis of disability and source of income; lack of transitional housing or other housing opportunities for formerly incarcerated persons; poor quality of existing housing stock; criminalization of the unhoused; and displacement pressures generally. These are all significant contributing factors to segregation, R/ECAPS, opportunity access, and disproportionate housing needs of communities and individuals because of protected characteristics. The City must complete this analysis and prioritization.

5. Goals, Actions/Programs, Metrics and Milestones

While the Draft Element has a broad AFFH program, many of those programs are existing ones, and the City does not lay out metrics and milestones to determine whether its actions are meaningful.

Program 28, “Practices to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing,” at H17-H18 of the Draft states that the City will implement the following strategies to affirmatively further fair housing in coordination with the efforts of this action:
• Strategies to facilitate housing mobility/expand affordable housing in high opportunity areas:
o Programs 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 24, 25
• Strategies to reduce or prevent displacement/place-based revitalization strategies:
o Programs 4, 7, 9, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 29
The Draft further states that the City will continue to support fair housing monitoring and enforcement.

W hile the Draft includes raw demographic data and points to some of its Housing Element Programs as furthering fair housing, it fails to assess whether individuals have actual housing choice and does not identify how it will measure whether its programs are making a meaningful impact. After completing such an analysis of housing choice, the City can turn to fashioning appropriate goals and programs. We have made comments on those below, including suggested revisions to those in the draft; however, the City should ensure that it explains how the programs it suggests will AFFH will actually do so, and how they are Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
connected to the assessment of fair housing. From there, the City must also that include concrete milestones and metrics to evaluate the progress on the programs and fair housing results – otherwise, how will the City know that its programs are meaningfully affirmatively furthering fair housing?

Also, individuals who are chronically homeless, by definition, have a disability; the draft element fails to consider this intersection of needs. Please see below for more comments regarding the City’s Homeless Programs.

II. Housing Needs Assessment for People with Special Needs § 65583(a)(7)

The City fails to adequately quantify and analyze the housing needs of people with disabilities. Gov . Code § 65583(a)(7) requires “An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the elderly, persons with disabilities, large families, farmworkers, families with female heads of households, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter.”

While the Draft includes a breakdown of the percentage of people with different types of disabilities was provided via U.S. Census data, the census data breaks down disability into only four categories for hearing, vision, independent living, and cognitive. Different types of disabilities require different types of accommodations and modifications in housing, and the residents of the City of Stockton have various combinations of disability, all with their own unique combination of resultant functional limitations possibly needing housing accommodations. Without planning explicitly for accessibility of all kinds, disabled Stocktonians will not have adequate homes to live in. This Draft does not do so and therefore fails to account for every economic segment of the community and is contrary to the duty to AFFH.

The City spends a fair amount of effort discussing people with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, which DRC appreciates. The City’s Draft also states that “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… 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).”

However, the word “at home” is misleading here as what this truly means is that 76.8% live “at home” with their families. Most of these families include aging Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
parents from the baby boomer generation with children with I/DD, putting those children at risk of homelessness when their family members pass, as their SSI is not sufficient to afford market rate housing . And because they have been living with family, they will not have any other benefits established. Indeed, the City acknowledges in its Draft that “many persons with disabilities rely solely on Social Security Income, which is insufficient for market rate housing.” Draft at BR-32. A significant portion of this 76.8% of those being served by the Regional Center could live independently, but for any affordable, accessible, safe, inclusive and non-segregated housing options.16

In addition, per the City’s own data, a rather shocking statistic coming out of U.S. Census shows that in Stockton, among school age children, nearly half (48.6 percent) have a “cognitive impairment.” For persons with disabilities ages 18 to 64 years, 27.4 percent have trouble walking, 23.2 percent have cognitive impairments, and 20.8 percent have difficulty with independent living.

Many people with mental health disabilities require supportive services to maintain stable housing. The City should separately analyze the housing needs of people with mental health disabilities and create programs to specifically address those needs. Those needs include : supportive housing, crisis housing, shared housing, and other innovative housing models. Without addressing this issue, people too often cycle between houselessness and institutionalization.

Further, there is no discussion of the unique needs of Blind residents, or those of Deaf residents.

In addition, the City should recognize that people who are homeless are by definition people with disabilities for their analysis of special populations . Those who are formerly incarcerated face incredible barriers to housing in Stockton as they face criminal back ground checks for rental housing, credit checks . and a myriad of other barriers. People who are formerly incarcerated are mostly people of color and people with disabilities and Stockton’s Housing Element Draft does not account for the housing needs of this special population. As such, it is also not AFFH.

The Draft states, “[t]he unhoused are a fair housing concern, and it is often difficult to collect informative data that accurately reflects the magnitude of the 16 Two reports attempt to assess the housing needs of people with intellectual/developmental disabilities, despite a dearth of accurate data: https://scdd.ca.gov/wp-content/u ploads/sites/33/2018/12/STATEWIDE-STRATEGIC-

FRAMEWORK-FOR-EXPANDING-HOUSING-OPPORTUNITIES-FOR-PEOPLE-WITH-INTELLECTUAL-AND- DEVELOPMENTAL-DISABILITIES-10.16.pdf and
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
population at risk, resulting in undercounting.” The data source the City uses is a Point-in-Time count led by the San Joaquin County Community Development Department and the Central Valley Low Income Housing Corporation in late January 2022. The City estimates it has “921 persons without nighttime shelter as of the 2022 Point -in-Time (PIT) Count. The size of shelters in Stockton is based on building and fire code allowances and there is no maximum number of beds.” The City’s analysis is as follows:

Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(I) requires a minimum of 200 square feet per person to meet the unsheltered need. To address the unsheltered needs of 921 people, this would be a minimum of 184,200 square feet or 4.2 acres. The 21 vacant parcels in the IL, IG, and PF districts range in size from 0.11 to 5.11 acres. Therefore, there are sufficient sites in the city to address the potential need for emergency shelters to accommodate 921 unsheltered persons experiencing homelessness.

However, the total number of homeless people living in the City is admitted to be undercounted. According to Community Based Organizations working with homeless in the many encampments in Stockton, the number is closer to 5,000 people who may need emergency shelter on any given night. Additionally, Stocktonians experienced extreme flooding and heat waves in 2022 which have resulted in increased homelessness. The City states in the draft that “[wh]ile 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.” However, DRC participated in the 2022 Point-in-Time Count and observed various issues with the City’s methodology for counting people experiencing homelessness in the City. The City chose to allot only one day to conduct a PIT count for Stockton —the largest ci ty in San Joaquin County, and conducted the entire count for approximately no more than six hours total.

Further, even if a person had no home or a regular place to sleep, the City instructed volunteers not to count someone as experiencing homelessness if they had not slept on the street the night before the PIT count. This approach and methodology surely resulted in a low count. Inaccurate counts of those experiencing homelessness stand to hamper the City’s efforts to end homelessness and likely decrease the ability to get appropriate funding from state, federal, and philanthropic sources. Data from, for example, the school district, could help supplement the PIT data to create a fuller picture of the number of unhoused in Stockton.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
The City must also ma ke diligent efforts to evaluate the level to which its shelters and transitional housing present barriers for people with disabilities. For instance, many people with disabilities cannot access housing without reasonable accommodations (e.g. emotional support animals or other policy changes to strict rules) or reasonable modifications (e.g. grab bars installed or other physical accessibility changes). In our outreach to unhoused community members, we have encountered many who cannot access congregate settings like shelters or transitional housing in Stockton due to lack of accommodations for their disability, or because a shelter environment just cannot work for them (e.g. people with significant mental health conditions, or people with autoimmune diseases).

In our work, we often hear from municipalities that they have put policies in place to account for the needs of people with disabilities, and that they expect their contractors and employees to follow those policies and the relevant laws.

However, in our experience, such an approach is not enough to actively prevent harm to people with disabilities. There must be a proactive and continued effort made to assess barriers, implement a plan to address identified barriers, and ongoing training and technical assistance. Without these additional steps, we have found that many people with disabilities will continue to be locked out of suitable shelter and/or housing opportunities, thus continuing the homelessness cycle. The difficult truth is that for some people, living on the streets feels better for them and their disabilities than residing in a shelter or transitional housing environment. The shared goal for us all is to ensure that people are not made to feel this way . And, lastly, the City’s numbers must include people who are not technically homeless, but who cycle through homelessness and institutions regularly, such as those with mental health disabilities, and formerly incarcerated populations.

III. Programs

Overall, DRC is pleased with the City’s goals to create more housing for all income levels and for special populations. However, the quantified objectives articulated for each program do not match the actual needs according to the City’s own analysis and data. As an overall comment, policies refer to a Housing Action Plan (e.g. Goal HE-1 and Policy HE1.13, Program), but the policies guiding that plan are not incorporated into this Housing Element, and should be included in the Draft to ensure that they are consistent.

A. Program 15. Development Code Revisions

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Currently the zoning code defines supportive housing in Municipal Code section 16.240.020 and indicates that it is a permitted use by right in special purposes or commercial zones. The zoning code mus t be amended to allow supportive housing by right in all zones where multi -family and mixed uses are permitted. Government Code section 65583(c)(3). This is in addition to the requirement that transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use subject only to the same restrictions that apply to other residential units of the same type in the same zone. Id.

B. Program 21. Code Enforcement Program

This program states the City shall continue to inspect housing units in “targeted areas” to check for building code violations. In situations where properties cannot be rehabilitated, the City will “continue to enforce the removal and replacement of substandard units .” Here, 2,000 units annually is the quantifiable objective and completed via the “Police Department: Neighborhood Services Division”, which houses code enforcement . DRC actively engages in frequent, ongoing conversations with Stocktonians who are unhoused, renting, people of color, and people with disabilities. Con ditions of the current housing stock in Stockton are a major concern.

To better address this major concern, we recommend that the City commit to moving from a complaint-based code enforcement system to a proactive one, and one that includes tenant protections to prevent displacement (see displacement discussion above) . This could include creating a rent escrow account program as well as engaging in proactive inspection. We can provide sample programs if needed.

Concerningly, Policy 4.4 , which cross- references Program 21, states that the City will continue to implement a Crime Free Multi -Family Housing Program.

HCD’s AB 686 Guidance explicitly recognizes such programs as barriers to AFFH.

Such programs most often serve to discriminate against Black and L atinx households, disabled people, and domestic violence survivors.17 The City should identify this program as a barrier to AFFH and create a program to remove it.

Similarly, given the barriers to reentry faced by people leaving institutions 17 See Liam Dillon, Ben Poston, Julia Barrajas, Black and Latino renters face eviction, exclusion amid police crackdowns in California, Los Angeles Times, November 19, 2020, available at https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/s tory/2020-11-19/california-housing-policies-hurt-black-latino- renters; See also, e.g. Alisha Jarwala & Sejal Singh, When Disability is a “Nuisance”: How Chronic Nuisance Ordinances Push Residents with Disabilities Out of Their Homes, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol. 54, Page 875, available at https://harvardcrcl.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/10/2019/07/54.2-Jarwala- Singh.pdf
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
including jail and prison, Code Enforcement should not be housed in the City’s Police Department, so as to ensure that residents can work proactively with Code Enforcement.

C. Program 24. Continue to Assist the Disabled in Community Development Block Grant Project Areas.

DRC is pleased with Program 24: 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 for 120 low-income individuals and households in Stockton, including rental units for owners of 4 or fewer rental units. Will the program be available to renters? If not, the City should identify funds to expand the program to renters who need modifications to make their unit accessible. This would also allow older adults to age in place.

D. Program 25. Universal Design

We support the City’s Program 25, but note that while universal housing design is an important
, the Housing Element should be clear that universal design is not synonymous with full accessibility; the needs, goals, and programs should clarify that the City will encourage both. The City should inventory the amount of its housing stock that is accessi ble and affordable to people with vision and/or mobility impairments. If the City cannot track these, it should include a program to monitor and track such units, and to make such information available to the public. The City should also make its list of affordable units available to the public.

As part of this program, the City should include enforcement of existing accessibility standards. Local governments can affirmatively further fair housing by ensuring that Code Enforcement staff understand accessibility standards and are enforcing those laws.

E. Program 27. Addressing the Needs of Those with Disabilities

As outlined above, Stockton is home to a large number of people with disabilities, including low-income people of color with disabilities. However, the City’s programs address only a small portion of their housing needs. After the City identifies the needs of people with mental health and sensory disabilities, in addition to mobility and I/DD, it should include specific information on how to address their needs in this program.

a. Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

The City says is will 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.

However, the “quantified objectives” for this program are described as “N/A.” Draft pg. HE -17. This is unacceptable. Senate Bill 812 mandates a discussion of potential housing resources for people with I/DD and this is absent from the Draft.

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 community18
• Section 8 Apartment/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.

The City should also ensure that the Housing Authority is complying with the obligation to exclude IHSS income of family members serving as caregivers when it calculates household income. Overall, individuals with I/DD should have choice to live in the most integrated, non-segregated settings possible. Only when absolutely necessary, the following may also be appropriate: Licensed and unlicensed Single Family homes, modified, of 3-5 bedrooms, or housing specially modified for the Medically Fragile (SB 962 Homes)

b. Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance

We appreciate that the City will amend Chapter 16.214 of its Municipal Code, pertaining to reasonable accommodations. We support that Program 27 proposes to remove two of the findings that are part of the City’s Reasonable Accommodation approval process for consistency with State law: (1) whether the requested reasonable accommodation adequately considers the physical attributes of the property and structures, and (2) whether alternative reasonable accommodations could provide an equivalent level of benefit. DRC would like to state this change should be made immediately. However, additional changes are needed to bring the ordinance into compliance with state la w. We urge the program include a commitment to make the following changes:
18 For an example of integrated, disability-forward housing models for people with I/DD, see https://thekelsey.org/.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
• 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 must strike the word “substantially”. The City should also include 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 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 should be made to ensure confidentiality of the person with a disability’s contact and medical information. Further, this section should 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: Reasonable accommodation requests do not require that the City notify neighbors of the request. Such notification will in most circumstances, invade the applicant’s privacy rights, or possibly result in discriminatory or not-in-my-backyard behavior.

This requirement should be removed, both 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: We recommend that the City add a clause making 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.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Section 16.214.090 Appeals: We recommend that appeals are directed to the City Manager in consultation with the ADA Coordinator, in order to ensure confidentiality.

F. Program 23. Continue to Support Organizations Assisting Homeless Persons

Program 23 seeks to increase shelter and transitional facilities and provide short term financial assistance for households at risk of becoming homeless, however, exactly how this would work is not defined. Program 23 states:

“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.” [emphasis added]

First, under the Housing Element, the City must plan for all economic segments of the community and that includes those with little to zero income; it includes homeless people. So, to say the City will “support” additional development of shelter facilities, but only “as requested by shelter providers,” is not a proper metric to AFFH or substantiate a meaningful program to address the actual needs findings. Further, in order to end homelessness, emergency shelters and even transitional housing cannot continue to be the City’s primary mode of addressing the issue.

Under Program 23, the City aims to assist up to 2,000 unduplicated homeless persons; and 1,000 households at -risk of homelessness with limited- term rental assistance or utility payments. As part of this, the City will increase the number of board and care or other types of residential or tr ansitional care facilities for vulnerable populations by 300 -500 beds. DRC opposes increasing the use of institutional-type settings to house people, which often includes board and cares. Through our role as the state’s Protection and Advocacy agency, we hear about such institutional conditions from clients and stakeholders. Housing options should be community-based, allow for freedom to come and go, and not have onerous rules.

G. Additional Program Recommendations
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

As explained above, the City’s AF FH analysis indicates that programs are needed in the following areas: tenant protections to mitigate displacement, environmental justice, and programs to increase opportunities to preserve affordability via innovating community ownership models.

The City’s Housing Element programs do not address tenant protections – which are critical to ensuring that existing residents can continue to live in their homes. Moreover, community members have identified such protections as a major issue. For example, the Stockton Housing Justice Coalition held an event on May 3, 2020 in which a tenant bill of rights, right to counsel, strong just cause protections, and universal income for renters were indicated as needed policies.

Further, ending tenant harassment and discrimination as well as rent stabilization policies are also critical to mitigating displacement. We urge the City to include a tenant protection program committing to the creation of such policies.

With regard to environmental justice , the City should both ensure a dispersal of sites so that neighborhoods with the highest pollution burdens are not the location of most future building, while also creating a remediation program to seek funding for site remediation. The City should also include EJ policies that specifically address the needs of the elderly, people with disabilities, and people with chronic respiratory conditions including establishing a program to distribute air conditioning to these vulnerable populations. For example, the City could identify sources of funds that prioritize elderly residents and residents with disabilities access to in -home HEPA air filters at little or no costs. Furthermore, the City should explore an EJ policy, similar to Los Angeles County’s Green Zones Ordinance, to create air pollution buffers to prevent the future zoning of residences, schools, childcare facilities, elderly care facilities, parks, and health care facilities away from heavy industrial areas.

In addition to these recommendations, community members have identified others that the City should consider. For example, at the May 3, 2020, Stockton Housing Justice Coalition community meeting, City residents suggested: a renters’ right to counsel; adoption of a tenants’ bill of rights; repurposing vacant buildings, e.g., those downtown, for affordable housing; the City’s acquisition of land for development of lower income housing; extending just cause eviction protections to single family homes; and universal basic income for renters. These are all appropriate and valid program considerations for the housing element that would also affirmatively further fair housing.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Increasingly, jurisdictions are creating programs to preserve affordability through community -based models such as promoting community land trusts, developing tenant opportunity to purchase ordinances, and land banking. We urge Stockton to do the same in order to create long -term community -led affordability.

IV. Conclusion

DRC submits these initial comments and recommenda tions, but plans to supplement these in the coming weeks. Please reach out to DRC at (619)814 - 8501 if we can be of any assistance as the Planning Department considers these recommendations and comments.

Thanks,

Nichole Mendoza
Senior Attorney
Civil Rights Practice Group
Disability Rights California

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element

Attachment A
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Stockton 6th Cycle Housing
Element
Bailey Schweitzer, Weiyang Tang, Joann Martinez
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table of contents

1. Overview of Stockton

2. Stockton’s Housing Element Timeline & RHNA Allocation

3. Alleviating Patterns of Racial and Income Segregation

4. Overlapping RHNA Inventory and Polluted Neighborhoods

5. Commercial Zoning

6. Summary

7. Recommendations
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Overview of Stockton, CA
● Medium-sized city of 322,000
● Located in the Central Valley, 80mi
east of Berkeley
● Racially diverse - plurality Latinx
● Median HH income of $58,393
Source: US Census
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Housing Market Conditions
● 50% owner-occupied
● 72% single family
● Despite a significantly more
affordable housing market than CA,
it has similar levels of housing
burden
Source: Stockton, CA Facebook pageSource: Stockton’s 5th Cycle Housing Element Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Stockton’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Timeline
● Stockton’s 6th Cycle Housing Element isn’t due to HCD until December 2023 ● As of December 2022, they released a preliminary map of RHNA sites ● Focused on advising the city on how to create a compliant housing element that affirmatively furthers fair housing per AB 686
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Draft Housing Element Sites Inventory
Income Group RHNA Entitled
Projects
Sites* Total Capacity Surplus
Lower Income
(<80% AMI)
4,013 0 5,273 5,273 1,260
Moderate Income
(81%-120% of
Median Income)
2,587 2,050 2,193 4,243 1,656
Above Moderate
Income
(>120% of Median
Income)
6,072 11,620 2,177 13,797 7,725
TOTAL 12,672 13,670 9,643 23,313 10,641
*573 acres
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Alleviating Patterns of Racial and Income Segregation
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Alleviating Patterns of Racial and Income Segregation
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Redlining Archives of California's Exclusionary Spaces:

White Pop. and Redlining African American Pop. and Redlining Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Redlining Archives of California's Exclusionary Spaces:

Latino Pop. and Redlining
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Redlining Archives of California's Exclusionary Spaces:

Race Poverty and Redlining
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
AFFH Data From HUD
Publicly Supported Housing and Race/Ethnicity
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
AFFH Data From HUD
Location of Affordable Rental Housing (% Rental Units Affordable to 50% AMI) Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
AFFH Data From HUD
Demographics and Environmental Health
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
RHNA Site Selection and Polluted Neighborhoods
● Most sites are located in
neighborhoods
CalEnviroScreen 4.0
considers heavily polluted
and highly disadvantaged
● Unclear number of units
they expect for selected
sites
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Stockton Brownfields
● EPA awarded Stockton a $600,000
Brownfield Assessment Grant
● City appropriated funds through
September 2021
● Conducted an assessment of
redeveloping the industrial
waterfront
● City is actively recruiting developers
○ Local financial assistance is
unclear
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Example Site: Overlapping Clean-up and RHNA Inventory Site ● 39.72 acres
● Overlaps clean-up site
● Surrounded on all sides by
highways and rail
● Located adjacent to the I5 and
highway 4 interchange and
abuts rail
● Development unlikely without
local financial assistance
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
5th Cycle Housing Element Deed
Restricted Affordable Housing
● Constructed and approved deed restricted
affordable housing between January 2014 and
December 2023
● Sites are located across the city in less polluted
areas
● Promising for 6th cycle
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Incorporate Commercial Lots into
RHNA Inventory

1. 2.

Case Study Area 1:

Brookside March Lane
Case Study Area 2:

Miracle Mile
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Stockton RHNA
2022 TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Case Study Area 1:

Brookside March
Lane
3404 Shadowbrook Dr.

APN 11628002
Acres 1.20; Sq. Ft. 52,008.99
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
A.
1828 Pacific Ave
APN 13702042
Acres 0.69 Sq. Ft. 30,795.91
B.
2402 PACIFIC AV
APN 12506001
Acres 0.13 Sq. Ft. 6,073.93
Case Study Area 2:

Miracle Mile
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Summary
● Far too soon to tell what Stockton’s housing element will look like ● Stockton will have met its moderate and high-income RHNA allocation through entitled projects
● Redlining has lasting implications
● Sites concentrated in distressed and high polluted neighborhoods Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Recommendations
1) Future stages of site selection must seriously consider high opportunity communities
2) The large site located near downtown should receive local financial assistance if the city wants to actually build there
3) Incorporate environmental justice into housing element Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Recommendations
4) Incorporate unpolluted commercial zones, namely Miracle Mile & Brookside March Lane, into element
5) Government should not just focus on investing on North Stockton. South of the crosstown freeway also need some attention.
6) City should stop subsidizing unprofitable public golf courses in north Stockton and put money toward affordable housing fund.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
QUESTIONS?
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
evidence is required to be taken, and 3) discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the agency.' Thus, ordinary mandate is used to review adjudicatory actions or decisions when the agency was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing." (Bunnett v. Regents of University of California (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 843, 848.) CCP Section 1094.5
"The grant of a land use permit or variance is an adjudicatory act, subject to review by administrative mandamus." (Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 933, 938.) Under CCP section 1094.5(b), an abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in the roanner required by law, the decision . . .. is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. (CCP § f094.5(b).) - - ... ········ -
Petitioners do not assert that a fundamental vested right is involved. Therefore, the standard of review of factual determinations is the substantial evidence test. (Patterson Flying Serv. V. Dep't of Pesticide Regulation (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 411, 419 and fn. 1.) Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion (California Youth Authority v. State Personnel Board (2002) 104 Cal. App. 4th 575, 584-85), or evidence of ponderable legal significance which is reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value. (Mohilef v.

Janovici (1996) 51 Cal. App. 4th 267, 305 n. 28.)
As to zoning issues, "[a] governing body's conclusion that a particular project is consistent with the relevant general plan carries a strong presumption of regularity that can be overcome only by a showing of abuse of discretion." (Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 933, 940.) "This review is highly deferential to the local agency, recognizing that the body which adopted the general plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity .... A reviewing court's role 'is simply to decide whether the city officials considered the applicable policies and the extent to which the proposed project conforms with those policies."' (Ibid.)
CCP Section 1085
It appears that Petitioners' fourth cause of action for violation of the California Relocation Assistance Act is reviewable under section 1085. Petitioners appear to assert that Respondents owe a clear, present, and ministerial duty to comply with the CRAA. (Pet. 1J1J 80-85.)
There are two essential requirements to the issuance of an ordinary writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085: (1) a clear, present and 4 Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
ministerial duty on the part of the respondent, and (2) a clear, present and beneficial right on the part of the petitioner to the performance of that duty. (California Ass'n for Health Services at Home v. Department of Health Services (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 696, 704.) "In general, when review is sought by means of ordinary mandate the inquiry is limited to whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support." (Bunnett, supra at 849.)
While not discussed by the parties, the court notes that "adoption of the general plan or any part or element thereof or the adoption of any amendment to such plan or any part or element thereof is a legislative act which shall be reviewable pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure." (Gov. Code § 65301.5; Lesher ____ Communications, Inc'. v. City of Walnut C�eek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 535.) However, Petitioners do not appeaito challengelhe ad0pti<51forthe"GenerarPlan a111endmenr------------"-"" under section 65301.5.

Statutory Interpretation
Interpretation of a statute, such as the state Density Bonus Law, presents a question of law that the court reviews de novo. (Woodland Park Management, LLC v.

City of East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Bd. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 915, 919.) "The rules governing statutory construction are well settled. We begin with the fundamental premise that the objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent. [Citations.] To determine legislative intent, we turn first to the words of the statute, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning. [Citations.] When the language of a statute is clear, we need go no further. However, when the language is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, we look to a variety of extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, contemporaneous administrative construction, and the statutory scheme of which the statute is a part." (Nolan v. City of Anaheim (2004) 33 Cal.4th 335, 340.)
When interpreting a statute, the court must construe the statute, if possible to achieve harmony among its parts. (People v. Hall (1991) 1 Cal. 4th 266,272; Legacy Group v. City of Wasco (2003) 106 Cal.App. 4th 1305, 1313). "When the legislature has ' carefully employed a term in one place and has excluded it in another, it should not be implied where excluded." (Wasatch Properly Management v. Degrate (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1111.) "When interpreting statutory language, we may neither insert language which has been omitted nor ignore language which has been inserted." (See People v.

National Auto. and Gas. Ins. Co. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 277, 282.) Analysis
5 Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
ordinances at issue that City was intending to grant a density bonus or other concessions under the DBL.

For similar reasons, Petitioners' argument that the Project violates the DBL's no net loss provision is not directly on point. Because Real Party did not seek or obtain a density bonus or other concessions under the DBL, the no let loss provision does not apply directly to the Project. (§ 65915(c)(3).) However, as discussed below, various parts of the DBL, including the no net loss provision, suggest legislative intent to preclude local governments from granting density bonuses in a manner inconsistent with the DBL.2
. ··-· ..... _ .... _As argµed byf)�tiJi()Q�rs, theundisputed record suggests that City granted a large density bonus above the maximum density allowecf6ythe Generat·Plan�-(See--·-·-·----·-·· Reply 7 .) Prior to November 3, 2015, the maximum allowable density pursuant to the Motor Inn's General Plan designation of General Commercial was 20 du/acre.3 The density for a land use designation of High Density Residential, to which the Project site was changed on November 3, 2015, was also 20 du/acre. However, a density of 40 du/acre was apparently allowed in some parts of the City for this residential designation.4 (AR 5906.) City granted an increase to 54 du/acre for the Project. .(See AR 6662.) Real Party promised to build only 20 moderate-income rental units, but the Project was not a "common interest development" that would qualify for a density bonus under the DBL. Real Party did not promise to build units for low or very-low income residents. Moreover, for a density bonus of 35 % (from 40 du/acre to 54 du/acre), the project applicant must agree to build 11 percent very low-income units; 20 percent low 2 Petitioners Qf{e AR3153-3.).00 to support their claim that approximately 50 low or very � low income h�cupied rooms at the Motor Inn when the project approvals were implemented. However, the court was unable to locate this evidence in the cited portion of the record. Counsel should address this at the hearing. ·3 The opposition papers argue that land zoned C1, which prohibits residential uses, were approved for a base density of zero (0) du/acre. (Real Party Oppo. 8.) The court does not find that distinction to be dispositive, as the land was rezoned to high density residential.
4 According to a table cited by Petitioners, the density for a land use designation of high­ density residential is 20 du/acre. (AR 5906.) However, the land use element states that certain areas in North Costa Mesa allow density in excess of 20 du/acre for that designation. (AR 5906.) Although not clear, Petitioners appear to concede that a density of 40 du/acre was allowable for a designation of High Density Residential at the Project site. (See OB 11 :8; Reply 10-11.) The parties have not fully explained whether the density of 40 du/acre was allowed under the General Plan as written at the time of the application. (See AR 3157.) This distinction is not dispositive to the writ.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
,/
site was designated C1 at the time of the application. At the same time Real Party requested that City approve a 35% density bonus, IT also requested a change in the Property's zone from C1 to Residential-High 'Density. (AR 3157.) Real Party was an "�plicant seek[mg] a density bonus for a housm� development" within the City's jul'isd1ct1on and was subJect to the DBL. .(§ 6591 Sta)( I).) If Real Party had desired to build an affordable h · · t would have ualified for a density bonus and incentives under the DBL, it seems that Real Party could have soug t sue ene I s regardless of whether the Project site required a_zone change from C1 to high densi.ty residential. Also, it raises form over substance to argue that a project site designated C1 evades the DBL, even if the development necessarily C@!lires a zone change to residential. (See Resp. Oppo. 6:1-7.) -
Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that City's approval of a density __________ _ bonus for a residential project that would not qualify for a bonus under the DBL, and is not "proportionally lower" than what is required by the DBL, conflicts with the language and intent of the statute.

Does the DBL Fully Occupy the Field?
"Local legislation enters an area that is 'fully occupied' by general law when the Legislature has expressly manifested its intent to 'fully occupy' the area [citation], or when it has impliedly done so in light of one of the following indicia of intent: '(1) the subject matter has been so fully and completely covered by general law as to clearly indicate that it has become exclusively a matter of state concern; (2) the subject matter has been partially covered by general law couched in such terms as to indicate clearly that a paramount state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action; or (3) the subject matter has been partially covered by general law, and the subject is of such a nature that the adverse effect of a local ordinance on the transient citizens of the state outweighs the possible benefit to the' locality. [Citations.]" (City of Riverside, supra, 56 Cal.4th at 743.)
The courts "have been particularly 'reluctant to infer legislative intent to preempt a field covered by municipal regulation when there is a significant local interest to be served that may differ from one locality to another.' 'The common thread of the cases is that if there is a significant local interest to be served which may differ from one locality to another then the presumption favors the validity of the local ordinance against an attack of state preemption.' " (Id. at 744.)
The City's police powers include "limitations on the density and size of permissible residential development." (California Bldg. Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose (2015) 61 Cal.4th 435, 455.)
11 Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Descrip�on of Revisions Made to Address Comments in Disability Rights California August 18, 2023 Leter

Comment: The City of Stockton’s Revised Housing Element Contains Zero Plans for Permanent Housing for Stockton’s 5,000 and Coun�ng Houseless Individuals
Response: Revisions were made to pages BR-39 through BR-40 in the Exis�ng Needs Assessment.

Comment: The City’s Revised Housing Element has Zero Programs to Prevent Displacement of Stockton’s Tenants Who Comprise Half of All Households in Stockton – Approximately 150,000 Households. • Tenant Protec�on Policies

Response: No addi�onal revisions were made to address this comment.

• Housing Preserva�on and Affordable Housing Development Program

Response: No addi�onal revisions were made to address this comment.

• The City’s Value Capture Programs are Inadequate or Unlawful Response: Program 7 in the Policy Document was revised to remove the market rate density bonus concept.
• The City’s Current Housing Element Does Not Plan for Suppor�ve, Accessible, Safe, Non- segregated Housing for Stocktonians with Disabili�es.

Response: Revisions were made to Programs 26 and 29 in the Policy Document to include targeted outreach and efforts for those with disabili�es Comment: Transporta�on for people with Disabili�es is an AFFH issue.

Response: No addi�onal revisions were made to address this comment.

Comment: The City’s Current Dra� Sites Inventory Will Not Sa�sfy HCD Requirements for AFFH Because Plans for Low Income Housing and Extremely Low Income Housing Only in Stockton. Not Only Fails to Address the History of Racial Segrega�on in Stockton, it also Fails to Meet Requirements for the Environmental Element.

Response Program 33 has been added to the Policy Document to call on the City to iden�fy addi�onal sites in higher resourced areas of the City to address this comment.

Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 200
Folsom, California 95630
t 916.245.7500
www.placeworks.com
Exhibit 1- 2023-2031 Housing Element