There was also strong support for protected bicycle
infrastructure, including protected bike lanes, secure
parking, and safer intersection crossings, reflecting a desire to reduce conflicts with vehicles and make bicycling viable for a broader range of users. Transit related concerns
focused on service reliability, frequency, and connectivity, supported by improved stop amenities, real time
information, and safer access routes. Participants stressed that transit improvements should be paired with supportive land uses to maximize effectiveness.
Beyond transportation, respondents highlighted safety,
cleanliness, and affordability as essential to supporting small businesses and attracting investment. Participants also expressed a clear preference for activating vacant lots, reusing underutilized buildings, expanding housing, and adding community serving amenities, reflecting a desire for a lively, mixed use downtown that supports daily activity and long term stability.
Equity Considerations
Survey results indicate that transit plays a significant role in Downtown Stockton, with 15 percent of respondents
relying on transit as their primary mode, three times the statewide average (5 percent of Californians, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey). This underscores the importance of prioritizing improvements that serve transit dependent populations, including lower income households, older adults, people with disabilities, and those with limited access to private vehicles, consistent with the Plan’s Social Equity goal and Equity and
Displacement Analysis.
Equity concerns centered on safety, accessibility, and
first and last mile conditions. Participants frequently cited damaged sidewalks, inadequate ADA curb ramps, poor
lighting, and unsafe crossings near transit stops as barriers that disproportionately affect vulnerable users. Perceived and actual safety issues around stations, particularly in poorly lit or inactive areas, were also identified as limiting who feels comfortable using transit and when.
These findings highlight the need for transit oriented
strategies that integrate service improvements with place based investments focused on pedestrian safety, ADA
accessibility, and comfort along key access routes.
Prioritizing improvements in areas with the greatest safety and access challenges is essential to achieving equitable, inclusive outcomes.
TOP PRIORITIES
AS VOTED BY THE COMMUNITY
• PROMOTING INFILL DEVELOPMENT
• ADDING MOBILITY HUB FEATURES
• ACTIVATING STREETS AND BUILDINGS
• REPURPOSING WEBER AVENUE
AND HAZELTON AVENUE
EXHIBIT 1
1097
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 36 OF 68
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Three alternatives were developed in support of the Plan to provide transportation and land use strategies of varying intensity. The alternatives support decision-making by
outlining the Plan recommendations from the most easily implementable to the most complex. Alternative 1 offers the lowest cost and most straightforward initial steps for the City, while Alternative 3 represents the most transformative option, delivering the greatest benefits but requiring the highest investment and extensive interagency coordination.
Although not formal phases, the alternatives are designed to build upon one another by incorporating elements from each preceding alternative. For example, improvements
identified in Alternative 1 are assumed as part of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. These alternatives can be found in Appendix H: Alternatives. The toolbox strategies that were developed in support of the alternatives can be found in Appendix I: Toolbox Strategies.
Alternative 1 – Foundation
Alternative 1 presents a foundational set of Project
recommendations that address the most urgent needs
through lower-cost and less constrained recommendations.
Alternative 1 Transportation Vision
The transportation recommendations identified for
Alternative 1 focus on programmatic and low-cost
capital improvements while addressing the most urgent
transportation needs in the Project area through spot
treatment improvements.
Safety improvements focused on the top six ranked
intersections (shown in Figure 10) with the highest number of crashes, resulting in the following six intersections:
• Rank 1. Airport Way & Market St (32 Collisions)
• Rank 2. Airport Way & Hazelton Avenue (28 Collisions) • Rank 3. Center Street & Washington Street (21
Collisions)
• Rank 3. Weber Avenue & Airport Way (21 Collisions)
• Rank 5. California Street and Oak Street (19 Collisions) • Rank 5. Airport Way and Miner Avenue (19 Collisions)
Active transportation recommendations in Alternative
1 aim to address safety concerns at high-crash-volume
intersections as well as intersections with histories of severe and fatal crashes involving bicyclists and/or pedestrians. As shown in Figure 11, Bicycle and Pedestrian Priority Corridors are identified along Center Street, El Dorado Street, Weber Avenue, Airport Way, Hazelton Avenue, and Channel
Street, with improvements on Channel Street currently
underway. Recent City efforts include the construction of active transportation improvements on Center Street, El Dorado Street, and Hazelton Avenue, further supporting
their designation as pedestrian and bicycle priority
corridors. Over the course of the Project, these corridors were found to present the safety and/or mobility challenges for active transportation users. Additionally, improvements along the bicycle and pedestrian priority corridors
will enhance the South Stockton Citywide Backbone
Network that was recommended in the City’s 2017 Active
Transportation Plan.
Public transit recommendations in Alternative 1 (shown in Figure 12) are focused on enhancing bus stops with benches, shading, signage, and other improvements as well as
enhancing access to transit centers and stations, including the DTC, Cabral Station, and San Joaquin Street Station.
Bob Hope Theatre on Main Street
EXHIBIT 1
1098
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 37 OF 68
Figure 10. Alternative 1 Priority Safety Intersections
EXHIBIT 1
1099
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 38 OF 68
Figure 11. Alternative 1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Priority Corridors EXHIBIT 1
1100
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 39 OF 68
Figure 12. Alternative 1 Transit Improvement Areas
EXHIBIT 1
1101
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 40 OF 68
Alternative 1 Land Use Vision
Alternative 1 focuses on improving connectivity between the Downtown Transit Center and Cabral Station through
near‑ and mid‑term activation strategies and early planning activities that can be implemented primarily by the City in partnership with community organizations. The focus area, shown in Figure 13, is bounded by Miner Avenue, Market
Street, Sutter Street, and Airport Way. Near‑term efforts emphasize low‑cost, flexible street and storefront activation, such as temporary events, pop‑ups, and markets, supported by an inventory of vacant and underutilized properties to guide programming without requiring changes to existing street designs or land use regulations. Concentrating nearterm activities in the center of this focus area along Weber Avenue (shown in the dashed line in Figure 13) can help create a focal point and destination.
Mid‑term and early planning activities build the foundation for long‑term development by enhancing commercial
corridors, improving storefront conditions, and updating land use and zoning frameworks to support active,
pedestrian‑oriented ground‑floor uses. Strategies include façade and building improvements, incentives such as
“white boxing” for vacant commercial spaces, streamlined permitting for temporary uses and events, and identification of opportunity sites for infill and densification. Additional actions focus on attracting community‑serving uses,
improving infrastructure including broadband, supporting healthy food access through healthy food vendors and
community gardens, and securing funding for site cleanup and environmental remediation to improve downtown
livability and readiness for future investment.
High-visibility crosswalk in Downtown Stockton on Weber Avenue
Modesto food truck court activating an underutilized parking lot EXHIBIT 1
1102
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 41 OF 68
Figure 13. Alternative 1 Land Use Focus Area
4 Stockton
Channel
Mormon Slough
McLeod Lake
5 Google
0 0.13 0.25
Mi
Folder: J:\Stockton 24-B0492 Multimodal Transp Network\GV\GIS\Stockton - Multimodal Transp Network\
EL DORADO ST
SAN JOAQUIN ST
CALIF
ORNIA ST
AURORA ST
HAZELTON AVE
MAIN ST
WEBER AVE
MINER AVE
AIRPORT WAY
OAK ST
CENTER ST
STANISL
AUS ST
FREMONT ST
E MARKET ST
E TAYLOR ST
S SUTTER ST
N HUNTER ST
S GRANT ST
S UNION ST
Rail
Project Area
Cabral Station
Downtown Transit
Center (DTC)
San Joaquin Street Station
Diamond Grade Separation
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Priority Corridor
Bicycle Priority Corridor
LEGEND
Land Use Alternative 1 Alternative 1
MOVE DOWNTOWN
Identify vacant parcels
as opportunity sites for
future development
Pursue resources for
facade improvements
Program vacant ground- oor
spaces, the edges of parking
lots, and vacant parcels with
temporary events
EXHIBIT 1
1103
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 42 OF 68
Alternative 2 – Focused Plan
Alternative 2 presents a set of aspirational but attainable recommendations for the Plan area.
Alternative 2 Transportation Vision
The transportation strategies in Alternative 2 focus more on capital improvements than Alternative 1 and focuses on
corridor-wide strategies that focus on enhancing safety and improved mobility for all travelers in the Plan area.
In Alternative 2, safety recommendations look at corridorwide enhancements along roadways with the highest number of collisions. The Safety Priority Corridors, shown in Figure 14, include Center Street, El Dorado Street,
California Street, Weber Avenue, and Airport Way, and
largely overlap with the intersections identified in the safety recommendations for Alternative 1.
Active transportation recommendations are expanded to
include additional bicycle and pedestrian priority corridors as well as bicycle-focused improvement corridors, as shown in Figure 15. Sidewalk and bikeway enhancements along
Lafayette Street will enhance mobility near SR-4 and access to the Golden Villa Farmer’s Market. Bikeway improvements along Aurora Street will advance the planned bikeway
network and enhance mobility for bicyclists traveling north and south in Downtown.
Transit Priority Corridors are identified in Alternative 2 on key roadways where the RTD currently has existing stops and operations, as shown in Figure 16. Transit improvements include real-time transit information, transit reliability strategies such as far-side bus stop relocations, transit stop curb management, last- and first- mile enhancements, and wayfinding signage improvements.
Bicycle parking at the Downtown Transit Center
EXHIBIT 1
1104
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 43 OF 68
Figure 14. Alternative 2 Safety Priority Corridors
EXHIBIT 1
1105
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 44 OF 68
Figure 15. Alternative 2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Priority Corridors EXHIBIT 1
1106
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 45 OF 68
Figure 16. Alternative 2 Transit Priority Corridors
EXHIBIT 1
1107
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 46 OF 68
Alternative 2 Land Use Vision
Alternative 2 land use strategies focus on strengthening connectivity between the DTC and San Joaquin Street
Station while advancing historic preservation, downtown activation, and private development. Building on the
Early Planning Activities assumed under Alternative 1, this alternative expands the focus area to include the area
bounded by Miner Avenue, Taylor Street, Center Street, and Grant Street.
Strategies emphasize preserving and adaptively reusing
historic resources through updated surveys, design
guidelines, incentives, and participation in programs
including the Mills Act, while streamlining approvals and securing funding to support reinvestment.
Downtown revitalization efforts include marketing
vacant and underutilized properties, particularly surplus City‑owned land, for mixed‑use and mixed‑income
development; establishing programs to rehabilitate
commercial spaces; and securing funding for site cleanup and remediation. Improving connectivity across SR‑4 is a central component of this phase, with multimodal crossings and a potential pedestrian‑oriented corridor linking Little Manila to the downtown civic core through enhanced
streetscape, safety, and cultural placemaking elements.
Development would target higher‑density mixed‑use
housing in the civic core and compact residential and
community‑serving uses in Little Manila, supported by
parking optimization strategies, existing City incentive programs, and a long‑term vision to transform Mormon
Slough into a downtown amenity with coordinated services for unhoused residents.
Curb extension at Downtown Lodi entrance Curb extension at Weber Avenue and Grant Street Curb extension at San Joaquin Street and Main Street
EXHIBIT 1
1108
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 47 OF 68
Figure 17. Alternative 2 Land Use Focus Area
4 Stockton
Channel
Mormon Slough
McLeod Lake
5 Google
0 0.13 0.25
Mi
Folder: J:\Stockton 24-B0492 Multimodal Transp Network\GV\GIS\Stockton - Multimodal Transp Network\
EL DORADO ST
SAN JOAQUIN ST
CALIF
ORNIA ST
AURORA ST
HAZELTON AVE
MAIN ST
WEBER AVE
MINER AVE
AIRPORT WAY
OAK ST
CENTER ST
STANISL
AUS ST
FREMONT ST
E MARKET ST
E TAYLOR ST
S SUTTER ST
N HUNTER ST
S GRANT ST
S UNION ST
Rail
Project Area
Cabral Station
Downtown Transit
Center (DTC)
San Joaquin Street Station
Diamond Grade Separation
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Priority Corridor
Bicycle Priority Corridor
LEGEND
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
MOVE DOWNTOWN
Land Use Alternative 2
In ll housing in vacant
and underutilized parcels
Develop Historic Design
Guidelines to preserve and
reuse historic buildings
and sites, establish a program
supporting rehabilitation of
historic buildings, and explore
participation in the Mills Act
program
Improve Highway 4 undercrossings and
create north-south pedestrian-oriented corridors
Activate Mormon Slough with a
linear park, recreational amenities,
and/or community programming
EXHIBIT 1
1109
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 48 OF 68
Alternative 3 – Full Vision
Alternative 3 represents the full transformational vision of the Project’s recommendations, with a focus on long-term implementation. It outlines the most desirable conditions for achieving the Project’s goals. These recommendations are typically applied broadly across the entire Plan area or targeted to specific zoning districts within it.
Alternative 3 Transportation Vision
Safety improvements in Alternative 3 have a systemic focus across the entire project area. These improvements focus on both programmatic and infrastructure improvements,
including strategies from the City’s Vision Zero plan, which is currently in development.
Active transportation and public transit improvements
included in Alternative 3 include systemic improvements to the transportation network. These changes include the full build-out of the planned bicycle and pedestrian networks and implementation of the planned mobility hubs at the
three transit stations in Downtown Stockton.
Four (4) representative cross‑section alternatives were developed for key corridors within the Plan Study Area, including Center Street, El Dorado Street, San Joaquin
Street, and Oak Street. These cross sections were informed by the approximate existing roadway widths, curb‑to‑curb conditions, and functional context of each corridor and are intended to illustrate the types of improvements envisioned under the Plan alternatives. Rather than serving as final engineering designs, the cross sections provide a visual framework to demonstrate how recommended multimodal
elements could be accommodated within the existing
right‑of‑way. These cross sections are intended to serve as illustrative examples not only for the specific corridors shown, but also for other Pedestrian and Bicycle Priority Corridors and Transit Priority Corridors recommended in the Plan alternatives.
El Dorado Street (Figure 18) and Center Street (Figure 19) are identified as Pedestrian and Bicycle Priority Corridors under Alternative 3. The proposed cross sections for these corridors emphasize high‑quality, comfortable facilities for people walking and bicycling, while maintaining
appropriate access for transit and local vehicle movements.
In these corridors, the preferred condition includes protected bikeways, which may be separated from vehicle traffic
through a combination of on‑street parking, bus stop
platforms, bollards, landscaped buffers, or other vertical separation elements. Pedestrian enhancements are also
a key focus and may include wider sidewalks, enhanced
and more frequent crossings, shade trees, pedestrian‑scale lighting, and street furniture, all of which contribute to improved safety, comfort, and overall street vitality.
ACE commuter at Cabral Station
EXHIBIT 1
1110
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 49 OF 68
Figure 18. Proposed El Dorado Street Cross Section
Figure 19. Proposed Center Street Cross Section
Transit Priority Corridor cross sections were developed for San Joaquin Street (Figure 20) and Oak Street (Figure 21), reflecting their role as key transit spines within Downtown Stockton. The proposed cross sections for these corridors prioritize transit efficiency and reliability, while also improving safety and access for pedestrians and bicyclists. Conceptual elements include potential transit signal priority, enhanced bus stops with improved amenities, curb management strategies, and treatments that support reliable transit operations. These corridors will also offer first‑ and last‑mile connectivity improvements, such as upgraded sidewalks, improved crossings, and bikeway connections, to ensure that transit riders can safely and comfortably access stations and stops.
EXHIBIT 1
1111
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 50 OF 68
Figure 20. Proposed San Joaquin Street Cross Section
Figure 21. Proposed Oak Street Cross Section
EXHIBIT 1
1112
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 51 OF 68
Figure 22. Alternative 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Priority Corridors EXHIBIT 1
1113
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 52 OF 68
Figure 23. Alternative 3 Transit Priority Corridors
EXHIBIT 1
1114
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 53 OF 68
Alternative 3 Land Use Vision
Alternative 3 extends activation, connectivity, and
development strategies from Alternatives 1 and 2 to
the remaining northern and southeastern portions of the Study Area, building on earlier momentum to achieve
downtown‑wide integration. The northern focus area,
bounded by Oak Street, Miner Avenue, Center Street, and Airport Way, includes residential and commercial uses
and would benefit from expanded amenities, improved
connectivity, and reinvestment that supports existing
residents and businesses while extending an activated
Downtown.
The southern focus area, bounded by Market Street,
Taylor Street, Grant Street, and the UPRR railroad, is
primarily industrial and would emphasize preserving and modernizing employment‑generating uses while supporting compatible reuse and transitions between industrial,
residential, and commercial areas. Strategies include
extending multimodal connectivity across SR‑4, mitigating impacts from the Stockton Diamond Grade Separation
Project through buffering and design standards, and
coordinating with regional rail and transportation agencies.
Development code updates and the use of corridor types
would guide appropriate land use transitions, noise
mitigation, and buffering to better integrate rail infrastructure into the Downtown context. Lastly, major improvements
and activities would be implemented to improve Mormon
Slough into an attractive and usable public open space
amenity.
Mixed-use housing transitioning to commercial in Redding, CA Wider and complete sidewalk
Bicycle and pedestrian prioritized protected intersection along mixed-used corridor
Underpass park in Albany, CA
EXHIBIT 1
1115
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 54 OF 68
Figure 24. Alternative 3 Land Use Focus Area
4 Stockton
Channel
Mormon Slough
McLeod Lake
5 Google
0 0.13 0.25
Mi
Folder: J:\Stockton 24-B0492 Multimodal Transp Network\GV\GIS\Stockton - Multimodal Transp Network\
EL DORADO ST
SAN JOAQUIN ST
CALIF
ORNIA ST
AURORA ST
HAZELTON AVE
MAIN ST
WEBER AVE
MINER AVE
AIRPORT WAY
OAK ST
CENTER ST
STANISL
AUS ST
FREMONT ST
E MARKET ST
E TAYLOR ST
S SUTTER ST
N HUNTER ST
S GRANT ST
S UNION ST
Rail
Project Area
Cabral Station
Downtown Transit
Center (DTC)
San Joaquin Street Station
Diamond Grade Separation
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Priority Corridor
Bicycle Priority Corridor
LEGEND
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Special Area
Land Use Alternative 3
MOVE DOWNTOWN
Mixed-use and high-density
housing as in ll development
Incorporate bu
ers along rail-lines,
such as noise walls and landscaping
treatments. Work with developers &
property owners to reduce impacts
from rail infrastructure and activities
Improve Highway 4 undercrossings
by adding lighting and increasing
pedestrian, cyclist, and transit access
Continue to implement Mormon
Slough improvements and activation
EXHIBIT 1
1116
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 55 OF 68
Alternative Benefit-Cost Analysis
A Benefit‑Cost Analysis (BCA) was conducted to evaluate the relative economic performance of the Plan alternatives and to assess how benefits scale with the level and
integration of investment. The analysis shows that economic benefits increase in both magnitude and durability as
improvements progress from localized interventions
(Alternative 1) to corridor continuity (Alternative 2) and, ultimately, system‑level connectivity (Alternative 3). While all alternatives generate positive effects, outcomes are driven not only by investment scale but by the degree to which each alternative reduces structural access barriers, supports sustained shifts in travel behavior, and creates conditions that encourage long‑term private reinvestment.
Under Alternative 1, benefits are largely localized and short‑term, reflecting targeted safety and accessibility improvements that stabilize existing conditions but do not substantially alter downtown travel patterns or economic structure. Alternative 2 demonstrates stronger and more durable benefits by extending improvements across
connected corridors, improving access to destinations,
supporting workforce connectivity, and enabling
incremental reinvestment along priority routes. Alternative 3 yields the greatest long‑term economic value by addressing downtown‑wide connectivity and access constraints through system‑level interventions, supporting sustained increases in visitation, non‑automobile travel, retail clustering, and long‑term reductions in public costs. While benefits under Alternative 3 accrue over a longer horizon, they are
cumulative and transformative in nature. The full Benefit‑Cost Analysis is provided in Appendix J: Benefit‑Cost Analysis.
Preferred Alternative
Alternative 3, the Full Vision Plan, was selected as the Preferred Alternative as it most comprehensively responds to the transportation and land use needs identified
through the existing conditions analysis and reinforced through community engagement. While Alternatives 1
and 2 establish important near‑term and corridor‑scale
improvements, Alternative 3 builds on these foundations to deliver a coordinated, system‑wide vision that addresses safety, mobility, access, economic vitality, and long‑term land use transformation across Downtown Stockton. It
incorporates the full range of programmatic, capital, and policy strategies necessary to overcome longstanding
barriers, improve multimodal connectivity, and support
sustainable growth in a manner consistent with community priorities and Plan goals. The complete list of strategies that comprise the preferred alternative is outlined in Table 5 below, which also details in which alternatives the strategy is specifically mentioned.
ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVE 1
• targeted safety/accessibility
improvements
• stabilizes existing conditions
• does not alter travel patterns
or economic structure
LOCALIZED,
SHORT-TERM BENEFITS
ALTERNATIVE 2
• improves access to destinations
• supports workforce connectivity
• enables reinvestment on
priority routes
STRONGER, MORE DURABLE BENEFITS
ALTERNATIVE 3
• system-level interventions
• supports increased visitation,
travel, and retail
• long-term reduction in public
cost
GREATEST LONG-TERM
ECONOMIC VALUE
EXHIBIT 1
1117
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 56 OF 68
Table 6. Alternative Strategies
# STRATEGY (CONDENSED DESCRIPTION) ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3
1 High crash intersection spot improvements
2 Community identified safety concern locations – –
3 Low cost safety programs (NTMP, speed feedback, etc.) 4 Pedestrian crossing & ADA upgrades
5 Bike boxes & conflict area bike crossings
6 Sidewalk repair, gap closures, widening
7 Pedestrian scale lighting for safety –
8 Corridor wide safety upgrades (high collision corridors) – 9 Advanced pedestrian crossing controls (LPI, RRFB, scramble) – 10 Traffic calming & diversion (chicanes, diverters) – 11 Transformative intersection redesigns – –
12 Systemic Vision Zero implementation – –
13 Priority bicycle and pedestrian corridors –
14 Connected bikeway network (Class II / IV) –
15 North–south bikeway corridors –
16 Southern area bikeway connectivity –
17 Lafayette St SR-4 & market access improvements – 18 Downtown Core bikeway build out – –
19 Continuous, accessible pedestrian network
20 Active transportation wayfinding
21 Station area access at DTC, Cabral, San Joaquin 22 Bus stop comfort & signage upgrades
23 Real time arrival info & enhanced shelters –
24 First/last mile network gap closures
25 Transit corridor access improvements
26 Bike on transit & secure bike parking –
27 Transit signal priority & curb enforcement –
28 Mobility hubs (DTC, Cabral, San Joaquin) – –
29 Mobility hub connections to Union Transfer Station – – 30 Shuttle, micromobility & rideshare integration – – 31 Express route connectivity evaluation – –
32 Rail station consolidation or San Joaquin Station relocation (study level) – – 33 SR-4 underpass lighting & multimodal upgrades –
34 SR-4 crossing feasibility & safety study –
35 Multimodal SR-4 crossings (Little Manila connections) – 36 Pedestrian oriented connector corridor –
37 Rail/Stockton Diamond area buffering & coordination – EXHIBIT 1
1118
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 57 OF 68
Table 6. Alternative Strategies
# STRATEGY (CONDENSED DESCRIPTION) ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3
38 Buffer & transition design standards near rail – 39 Union Street walkable corridor – –
40 East of Diamond infill & reuse –
41 Travel Smart & TDM programs
42 Demonstration projects, open streets, slow streets – 43 Delivery zones & off hour freight pilots
44 Freight integrated curb & street design –
45 Downtown activation (events, pop ups)
46 Inventory of vacant/underutilized spaces
47 Corridor/storefront revitalization
48 White boxing ground floor spaces
49 Zoning updates & streamlined permitting
50 Corridor types/subareas framework
51 Infill & densification opportunity sites
52 Mixed use & housing development strategy
53 Development incentive programs
54 Historic preservation & adaptive reuse –
55 Vacant/abandoned building marketing
56 Commercial rehabilitation program –
57 Environmental cleanup & remediation funding –
58 Downtown internet connectivity programs
59 Healthy food access incentives
60 Parking optimization & reduced minimums –
61 Mormon Slough transformation plan –
62 Unhoused coordination along Mormon Slough –
63 Industrial preservation & land use transitions – – 64 Development Code buffering requirements – –
EXHIBIT 1
1119
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 58 OF 68
Selection Rationale
Performance Relative to Goals
Alternative 3 best meets the Plan goals and objectives
by delivering the most comprehensive and integrated
set of transportation and land use improvements across
Downtown Stockton. As the most transformative option,
Alternative 3 advances a complete build out of the
multimodal network and supporting land use strategies,
resulting in the strongest overall alignment with the Project’s highest weighted goals: Safety, Mobility, and Improved
Land Use.
Under the Safety goal, Alternative 3 provides the greatest potential to reduce collision rates, injuries, and fatalities for all modes of travel. The Alternative emphasizes systemic safety improvements, including a focus on key highinjury crash corridors and at high injury intersections. By prioritizing high quality, protected bicycle and pedestrian facilities, improving transit stop environments, and
applying Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
principles, Alternative 3 also enhances user comfort and the perception of personal safety for residents and visitors throughout Downtown Stockton.
Alternative 3 most effectively advances the Mobility goal by supporting active transportation and transit modes that offer alternatives to single occupancy vehicle travel. Completion of the planned bicycle and pedestrian networks, combined with improved transit priority treatments and enhanced
first and last mile connections, creates a more reliable, convenient, and efficient multimodal transportation system.
These investments increase non auto mode share, reduce
vehicle miles traveled, and improve travel time reliability for people moving within, to, and through Downtown,
particularly for daily trips and transit access. From an Economic Vitality and Social Equity perspective, Alternative 3 offers the broadest and most inclusive benefits. Improved pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access to commercial
corridors and business districts supports local businesses and encourages reinvestment in underutilized parcels.
Alternative 3 also best fulfills the Improved Land Use
goal by aligning transportation investments with long
term development and livability objectives. Alternative 3 supports infill residential development at a range of densities, transit oriented development near major stations, and joint development opportunities that more efficiently use land and infrastructure. Complementary strategies
such as parking optimization and improved access to
services, healthcare, and healthy food further enhance
Downtown livability and reinforce the connection between transportation improvements and land use outcomes.
Alternative 3 also most strongly advances the Air Quality, Health, and Sustainability goal. By reducing reliance on automobile travel and encouraging walking, bicycling,
and transit use, through both transportation and land
use development changes, Alternative 3 will most likely contribute to reductions in transportation related greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. An increase in the
number of destinations and level of comfort while traveling in Downtown will also promote physical activity, supporting improved public health outcomes.
Benefit-Cost and Economic Analysis
The BCA and Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) support
adoption of Alternative 3 as the preferred long‑term
alternative for the Move Downtown Project. Alternative 3 most directly addresses Downtown Stockton’s structural
constraints, produces the most durable and system‑wide
benefits, and best aligns transportation investment with long‑term socioeconomic, environmental, and land‑use
objectives.
At the same time, the additive structure of the alternatives supports a phased implementation strategy. Foundational and corridor‑scale investments can be pursued as near‑
and medium‑term actions while remaining fully consistent with the long‑term vision embodied in Alternative 3. This approach balances affordability and feasibility while
maintaining a clear trajectory toward transformative
change.
EXHIBIT 1
1120
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 59 OF 68
ACTION AND PHASING PLAN
Recommended Projects
Through the development of the three Plan alternatives and subsequent prioritization of transportation and land use strategies, a set of implementable projects was identified to translate the planning vision into action. For the complete prioritization methodology see Appendix K: Project
Prioritization Methodology.
The project list reflects a synthesis of the alternative concepts and the strategies that were most effective at addressing the needs identified through the existing conditions analysis and community engagement. Each project is defined by a
specific corridor, station area, or focus area within the study area and bundles complementary transportation and land
use strategies into coordinated, deliverable investments.
The projects are identified for short-term, mid-term, or longterm implementation, as defined below. • Short Term (0-5 years) = High ranking, and/or readily implementable
• Medium Term (5-10 years) = High to medium ranking
but coordination or funding dependent
• Long Term (10+ years) = Low ranking, or high impact
but may feature significant multi agency coordination or engineering complexities
The complete list of projects is provided in Table 6 and detailed in Appendix L: Project List.
Table 7. Recommended Projects
PROJECT NAME PROJECT
RANKING
IMPLEMENTATION
PRIORITY RATIONALE
SR-4 Crossings 1 Medium Term Requires coordination with Caltrans, however, improvements can be phased.
El Dorado Street
Corridor 2 Short Term
Top ranked project. Recently completed improvements establish momentum; additional placemaking and safety elements can be implemented in phased approach. Coordination with Caltrans may be required for improvements at SR-4.
Airport Way Corridor 3 Short Term Very high score and corridor improvements can be phased; not inherently more complex than other short term corridors.
Weber Avenue
Corridor 3 Short Term Corridor improvements currently in design; strong readiness for near term construction.
Downtown Transit
Center (DTC) Access 5 Short Term Access improvements require coordination with transit partners.
Mobility Hub
Implementation Study 6 Short Term High ranking non-capital project with likely lower cost compared to other projects California Street
Corridor 7 Short Term
Recent Class IV bikeway improvements are complete; remaining scope focuses on pedestrian and transit enhancements with high safety benefits and strong readiness.
Cabral Station Access 7 Medium Term Station access improvements require coordination with rail partners.
Center Street Corridor 9 Short Term
Core downtown corridor with recent bikeway improvements; remaining enhancements are lower complexity and can be phased quickly.
San Joaquin Street
Corridor 10 Short Term Upper medium score with high anticipated benefits to San Joaquin Street Station.
Oak Street Corridor 11 Short Term Modest scope and strong feasibility.
Lafayette Street
Corridor 12 Medium Term Higher ranking project, however, potential right of way and coordination constraints.
EXHIBIT 1
1121
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 60 OF 68
Table 7. Recommended Projects
PROJECT NAME PROJECT
RANKING
IMPLEMENTATION
PRIORITY RATIONALE
Miner Avenue
Corridor 12 Short Term Medium ranked and has momentum from recently completed enhancements.
Mormon Slough
Project 14 Long Term High-medium ranked project, however, requires significant coordination, environmental and equity considerations.
Hazelton Avenue
Corridor 15 Short Term Bikeway improvements were recently completed; remaining enhancements are incremental and feasible in the near term.
Aurora Street Corridor 16 Medium Term Manageable scope and improvements can be implemented incrementally, however, low ranking.
Main Street Corridor 16 Medium Term Low ranked project with medium level implementation complexity.
Market Street Corridor 16 Medium Term Low ranked project with medium level implementation complexity.
Stanislaus Street
Corridor 19 Medium Term Lower ranked project with medium implementation complexity.
Union Street/
Stockton Diamond
District
19 Long Term
Rail adjacent, multi jurisdictional area with safety, land use, and buffering challenges. Requires significant coordination with rail partners and industrial businesses.
Rail Station
Consolidation Study 21 Long Term Low ranking non-capital project with long-term focus Downtown
Revitalization Program 22 Short Term Programmatic activation strategies that can begin immediately and scale over time.
Downtown Historic
Preservation &
Rehabilitation
23 Medium Term Requires property specific coordination, funding assembly, and phased implementation.
Fremont Street
Corridor 24 Medium Term Lowest ranked project, however, implementation of Class III bike route is easily implementable.
Supplemental Bikeway
Network 25 Short Term Low complexity and high connectivity benefits.
Transportation
Demand Management
(TDM) Program
26 Short Term Policy and program based strategies with minimal capital cost and quick deployment potential.
EXHIBIT 1
1122
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 61 OF 68
Financial Strategy
Cost Estimates
Preliminary cost estimates were developed for each recommended capital project, as shown in Table 7. The estimates reflect full project delivery costs, including environmental approval, design, and construction, and include a 25 percent contingency. Detailed cost estimates can be found in Appendix M: Preliminary Cost Estimates.
Table 8. Project Preliminary Cost Estimates
PROJECT NAME LENGTH TOTAL $ (TODAY)
Airport Way Corridor Project 0.9 $4,056,250
Aurora Street Corridor Project 0.9 $4,056,250
California Street Corridor Project 0.4 $1,808,750
Center Street Corridor Project 0.9 $4,056,250
El Dorado Street Corridor Project 0.9 $4,056,250
Fremont Street Corridor Project 0.9 $4,050,000
Hazelton Avenue Corridor Project 0.9 $8,682,500
Lafayette Street Corridor Project 1.0 $4,508,750
Main Street Corridor Project 0.8 $3,608,750
Market Street Corridor Project 1.0 $4,508,750
Miner Street Corridor Project 1.0 $4,508,750
Oak Street Corridor Project 1.0 $4,508,750
San Joaquin Street Corridor Project 0.4 $1,808,750
Stanislaus Street Corridor Project 0.7 $3,158,750
Weber Avenue Corridor Project 1.0 $4,502,500
Cabral Station Access Project N/A $3,860,000
DTC Access Project N/A $3,860,000
SR-4 Crossings Project N/A $3,137,5001
Supplemental Bikeway Network Project N/A $1,930,0002
Union Street/Stockton Diamond District Project N/A $5,145,000 1 Total cost per intersection improvement
2 Cost assumes $300,000 per bikeway connection
EXHIBIT 1
1123
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 62 OF 68
Funding Sources and Programs
Competitive grant funding can provide a large portion of project costs. A funding strategy has been developed to ensure that the City and partner agencies are aware of what Federal, State, and Regional grant funding opportunities exist and which projects are best aligned with each program. The tables below summarize potential funding opportunities, including discretionary grants and local funding sources, that may support implementation of projects recommended in this Plan. Note, all of the following transportation and land use funding opportunities are for information only and do not imply project eligibility, funding apportionment, or governing body approval. Appendix N: Financial Strategy includes a comprehensive funding matrix that ranks each project as low, medium, or high based on its alignment with applicable funding programs.
In addition to transportation-related funding, implementation of the Plan will also rely on land use and development– oriented funding programs that support the preferred alternative strategies. The following table summarizes potential land use and development funding opportunities that may complement transportation investments and help advance the Plan’s goals and objectives.
Table 9. Potential Transportation Focused Funding Opportunities
AGENCY LEVEL AGENCY FUNDING PROGRAM
Federal
U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT)
• Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) • Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant Program (MPDG) • Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP)
• Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program (ATIIP) U.S. Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA)
• Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program (CRISI)
• Federal–State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program (FSP)
U.S. Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) • All Stations Accessibility Program (ASAP)
State California Transportation
Commission (CTC)
• Senate Bill 1 Programs
• Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP)
• Local Partnership Program (LPP)
• Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP)
• Active Transportation Program (ATP)
Regional
San Joaquin Council of
Governments (SJCOG)
• Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG)
• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program
• Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funds
• Measure K
California Transportation
Commission (CTC)/
Caltrans District Coordination
• State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
EXHIBIT 1
1124
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 63 OF 68
Table 10. Potential Land Use and Development Focused Funding Opportunities
AGENCY LEVEL AGENCY FUNDING PROGRAM
Federal
U.S. Department of Housing • Community Development Block Grant • HOME Investment Partnerships Program
U.S. Economic Development
Administration
• Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program (CRISI)
• Federal–State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program (FSP)
State
Department of Toxic Substances
Control
• Cleanup in Vulnerable Communities Initiative (Equitable Community Revitalization Grant; Technical Assistance Grants;)
California Strategic Growth Council • Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHCS) • Transformative Climate Communities (TCC)
Housing and Community
Development
• Permanent Local Housing Allocation
• Infill Infrastructure Grant Program
Office of Historic Preservation • Historic Tax Credit; Certified Local Government Program Local
City of Stockton
• Public Facility Fees
• City-Owned Surplus Land
• Economic Development Department Incentives3
San Joaquin Regional Housing
Fund
• Established in 2024 to support the construction, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable housing for low-income households throughout San Joaquin County
Downtown Stockton Property Based
Business Improvement District (PBID)
• Hospitality, Maintenance, and Marketing Support programs; Placemaking projects; Downtown Stockton Enterprise Loan Fund Tax Increment Financing and
Assessment Districts (Special District
Formation)
• Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District (EIFD)
• Community Facilities District (CFD)
• Community Revitalization and Investment Authority (CRIA) In addition to securing discretionary grants and local
funding, cost reduction strategies can be leveraged to
bridge gaps in financing. Cost reduction strategies may include the Stockton Economic Stimulus Plan (SESP), which can provide a reduction in certain Public Facility Fees (PFF)4.
Agency Roles
Successful implementation of the Move Downtown projects will require coordinated leadership across multiple local, regional, and State agencies, each bringing distinct
statutory authority, funding responsibilities, and operational expertise. The following roles outline how partner agencies are expected to collaborate during project development, funding, and delivery.
City of Stockton (Lead Implementing Agency)
The City will serve as the primary lead agency for
implementation of projects. As the owner and operator
of the majority of local streets and public spaces within the Plan Area, the City will be responsible for advancing planning, design, environmental clearance, community
engagement, and construction for City led projects.
Key responsibilities include:
• Translating plan recommendations into capital
improvement projects, programs, and policies
• Prioritizing projects through the City’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) and budgeting processes
• Leading grant applications and serving as sponsor for State and Federal funding opportunities
• Coordinating interdepartmentally across planning,
public works, economic development, and housing
functions
• Engaging property owners, developers, and community
stakeholders to support project delivery
The City will also play a central role in aligning land use decisions and development review with the multimodal and placemaking objectives established in the Plan.
3 Broken Windows Grants, Stocked Full of Produce Grants, Façade Improvement Forgivable Loan Programs, Commercial Lien Forgiveness Incentive Program; Office and Industrial Sales Tax Incentive Program; Non-Residential Fee Deferral Program 4 As of the City’s August 26, 2025 City Council Meeting, the SESP program will be amended. All new (future) projects receiving gradually reduced SESP waivers, reduced in 6-month increments, over the next 18 months with a sunset of five years.
EXHIBIT 1
1125
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 64 OF 68
Regional Transit District (RTD)
RTD will serve as the primary transit coordination partner for projects that affect transit service, passenger access, and transit-supportive infrastructure. RTD’s role focuses on service planning, operational coordination, and
ensuring alignment between transit operations and capital improvements led by the appropriate implementing
agencies. RTD’s responsibilities include:
• Coordinating on station access, first/last-mile, and
passenger amenity improvements led by partner agencies
• Coordinating transit service planning, operational
strategies, and service changes in response to capital
investments
• Partnering on funding applications for transit-focused grants, as appropriate
• Supporting planning and coordination efforts for
mobility hubs and multimodal transfer facilities
RTD coordination is particularly critical for projects at the DTC, Cabral Station, and San Joaquin Station, where
transit operations and supporting infrastructure are closely interconnected and require ongoing interagency coordination.
San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG)
SJCOG, as the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), will play a key role in programming, funding, and regional coordination. SJCOG responsibilities include:
• Plan and implement the Regional Transportation Plan
and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
• Programming projects into the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), TIP, and STIP
• Administering and allocating regional funding programs (e.g., SB 1, CMAQ, STBG)
• Ensuring consistency with regional policies related to equity, climate, and air quality
• Supporting interjurisdictional coordination for projects with regional significance
• Providing technical assistance and data support for
grant and programming decisions
SJCOG’s involvement ensures that Move Downtown
projects remain competitive within regional and State
funding frameworks.
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC)
SJRRC will serve as a key partner agency for projects that interact with intercity passenger rail, station facilities, and rail corridors, particularly those affecting the Gold Runner intercity rail service and infrastructure. SJRRC’s role may include:
• Coordinating on rail station access and station area
improvements
• Participating in planning and feasibility studies related to station consolidation or rail operations
• Partnering on rail related funding programs
• Ensuring that proposed improvements are compatible
with rail safety, operations, and long term service plans Caltrans
Caltrans will be a critical partner for projects that affect State highways, State owned facilities, or State right of way, including SR-4 and other State routes within or adjacent to the Project Area. Caltrans’ responsibilities include:
• Reviewing and approving projects affecting State
facilities or access points
• Partnering on projects that improve safety, multimodal access, or barrier crossings
• Serving as a funding partner or co sponsor for eligible State and Federal programs
• Coordinating environmental review, design standards,
and construction requirements
Projects involving SR-4 crossings or State corridors will require early and ongoing coordination with Caltrans to ensure feasibility and timely delivery.
Additional Supporting Partners
Depending on project scope, additional partners may include:
• San Joaquin County (county roads, services, and coordination) • Housing and community development agencies for
projects tied to revitalization or redevelopment
• Downtown Stockton Community Improvement District
(CID) and business organizations for activation,
maintenance, and programming
• Private developers and property owners for projects that rely on joint development or private investment
• Community based organizations to support equitable
engagement and implementation
Implementation Coordination
The City will function as the central convener, using the Move Downtown Plan as a shared framework to:
• Coordinate project sequencing and phasing
• Align funding strategies across agencies
• Track progress toward Plan goals over time
This collaborative structure allows projects to be
implemented incrementally while maintaining consistency with the long term vision established by the Plan.
EXHIBIT 1
1126
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 65 OF 68
PLAN ADOPTION AND NEXT STEPS
Plan Gaps
The Plan is intended to serve as a high level multimodal transportation and land use network framework for
Downtown Stockton. While the Plan identifies priority
strategies and implementation actions to advance mobility, safety, equity, and land use integration, the development process and community and stakeholder engagement also
revealed several issues that extend beyond the scope of this effort and will require further analysis as implementation progresses. These gaps highlight the need for additional, more detailed studies, coordination, and policy actions to fully realize the Plan’s long term vision.
Key gaps identified through this planning effort include complex issues related to homelessness and conditions
along Mormon Slough, which present interconnected
equity, environmental, and public health challenges that will require dedicated planning, environmental assessment, and interagency collaboration. Additional constraints associated with specific project locations, such as right of way
limitations, physical barriers, and potential environmental contamination or utility capacity constraints, may affect the feasibility, design, and timing of future improvements and will need to be evaluated during project development, including through environmental review and, where
applicable, site remediation efforts.
Stakeholders also identified regional considerations
outside the Plan’s scope, including potential rail station consolidation initiatives, transit service adjustments, and the need for detailed transit service evaluations to better align routes and service levels with future land use patterns.
Finally, certain regional transit conditions and system level issues raised through engagement could not be fully addressed within the Plan’s analysis and should be explored through future corridor level, operational, or regional planning efforts. Addressing these gaps through subsequent studies and implementation phase evaluations will be
critical to advancing the Plan and should be considered as part of future planning, funding, environmental review, and implementation activities.
Plan Integration
Relationship to City Policies
and Capital Programs
The Plan is intended to complement and build upon
existing City policies, adopted plans, and active capital programs to ensure consistency across Downtown Stockton planning and investment efforts. Rather than functioning as a standalone document, the Plan establishes a unifying multimodal and land use framework that can guide and
inform the implementation of current projects while shaping future initiatives. By aligning recommended strategies
with ongoing efforts, the Plan supports coordinated
decision making and maximizes the effectiveness of public investments.
Several projects currently underway or in development are expected to advance elements of the Move Downtown
vision. These include the Downtown Stockton Master
Plan, the City’s Vision Zero Plan, planned improvements along Weber Avenue, and the Stockton Diamond Grade
Separation Project. The Plan is designed to reinforce
these efforts by identifying complementary multimodal
connections, land use strategies, and corridor priorities that enhance their outcomes and ensure consistency with broader Downtown goals. As these projects progress, the Plan can be used as a reference to align design decisions, phasing, and implementation approaches with the City’s
long term multimodal and land use objectives.
Looking ahead, the Plan provides a policy consistent
foundation for future capital programming, grant applications, and interagency coordination. By establishing shared priorities and a common vision, the Plan supports alignment between City initiatives, regional transportation investments, and future development activity, helping ensure that Downtown’s transportation and land use investments move forward in a coordinated and mutually reinforcing manner.
Use of the Plan for Grants
and Project Development
The Plan is designed to directly support grant applications and advance projects from concept to implementation.
By clearly identifying priority corridors, multimodal
safety needs, and equity focused strategies, the Plan
provides ready made justification for funding programs
such as the California Active Transportation Program
(ATP) and the Federal Safe Streets and Roads for All
EXHIBIT 1
1127
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 66 OF 68
(SS4A) program. The Plan documents safety challenges,
disadvantaged community priorities, and community
support, key requirements for competitive safety and active transportation grants.
Transit access, station area improvements, and first and last mile strategies identified in the Plan can be advanced to support applications to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) and applicable SB 1 programs
by demonstrating how proposed projects improve access,
increase ridership, and reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. The Plan’s implementation
framework, performance measures, and phasing
strategy also support SB 1 accountability and readiness expectations.
Beyond grant pursuits, the Plan provides City staff and partner agencies with a clear framework to advance project development. The Plan can be used to scope project level studies, initiate environmental review and preliminary
engineering, coordinate investments across departments
and agencies, and ensure individual projects align with downtown-wide goals. As projects are implemented, the
Plan strengthens future funding applications by documenting progress, outcomes, and continued readiness for investment.
Plan Monitoring
The City and regional partners will shift from plan
development to implementation and evaluation. Through
regular monitoring and well-defined measures, the City and partners can track progress toward the Plan’s vision and goals, and can take corrective action, if needed.
The City will implement policies, programs, and
infrastructure projects that promote the six Move Downtown goals – safety, mobility, economic vitality, social equity, improved land use, air quality, health, and sustainability throughout the Study Area. Since the City does not own or maintain all multimodal transportation infrastructure, the City cannot implement projects on its own.
This section identifies recommendations for the City
and partners to support plan evaluation. These
recommendations include a framework to measure
plan progress, including a timeline for implementation, performance metrics to measure progress, and partners
who can lead the evaluation and monitoring.
Based on the goals, existing conditions, and opportunities identified in the Plan, this section identifies performance evaluation categories and metrics that the City and its multimodal transportation and land use partners can
monitor and evaluate to support the Plan’s implementation.
A timeline for each action is assigned. Short-term actions can be implemented within 0-5 years, and long-term
actions will be implemented within 5-15 years.
Performance Tracking Considerations
Performance tracking provides actions and measures of
success to evaluate the implementation and success of
multimodal and land use programs identified in the Plan.
These actions target non-infrastructure activities throughout the study area. Table 10 outlines the actions, measure(s) of success, timeline, and lead and supporting parties.
Future Plan Updates
The Move Downtown Plan is intended to be a flexible,
living document that can evolve over time as conditions, priorities, and funding opportunities change. While the Plan establishes a long term multimodal transportation and land use framework for Downtown Stockton, future updates may be warranted to reflect progress on implementation, emerging data, new community priorities, or changes
to City, regional, or State policy. Performance tracking results, project delivery outcomes, and lessons learned during implementation should inform future refinements to strategies, phasing, and prioritization.
Future plan updates may also be needed to incorporate
additional analysis completed after adoption of the Plan, such as project level environmental review, utility and infrastructure assessments, or corridor specific studies. As new development occurs, transit services evolve, or major capital projects are delivered, the Plan can be updated to ensure continued alignment with Downtown conditions and implementation realities. Periodic updates will help ensure the Plan remains relevant, responsive, and effective in guiding investment and decision making over time.
EXHIBIT 1
1128
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 67 OF 68
Table 11. Performance Measures
GOAL ACTION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE TIMELINE LEAD AGENCY SUPPORTING AGENCIESi Agency
• Review crash history: Collect fatal and severe (KSI) crashes overall for multimodal users
• High injury network progress: Number of corridors and intersections treated • Conduct before and after analysis of implemented projects: Operating speeds on priority corridors (e.g., 85th percentile speed)
• Conduct before and after analysis of implemented projects: Driver yielding compliance at key crossings
Short to
long-term City of Stockton
• San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission
• San Joaquin Council of Governments
• San Joaquin Regional Transit District
• Caltrans District 10
Mobility
• Infrastructure enhancements: Miles of bikeway delivered by facility type (e.g., low-stress/comfort level)
• Network closure: Linear feet of sidewalk gaps closed and number of ADA curb ramps upgraded
• Station access: Percentage of residents and jobs within ½-mile of stations via safe connections (GIS)
• Transit service enhancements: Transit reliability metrics where available (e.g., on-time performance, headways)
Short to
long-term City of Stockton
• San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission
• San Joaquin Council of Governments
• San Joaquin Regional Transit District
Economic
Vitality
• Downtown development activity in priority areas
(e.g., units, commercial square feet, permits)
• Number of vacant lot activation events or uses
• Streetscape and public realm improvements delivered
(e.g., linear feet or number of blocks)
• Business access and curb management changes implemented (where applicable)
Short to
long-term City of Stockton
• Downtown PBID
• Chamber of commerce
• Development partners
Social Equity
• Share of projects and investment benefiting disadvantaged and priority areas • Safety outcomes in priority areas (KSI)
• Access to low-cost mobility options near key destinations (e.g., proxy measures such as station access, ADA upgrades)
• Conduct community perception surveys of safety and comfort Long-term City of Stockton
• San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission
• San Joaquin Council of Governments
• San Joaquin Regional Transit District
• San Joaquin County Public Health
EXHIBIT 1
1129
MOVE DOWNTOWN
SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 68 OF 68
Table 11. Performance Measures
GOAL ACTION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURE TIMELINE LEAD AGENCY SUPPORTING AGENCIESi Improved Land
Use
• Infill and transit -oriented development readiness indicators: Number of sites advanced and zoning consistency checkpoints
• Utility capacity and upgrade needs tracked for priority development corridors • Parking management implementation: utilization and occupancy snapshots, shared parking agreements
Long-term City of Stockton • San Joaquin Council of Governments • Development partners
Air Quality,
Health, and
Sustainability
• Evaluate mode shift: bike/ped counts on priority corridors; transit ridership trends where available)
• VMT/GHG proxy reporting for grant-funded projects (when required) • Tree canopy/shade/heat mitigation elements delivered
Long-term City of Stockton
• San Joaquin Council of Governments
• San Joaquin Regional Transit District
• San Joaquin County Public Health
• Valley Air District
i The identified supporting agencies are for illustrative purposes and additional supporting agencies may be identified as implementation takes place.
EXHIBIT 1
1130
Prepared for
Prepared by
EXHIBIT 1
1131
Move Downtown
City Council Meeting
June 23, 2026
Item 10.4
1132
Project Team
1133
➢ Funded by the Caltrans
Sustainable Transportation
Planning (STP) Grant Program
➢ Create a unified land use and
transportation vision
➢ Project Area is defined by:
• Oak Street to the north
• Center Street to the west
• Amtrak San Joaquin’s rail
corridor to the south
• Airport Way to the east
Project Background & Overview
1134
Project Process
➢ Review of Existing Conditions
➢ Community Engagement
• Multidisciplinary Project SWG
• 3-Phase Public Outreach Campaign
➢ Equity & Displacement Analysis
➢ Identification of Recommended Strategies
• Alternatives Analysis
• Benefit Cost Analysis
➢ Action & Phasing Plan
Miner Avenue and Aurora Street
1135
Overall Engagement Highlights
Results
➢ 20 community events, engaging 1,200
participants and 24 organizations,
collecting over 400 feedback
responses
➢ Of the 1,200 participants, 27% walk in
the Project Area and 15% use transit
Takeaways
➢ The most widely supported land use strategies are:
• Promoting infill development on vacant or
underutilized sites
• Activating streets and ground floors of buildings
➢ 85% of community feedback supports mobility hub
features at all three Downtown transit stations
➢ Respondents support repurposing Weber Avenue (71%)
and Hazelton Avenue (66%)
➢ Improvements to El Dorado Street, Weber Avenue,
and Center Street are community priorities
Grand View Village Engagement
1136
Alternatives Overview
➢ Builds on Toolbox exercise and incorporates geospatial patterns for application of strategies
➢ Organized into 3 groups:
1) Foundation Plan
• More easily delivered in the near-term (low hanging fruit) • Targeted infrastructure improvements with focused infill development
2) Focused Plan
• More holistic upgrades with mixed-use nodes and density along key corridors
3) Full Vision Plan
• Long-term transformative and visionary approach
• More aggressive roadway reconfigurations and developments ➢ Based on transportation modes and land use focus areas Golden Villas Farmers Market
1137
Alternative 1:
Foundation Plan
Transportation
• Enhance station access
• Spot treatment improvements
along multimodal priority corridors
• Enhance priority safety
intersections
Land Use
• Encourage mixed-use development
• Promote infill development on
vacant lands
• Activate street frontage
• Enhance building facades
• Support fresh food vendors
Alternative 2:
Focused Plan
Land Use
• Enhance connections across
Highway 4
• Encourage higher density
development
• Preserve historic resources
• Develop vacant or underutilized
sites
• + ALL ALTERNATIVE 1 STRATEGIES
Transportation
• Enhance station access
• Enhance transit priority corridors
• Enhance Bike & Ped priority
corridors
• Enhance priority safety corridors
• + ALL ALTERNATIVE 1 STRATEGIES
Alternative 3:
Full Vision Plan
Transportation
• Implement mobility hubs
• Buildout of Bike & Ped networks
• Systemic safety enhancements
• Potential travel lane reductions
along Weber Ave and Hazelton Ave
• + ALL ALTERNATIVE 1 AND 2
STRATEGIES
Land Use
• Transform natural space into a
public amenity
• Implement appropriate barriers for
the future Diamond Grade
Separation project
• Identify small-scale manufacturing
to transition zones
• Implement additional connectivity
strategies across Highway 4
• + ALL ALTERNATIVE 1 AND 2
STRATEGIES
1138
Benefit Cost Analysis
➢ Plan-level comparison of how the draft
alternatives differ in:
• Cost
• Scale
• Expected outcomes
➢ Analyzes alternative differences in:
• System performance
• Benefit durability
• Long-term economic influence
➢ The additive structure of the
alternatives supports a phased
implementation strategy
1139
Process
➢ The Project goals and weighting operated
as prioritization criteria
➢ Other factors were considered, such as
• Cost
• Complexity
• Coordination Needs
• Right-of-Way Needs
• Environmental Review
➢ Projects are defined by specific
corridors, station areas, or focus areas
➢ Complemented with cost estimates,
funding strategy, and a phasing plan
# Goal Weighting
1 Safety 20%
2 Mobility 20%
3 Economic Vitality 15%
4 Social Equity 15%
5 Improved Land Use 20%
6 Air Quality, Health, & Sustainability 10%
Total 100%
1140
Top 5 Ranked Projects
Ranking Project Implementation
Priority Rationale
1 SR-4 Crossings Medium Term Requires coordination with Caltrans, however, improvements can be phased.
2 El Dorado Street
Corridor Short Term
Recently completed improvements establish
momentum; additional placemaking and safety
elements can be implemented in phased approach.
Coordination with Caltrans may be required for
improvements at SR-4.
3 Airport Way Corridor Short Term
Very high score and corridor improvements can be
phased; not inherently more complex than other
short-term corridors.
4 Weber Avenue
Corridor Short Term Corridor improvements currently in design; strong readiness for near term construction. 5 Downtown Transit
Center (DTC) Access Short Term Access improvements require coordination with transit partners. 1141
Next Steps
30-day Public Review of Draft Report (March 27 to
May 1)
City Council Adoption (June 23)
Beyond this Plan: Funding Pursuits to Advance
Vision
11 1142
THANK YOU!
1143
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 26-0717, Version: 1
RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE LOCAL EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION DUE TO THE GOLDEN
MUSSEL (LIMNOPERNA FORTUNEI) INFESTATION
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council adopt a resolution to:
1. Ratify the Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency due to the Golden Mussel (Limnoperna Fortunei) infestation from June 19th, 2026;
2. Suspend the monetary limit on City Manager contracting and purchasing authority set out in Stockton Municipal Code section 3.68.040 in order to the allow the City Manager the ability to effectively and efficiently continue the response to public health and safety concerns and City operations during the pendency of this local emergency;
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute contracts and make purchases related to the public health and safety threat identified in the Proclamation, utilizing the City’s Emergency Procurement Policy;
4. Authorize the City Manager to utilize General Fund Contingency and American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Contingency as needed to cover emergency response expenses related to the Proclamation; and,
5. Authorize the City Manager to take all necessary and appropriate actions to carry out the purpose and intent of this resolution.
Summary
Acting as the City's Director of Emergency Services, the City Manager issued a Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency on June 19th, 2026, in response to the detection of the invasive golden mussel (Limnoperna fortunei) in Stockton's Delta waters, which poses an immediate threat to municipal water conveyance, operational equipment, and critical flood infrastructure.
Under Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) 2.82, such a proclamation must be ratified by the City Council within seven (7) days of issuance, or the proclamation shall have no further force or effect. With the severity and complexity of this situation, the City has a need to continue the Emergency Proclamation beyond seven (7) days (Exhibit 1 to the Resolution).
City of Stockton Page 1 of 4 Printed on 6/19/2026
powered by Legistar™1144
File #: 26-0717, Version: 1
DISCUSSION
Background
Under SMC 2.82, the purpose of the City’s Emergency Organization and Function is to provide for the preparation and carrying out of plans for the protection of persons and property within the City in the event of an emergency, as well as provide direction and coordination of the emergency functions of the City with all other public agencies, corporations, organizations, and affected private persons.
SMC states that the City Manager shall be the Director of Emergency Services.
An emergency is defined as the actual or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the City caused by such conditions as air pollution, […] epidemic, riot, earthquake or other conditions […] which conditions are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the City […].
Present Situation
The City of Stockton is currently facing an unprecedented biological threat to its critical water and flood infrastructure due to the rapid proliferation of the invasive golden mussel (Limnoperna fortunei).
In October 2024, the invasive golden mussel was first detected in North America within the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta near the Port of Stockton. It is believed to have been introduced via ballast water discharge from international commercial vessels.
In April 2025, the State of California put out the Golden Mussel Response Framework to provide recommendations to state and local policy makers, managers, and the public on how to respond to detections of golden mussel. The recommendations include statewide and local response recommendations with the goal of preventing further introductions and spread of golden mussel within the state, containing mussels within currently infested waters, and suppressing mussel populations within infested waters to minimize impacts to the environment, economy, infrastructure, and human health.
In September 2025, City staff detected the golden mussel at the City of Stockton Delta Intake Pump Station (IPS).
In November 2025, the City contracted a professional dive inspector, who inspected the Delta Intake Pump Station and confirmed the presence of golden mussels in the wet well and encrusted on the fish screens.
City staff is currently focused on mechanical removal of the mussel from the Intake Pump Station (IPS), clearing fish screens, wet well decontamination, and frequent monitoring using underwater drones and dive teams. Staff is also deploying the ReadyOp secure incident management platform for the Office of Emergency Services to coordinate the response.
The golden mussel possesses staggering reproductive capabilities (up to 1 million offspring per female annually). As stated above, dive inspections have confirmed the presence of Golden Mussel in the IPS wet well, fish screens, and oil containment booms. The golden mussel has the ability to City of Stockton Page 2 of 4 Printed on 6/19/2026
powered by Legistar™1145
File #: 26-0717, Version: 1
cluster and restrict the internal diameter of the City’s 54” Raw Water Main that travels nearly 14 miles from the Intake Pump Station to the Delta Water Treatment Plant, which could reduce the City’s capacity to provide water. Additionally, the infestation could threaten the operational integrity of the newly constructed $100 million Smith Canal Gate. The failure of that gate puts City residents' safety and property at risk.
Under SMC 2.82.070 if a local emergency is proclaimed and ratified by the City Council, the City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Services, is empowered to do the following:
A. To make and issue rules and regulations on matters reasonably related to the protection of life and property as affected by such emergency; provided, however, such rules and regulations must be confirmed at the earliest practicable time by the City Council.
B. To obtain vital supplies, equipment, and such other properties found lacking and needed for the protection of life and property and to bind the City for the fair value thereof and, if required immediately, to commandeer the same for public use.
C. To require emergency services of any City officer or employee, and in the event of the proclamation of a "state of emergency" by the Governor in the County in which this City is located or the existence of a "state of war emergency," to command the aid of as many citizens of this community as he or she deems necessary in the execution of his or her duties; such persons shall be entitled to all privileges, benefits, and immunities as are provided by State law for registered disaster service workers.
D. To requisition necessary personnel or material of any City department or agency.
E. To execute all of his or her ordinary power as City Manager, all of the special powers conferred upon him or her by this code or by resolution or emergency plan pursuant hereto adopted by the City Council, all powers conferred upon him or her by any statute, by any agreement approved by the City Council, and by any other lawful authority.
Also, under SMC 2.82.060 the City Manager can also request the Governor to proclaim a "state of emergency" when, in the opinion of the Director, the locally available resources are inadequate to cope with the emergency.
Moving forward with this emergency proclamation allows the City Manager to take actions quickly that will provide several critical benefits to the City:
1. Prevent Catastrophic Failure: Allows immediate intervention before IPS pumps overheat or become permanently inoperable.
2. Suspend Procurement Bureaucracy: Grants City departments the statutory authority under the California Emergency Services Act to bypass time-consuming public bidding, allowing hardware and contractors to be secured immediately.
3. Activate CEQA Exemptions: Legally classify the remediation efforts as "Emergency Projects," bypassing lengthy environmental impact reports that would stall infrastructure defense.
City of Stockton Page 3 of 4 Printed on 6/19/2026
powered by Legistar™1146
File #: 26-0717, Version: 1
4. Unlock direct emergency funding streams, positioning the City to seek State (California Disaster Assistance Act) and Federal cost-recovery reimbursements.
This Proclamation, if ratified, shall remain in effect until it is terminated by the City Manager or the City Council.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Currently, funds for emergency expenditure are available through the Municipal Utilities Department Water Fund Account 6513-511-630006-600-000-00-65-000-000. However, under the Proclamation, the City Manager is authorized to utilize the General Fund Contingency and American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Contingency as needed for the emergency response expenses with a report of uses back to the City Council in the quarterly budget status reports. Additionally, the proposed resolution confirms the City Manager's authority to transfer General Fund Contingency funds to other budget units in the event of an unexpected emergency. Pursuant to SMC 2.82.110 any expenditures made in connection with emergency activities shall be deemed conclusively to be for the direct protection and benefit of the inhabitants and property of the City.
Staff will return to Council with specific budget appropriations as emergency contracts are executed and future mitigation systems are engineered.
By formally declaring a local emergency, the City unlocks direct emergency funding streams and becomes legally positioned to seek cost-recovery reimbursements for these specialized expenditures through the California Disaster Assistance Act (CDAA) and applicable Federal emergency relief programs.
City of Stockton Page 4 of 4 Printed on 6/19/2026
powered by Legistar™1147
Resolution No.
STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON PROCLAIMING
A LOCAL EMERGENCY REGARDING THE GOLDEN MUSSEL (LIMNOPERNA
FORTUNEI) INFESTATION
The California Emergency Services Act, Government Code sections 8550, et seq., authorizes the proclamation of a local emergency when conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the territorial limits of a city exist; and
Stockton Municipal Code section 2.82 empowers the City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Services, to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City is exposed to an actual or threatened existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the City and the City Council is not in session; and
In October 2024, the invasive golden mussel (Limnoperna fortunei) was detected in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta near the Port of Stockton; and The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is a vital resource to the City, supporting drinking water supply, agriculture, ecosystem health, recreation, and economic activity; and
In September 2025, City staff detected the golden mussel at the City’s Delta Intake Pump Station (IPS), a source of the City’s drinking water; and In November 2025, the City contracted a professional dive inspector, who inspected the IPS and confirmed the presence of golden mussels in the wet well and encrusted on the fish screens; and
The golden mussel has the ability to cluster and restrict the internal diameter of the City’s 54” Raw Water Main that travels nearly 14 miles from the IPS to the Delta Water Treatment Plant, which could reduce the City’s capacity to provide drinking water; and
Once established the golden mussel is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate, requiring costly, long-term management and control strategies; and Early detection, rapid response, public education, interagency coordination, and resource mobilization are critical to prevent establishment and mitigating impacts; and
1148
The rapid infestation of the golden mussel within Stockton’s Delta waters and IPS presents an immediate threat to the city's critical water and flood infrastructure, including the recently constructed $100 million Smith Canal Gate; and Because the infestation scales faster than standard administrative and procurement protocols allow, the local emergency declaration is necessary to bypass time-consuming bureaucratic procedures and secure the specialized services and equipment required to prevent catastrophic damage to municipal water conveyance systems; and
On June 19, 2026, the City of Stockton Director of Emergency Services proclaimed the existence of a local emergency; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON, AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency issued by the Director of Emergency Services attached as Exhibit 1 to this Resolution and incorporated herein is hereby ratified.
2. The monetary limit on City Manager contracting and purchasing authority set out in Stockton Municipal Code section 3.68.040 is suspended in order to the allow the City Manager the ability to effectively and efficiently continue the response to public health and safety concerns and City operations during the pendency of this local emergency.
3. The City Manager or designee is authorized to utilize the General Fund Contingency and American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Contingency as needed for emergency response expenses related to this proclaimed emergency with a report of uses back to the City Council in the quarterly budget status reports.
4. The City Manager is authorized to execute contracts and make purchases related to the public health and safety threat identified in the Proclamation, utilizing the City’s Emergency Procurement Policy; and
5. The City Manager shall direct the coordination of services and staff of the emergency organization of the City, as well as direct the City’s cooperation in all dealings with public and private agencies dealing with the matters pertaining to this emergency.
6. The City Manager is authorized to follow recommendations from State, Federal, and Local authorities, including but not limited to, the San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Services, the California Office of Emergency Services, FEMA, and other such organizations.
1149
7. The City Manager is authorized to seek cost-recovery reimbursements for these specialized expenditures through the California Disaster Assistance Act (CDAA) and applicable Federal emergency relief programs.
8. The City Manager is authorized to request the Governor to proclaim a "state of emergency" when, in the City Manager’s opinion, the locally available resources are inadequate to cope with the emergency.
9. The proclaimed local emergency shall continue to exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Manager or the City Council.
10. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take whatever actions are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED .
ATTEST:
CHRISTINA FUGAZI
Mayor of the City of Stockton
KATHERINE ROLAND, CMC, CPMC
City Clerk of the City of Stockton
1150
EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF STOCKTON
PROCLAMATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY
The Stockton Municipal Code Section 2.82 empowers the City Manager, as Director of Emergency Services, to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency when the City is affected by conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the City and the Council is not in session.
The City Manager, acting as Director of Emergency Services, does hereby find that:
1. The invasive golden mussel (Limnoperna fortunei) has been detected within Stockton's Delta waters, creating an immediate and compounding threat to municipal water conveyance, operational equipment, and critical flood infrastructure;
2. The infestation could impact the operational integrity of the Smith Canal Gate, which provides essential flood protection for the central Stockton area, and threatens the capacity of the City of Stockton's Delta Intake Pump Station to provide an adequate water supply;
3. The biofouling hazard scales at a pace, up to one million offspring annually per female, that standard administrative protocols cannot match, necessitating the immediate activation of emergency powers to secure specialized consulting and remediation equipment; and
4. The City Council of the City of Stockton is not in session and cannot immediately be called into session.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED AND ORDERED that during the existence of said local emergency, the powers, functions, and duties of the emergency organization of this City shall be prescribed by state law, ordinances, and resolutions of this City, and by the City of Stockton Emergency Plan.
DATE: JUNE 19, 2026
CITY MANAGER
OR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
ATTEST:
KATHERINE ROLAND
CITY CLERK
1151
Local Emergency Declaration
Due to the Golden Mussel
(Limnoperna Fortunei) Infestation
City Council Meeting
June 23, 2026
Agenda Item 10.5
1152
Golden Mussels
Source: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
1153
Golden Mussels (Detection)
▪ First detected at the Port of Stockton (October 2024) ▪ Detected at City of Stockton Intake Pump Station (September 2025) ▪ Dive Inspection Confirmed Golden Mussels (November 2025) ▪ Found in Wet Well, Fish Screens, and attached to containment buoys
1154
Golden Mussels (Actions)
▪ Staff Observed Golden Mussels at Intake Pump Station
▪ City Contracted Dive Inspector
▪ Dive Inspector Confirmed GM
▪ Staff Developed a Work Plan to Clean IPS (Remove GM)
▪ City Hired a Firm to Clean/Repair Fish Screens and Clean Wet Well ▪ Staff is Developing Long-Term Plan
▪ Chemical Treatment, UV System, Increasing Onsite Maintenance and More Frequent Monitoring
1155
Golden Mussels (Financial Impact)
▪ Dive Inspections -$35k
▪ Underwater Drone - $5k
▪ Golden Mussel Removal and Fish Screen Repair - $209K
▪ Chemical Treatment System – TBD
▪ UV System – TBD
▪ Permits – TBD
▪ Engineering – TBD
▪ Environmental Clearance –TBD
▪ Staff Time – TBD
▪ This is just Intake Pump Station.
▪ Also Consider other City Facilities:
▪ Stormwater Discharge
▪ Treated Wastewater Effluent
1156
SJC Golden Mussel Ad Hoc Committee
Objectives & Composition
Protect:
• Agricultural irrigation and water
conveyance infrastructure
• Water systems and reclamation district
infrastructure
• Hydropower and pumping facilities
• Ecosystems vital to fisheries and
recreation
6 15 Stakeholder
Agencies/Organizations
Board of Supervisors
County Administrator’s Office
Delta Marine Yacht Center
California State Assembly
California State Senate
City of Stockton
KSN
Port of Stockton
Public Works
San Joaquin Area Flood Contral Area (SJAFCA)
San Joaquin Delta Neighborhood Watch
San Joaquin Farm Bureau
1157
Proclamation of Existence of Local Emergency
Acting as the City's Director of Emergency Services, the City Manager issued a Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency on June 19th, 2026, in response to the detection of the invasive golden mussel (Limnoperna fortunei) in Stockton's Delta waters, which poses an immediate threat to municipal water conveyance, operational equipment, and critical flood infrastructure.
1158
Emergency Declaration
Moving forward with this emergency declaration and associated project funding provides several critical benefits to the city:
1. Prevents Catastrophic Failure: Allows immediate intervention to maintain capacity of the City’s Water Supply.
2. Grants city departments the statutory authority under the California Emergency Services Act to bypass time-consuming public bidding, allowing hardware and contractors to be secured immediately.
3. Activates CEQA Exemptions: Legally classify the remediation efforts as "Emergency Projects," bypassing lengthy environmental impact reports that would stall infrastructure defense.
4. Unlocks direct emergency funding streams, positioning the City to seek State (California Disaster Assistance Act) and Federal costrecovery reimbursements. 1159
Recommendations
It is recommended that Council adopt a resolution to:
1. Ratify the Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency from June 19th, 2026;
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute contracts and make purchases related to public health and safety, utilizing the City’s Emergency Procurement Policy;
3. Authorize the City Manager to utilize General Fund
Contingency as needed to cover emergency response
expenses; and
4. Authorize the City Manager to take all necessary and appropriate actions to carry out the purpose and intent of this resolution. 1160
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 26-0683, Version: 1
RECEIVE PRESENTATION ON ROSENBERG’S RULES OF ORDER
RECOMMENDATION
This item is informational only. The City Council will receive a presentation on Rosenberg’s Rules of Order.
Summary
On December 9, 2025, the City Council directed staff to schedule a presentation on Rosenberg’s Rules of Order. In accordance with this direction, the City Attorney’s Office retained David G. Lim with Richards, Watson & Gershon to provide the presentation. Included for reference as Attachment A is a copy of Rosenberg’s Rules of Order.
Attachment A - Rosenberg’s Rules of Order
City of Stockton Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/19/2026
powered by Legistar™1161
Rosenberg’s Rules of Order
REVISED 2011
Simple Rules of Parliamentary Procedure for the 21st Century By Judge Dave Rosenberg
ATTACHMENT A
1162
ii
MISSION and CORE BELIEFS
To expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.
VISION
To be recognized and respected as the leading advocate for the common interests of California’s cities.
About the League of California Cities
Established in 1898, the League of California Cities is a member organization that represents California’s incorporated cities.
The League strives to protect the local authority and automony of city government and help California’s cities effectively serve their residents. In addition to advocating on cities’ behalf at the state capitol, the League provides its members with professional development programs and information resources, conducts education conferences and research, and publishes Western City magazine.
© 2011 League of California Cities. All rights reserved.
About the Author
Dave Rosenberg is a Superior Court Judge in Yolo County. He has served as presiding judge of his court, and as presiding judge of the Superior Court Appellate Division. He also has served as chair of the Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee (the committee composed of all 58 California presiding judges) and as an advisory member of the California Judicial Council. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Rosenberg was member of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, where he served two terms as chair. Rosenberg also served on the Davis City Council, including two terms as mayor. He has served on the senior staff of two governors, and worked for 19 years in private law practice. Rosenberg has served as a member and chair of numerous state, regional and local boards. Rosenberg chaired the California State Lottery Commission, the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, the Yolo County Economic Development Commission, and the Yolo County Criminal Justice Cabinet. For many years, he has taught classes on parliamentary procedure and has served as parliamentarian for large and small bodies.
ATTACHMENT A
1163
1 Table of Contents
About the Author............................................................................................................ii Introduction....................................................................................................................2 Establishing a Quorum...................................................................................................2 The Role of the Chair......................................................................................................2 The Basic Format for an Agenda Item Discussion........................................................2 Motions in General.........................................................................................................3 The Three Basic Motions................................................................................................3 Multiple Motions Before the Body.................................................................................4 To Debate or Not to Debate............................................................................................4 Majority and Super-Majority Votes ...............................................................................5 Counting Votes................................................................................................................5 The Motion to Reconsider..............................................................................................6 Courtesy and Decorum ..................................................................................................7 Special Notes About Public Input..................................................................................7
ATTACHMENT A
1164
2 Establishing a Quorum
The starting point for a meeting is the establishment of a quorum.
A quorum is defined as the minimum number of members of the body who must be present at a meeting for business to be legally transacted. The default rule is that a quorum is one more than half the body. For example, in a five-member body a quorum is three.
When the body has three members present, it can legally transact business. If the body has less than a quorum of members present, it cannot legally transact business. And even if the body has a quorum to begin the meeting, the body can lose the quorum during the meeting when a member departs (or even when a member leaves the dais). When that occurs the body loses its ability to transact business until and unless a quorum is reestablished.
The default rule, identified above, however, gives way to a specific rule of the body that establishes a quorum. For example, the rules of a particular five-member body may indicate that a quorum is four members for that particular body. The body must follow the rules it has established for its quorum. In the absence of such a specific rule, the quorum is one more than half the members of the body.
The Role of the Chair
While all members of the body should know and understand the rules of parliamentary procedure, it is the chair of the body who is charged with applying the rules of conduct of the meeting. The chair should be well versed in those rules. For all intents and purposes, the chair makes the final ruling on the rules every time the chair states an action. In fact, all decisions by the chair are final unless overruled by the body itself.
Since the chair runs the conduct of the meeting, it is usual courtesy for the chair to play a less active role in the debate and discussion than other members of the body. This does not mean that the chair should not participate in the debate or discussion. To the contrary, as a member of the body, the chair has the full right to participate in the debate, discussion and decision-making of the body. What the chair should do, however, is strive to be the last to speak at the discussion and debate stage. The chair should not make or second a motion unless the chair is convinced that no other member of the body will do so at that point in time.
The Basic Format for an Agenda Item Discussion
Formal meetings normally have a written, often published agenda.
Informal meetings may have only an oral or understood agenda. In either case, the meeting is governed by the agenda and the agenda constitutes the body’s agreed-upon roadmap for the meeting. Each agenda item can be handled by the chair in the following basic format:
Introduction
The rules of procedure at meetings should be simple enough for most people to understand. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case. Virtually all clubs, associations, boards, councils and bodies follow a set of rules — Robert’s Rules of Order — which are embodied in a small, but complex, book. Virtually no one I know has actually read this book cover to cover. Worse yet, the book was written for another time and for another purpose. If one is chairing or running a parliament, then Robert’s Rules of Order is a dandy and quite useful handbook for procedure in that complex setting. On the other hand, if one is running a meeting of say, a five-member body with a few members of the public in attendance, a simplified version of the rules of parliamentary procedure is in order.
Hence, the birth of Rosenberg’s Rules of Order.
What follows is my version of the rules of parliamentary procedure, based on my decades of experience chairing meetings in state and local government. These rules have been simplified for the smaller bodies we chair or in which we participate, slimmed down for the 21st Century, yet retaining the basic tenets of order to which we have grown accustomed. Interestingly enough, Rosenberg’s Rules has found a welcoming audience. Hundreds of cities, counties, special districts, committees, boards, commissions, neighborhood associations and private corporations and companies have adopted Rosenberg’s Rules in lieu of Robert’s Rules because they have found them practical, logical, simple, easy to learn and user friendly.
This treatise on modern parliamentary procedure is built on a foundation supported by the following four pillars:
1. Rules should establish order. The first purpose of rules of parliamentary procedure is to establish a framework for the orderly conduct of meetings.
2. Rules should be clear. Simple rules lead to wider understanding and participation. Complex rules create two classes: those who understand and participate; and those who do not fully understand and do not fully participate.
3. Rules should be user friendly. That is, the rules must be simple enough that the public is invited into the body and feels that it has participated in the process.
4. Rules should enforce the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. The ultimate purpose of rules of procedure is to encourage discussion and to facilitate decision making by the body. In a democracy, majority rules. The rules must enable the majority to express itself and fashion a result, while permitting the minority to also express itself, but not dominate, while fully participating in the process.
ATTACHMENT A
1165
3 Ninth, the chair takes a vote. Simply asking for the “ayes” and then asking for the “nays” normally does this. If members of the body do not vote, then they “abstain.” Unless the rules of the body provide otherwise (or unless a super majority is required as delineated later in these rules), then a simple majority (as defined in law or the rules of the body as delineated later in these rules) determines whether the motion passes or is defeated.
Tenth, the chair should announce the result of the vote and what action (if any) the body has taken. In announcing the result, the chair should indicate the names of the members of the body, if any, who voted in the minority on the motion. This announcement might take the following form: “The motion passes by a vote of 3-2, with Smith and Jones dissenting. We have passed the motion requiring a 10-day notice for all future meetings of this body.”
Motions in General
Motions are the vehicles for decision making by a body. It is usually best to have a motion before the body prior to commencing discussion of an agenda item. This helps the body focus.
Motions are made in a simple two-step process. First, the chair should recognize the member of the body. Second, the member of the body makes a motion by preceding the member’s desired approach with the words “I move … ”
A typical motion might be: “I move that we give a 10-day notice in the future for all our meetings.”
The chair usually initiates the motion in one of three ways:
1. Inviting the members of the body to make a motion, for example, “A motion at this time would be in order.”
2. Suggesting a motion to the members of the body, “A motion would be in order that we give a 10-day notice in the future for all our meetings.”
3. Making the motion. As noted, the chair has every right as a member of the body to make a motion, but should normally do so only if the chair wishes to make a motion on an item but is convinced that no other member of the body is willing to step forward to do so at a particular time.
The Three Basic Motions
There are three motions that are the most common and recur often at meetings:
The basic motion. The basic motion is the one that puts forward a decision for the body’s consideration. A basic motion might be: “I move that we create a five-member committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser.”
First, the chair should clearly announce the agenda item number and should clearly state what the agenda item subject is. The chair should then announce the format (which follows) that will be followed in considering the agenda item.
Second, following that agenda format, the chair should invite the appropriate person or persons to report on the item, including any recommendation that they might have. The appropriate person or persons may be the chair, a member of the body, a staff person, or a committee chair charged with providing input on the agenda item.
Third, the chair should ask members of the body if they have any technical questions of clarification. At this point, members of the body may ask clarifying questions to the person or persons who reported on the item, and that person or persons should be given time to respond.
Fourth, the chair should invite public comments, or if appropriate at a formal meeting, should open the public meeting for public input.
If numerous members of the public indicate a desire to speak to the subject, the chair may limit the time of public speakers. At the conclusion of the public comments, the chair should announce that public input has concluded (or the public hearing, as the case may be, is closed).
Fifth, the chair should invite a motion. The chair should announce the name of the member of the body who makes the motion.
Sixth, the chair should determine if any member of the body wishes to second the motion. The chair should announce the name of the member of the body who seconds the motion. It is normally good practice for a motion to require a second before proceeding to ensure that it is not just one member of the body who is interested in a particular approach. However, a second is not an absolute requirement, and the chair can proceed with consideration and vote on a motion even when there is no second. This is a matter left to the discretion of the chair.
Seventh, if the motion is made and seconded, the chair should make sure everyone understands the motion.
This is done in one of three ways:
1. The chair can ask the maker of the motion to repeat it;
2. The chair can repeat the motion; or
3. The chair can ask the secretary or the clerk of the body to repeat the motion.
Eighth, the chair should now invite discussion of the motion by the body. If there is no desired discussion, or after the discussion has ended, the chair should announce that the body will vote on the motion. If there has been no discussion or very brief discussion, then the vote on the motion should proceed immediately and there is no need to repeat the motion. If there has been substantial discussion, then it is normally best to make sure everyone understands the motion by repeating it.
ATTACHMENT A
1166
4 First, the chair would deal with the third (the last) motion on the floor, the substitute motion. After discussion and debate, a vote would be taken first on the third motion. If the substitute motion passed, it would be a substitute for the basic motion and would eliminate it. The first motion would be moot, as would the second motion (which sought to amend the first motion), and the action on the agenda item would be completed on the passage by the body of the third motion (the substitute motion). No vote would be taken on the first or second motions.
Second, if the substitute motion failed, the chair would then deal with the second (now the last) motion on the floor, the motion to amend. The discussion and debate would focus strictly on the amendment (should the committee be five or 10 members). If the motion to amend passed, the chair would then move to consider the main motion (the first motion) as amended. If the motion to amend failed, the chair would then move to consider the main motion (the first motion) in its original format, not amended.
Third, the chair would now deal with the first motion that was placed on the floor. The original motion would either be in its original format (five-member committee), or if amended, would be in its amended format (10-member committee). The question on the floor for discussion and decision would be whether a committee should plan and put on the annual fundraiser.
To Debate or Not to Debate
The basic rule of motions is that they are subject to discussion and debate. Accordingly, basic motions, motions to amend, and substitute motions are all eligible, each in their turn, for full discussion before and by the body. The debate can continue as long as members of the body wish to discuss an item, subject to the decision of the chair that it is time to move on and take action.
There are exceptions to the general rule of free and open debate on motions. The exceptions all apply when there is a desire of the body to move on. The following motions are not debatable (that is, when the following motions are made and seconded, the chair must immediately call for a vote of the body without debate on the motion):
Motion to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the body to immediately adjourn to its next regularly scheduled meeting. It requires a simple majority vote.
Motion to recess. This motion, if passed, requires the body to immediately take a recess. Normally, the chair determines the length of the recess which may be a few minutes or an hour. It requires a simple majority vote.
Motion to fix the time to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the body to adjourn the meeting at the specific time set in the motion. For example, the motion might be: “I move we adjourn this meeting at midnight.” It requires a simple majority vote.
The motion to amend. If a member wants to change a basic motion that is before the body, they would move to amend it. A motion to amend might be: “I move that we amend the motion to have a 10-member committee.” A motion to amend takes the basic motion that is before the body and seeks to change it in some way.
The substitute motion. If a member wants to completely do away with the basic motion that is before the body, and put a new motion before the body, they would move a substitute motion. A substitute motion might be: “I move a substitute motion that we cancel the annual fundraiser this year.”
“Motions to amend” and “substitute motions” are often confused, but they are quite different, and their effect (if passed) is quite different.
A motion to amend seeks to retain the basic motion on the floor, but modify it in some way. A substitute motion seeks to throw out the basic motion on the floor, and substitute a new and different motion for it. The decision as to whether a motion is really a “motion to amend” or a “substitute motion” is left to the chair. So if a member makes what that member calls a “motion to amend,” but the chair determines that it is really a “substitute motion,” then the chair’s designation governs.
A “friendly amendment” is a practical parliamentary tool that is simple, informal, saves time and avoids bogging a meeting down with numerous formal motions. It works in the following way: In the discussion on a pending motion, it may appear that a change to the motion is desirable or may win support for the motion from some members. When that happens, a member who has the floor may simply say, “I want to suggest a friendly amendment to the motion.” The member suggests the friendly amendment, and if the maker and the person who seconded the motion pending on the floor accepts the friendly amendment, that now becomes the pending motion on the floor. If either the maker or the person who seconded rejects the proposed friendly amendment, then the proposer can formally move to amend.
Multiple Motions Before the Body
There can be up to three motions on the floor at the same time.
The chair can reject a fourth motion until the chair has dealt with the three that are on the floor and has resolved them. This rule has practical value. More than three motions on the floor at any given time is confusing and unwieldy for almost everyone, including the chair.
When there are two or three motions on the floor (after motions and seconds) at the same time, the vote should proceed first on the last motion that is made. For example, assume the first motion is a basic “motion to have a five-member committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser.” During the discussion of this motion, a member might make a second motion to “amend the main motion to have a 10-member committee, not a five-member committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser.” And perhaps, during that discussion, a member makes yet a third motion as a “substitute motion that we not have an annual fundraiser this year.” The proper procedure would be as follows:
ATTACHMENT A
1167
5 Motion to close nominations. When choosing officers of the body (such as the chair), nominations are in order either from a nominating committee or from the floor of the body. A motion to close nominations effectively cuts off the right of the minority to nominate officers and it requires a two-thirds vote to pass.
Motion to object to the consideration of a question. Normally, such a motion is unnecessary since the objectionable item can be tabled or defeated straight up. However, when members of a body do not even want an item on the agenda to be considered, then such a motion is in order. It is not debatable, and it requires a two-thirds vote to pass.
Motion to suspend the rules. This motion is debatable, but requires a two-thirds vote to pass. If the body has its own rules of order, conduct or procedure, this motion allows the body to suspend the rules for a particular purpose. For example, the body (a private club) might have a rule prohibiting the attendance at meetings by non-club members. A motion to suspend the rules would be in order to allow a non-club member to attend a meeting of the club on a particular date or on a particular agenda item.
Counting Votes
The matter of counting votes starts simple, but can become complicated.
Usually, it’s pretty easy to determine whether a particular motion passed or whether it was defeated. If a simple majority vote is needed to pass a motion, then one vote more than 50 percent of the body is required. For example, in a five-member body, if the vote is three in favor and two opposed, the motion passes. If it is two in favor and three opposed, the motion is defeated.
If a two-thirds majority vote is needed to pass a motion, then how many affirmative votes are required? The simple rule of thumb is to count the “no” votes and double that count to determine how many “yes” votes are needed to pass a particular motion. For example, in a seven-member body, if two members vote “no” then the “yes” vote of at least four members is required to achieve a two-thirds majority vote to pass the motion.
What about tie votes? In the event of a tie, the motion always fails since an affirmative vote is required to pass any motion. For example, in a five-member body, if the vote is two in favor and two opposed, with one member absent, the motion is defeated.
Vote counting starts to become complicated when members vote “abstain” or in the case of a written ballot, cast a blank (or unreadable) ballot. Do these votes count, and if so, how does one count them? The starting point is always to check the statutes.
In California, for example, for an action of a board of supervisors to be valid and binding, the action must be approved by a majority of the board. (California Government Code Section 25005.) Typically, this means three of the five members of the board must vote affirmatively in favor of the action. A vote of 2-1 would not be sufficient. A vote of 3-0 with two abstentions would be sufficient. In general law cities in Motion to table. This motion, if passed, requires discussion of the agenda item to be halted and the agenda item to be placed on “hold.” The motion can contain a specific time in which the item can come back to the body. “I move we table this item until our regular meeting in October.” Or the motion can contain no specific time for the return of the item, in which case a motion to take the item off the table and bring it back to the body will have to be taken at a future meeting. A motion to table an item (or to bring it back to the body) requires a simple majority vote.
Motion to limit debate. The most common form of this motion is to say, “I move the previous question” or “I move the question” or “I call the question” or sometimes someone simply shouts out “question.” As a practical matter, when a member calls out one of these phrases, the chair can expedite matters by treating it as a “request” rather than as a formal motion. The chair can simply inquire of the body, “any further discussion?” If no one wishes to have further discussion, then the chair can go right to the pending motion that is on the floor.
However, if even one person wishes to discuss the pending motion further, then at that point, the chair should treat the call for the “question” as a formal motion, and proceed to it.
When a member of the body makes such a motion (“I move the previous question”), the member is really saying: “I’ve had enough debate. Let’s get on with the vote.” When such a motion is made, the chair should ask for a second, stop debate, and vote on the motion to limit debate. The motion to limit debate requires a two-thirds vote of the body.
Note: A motion to limit debate could include a time limit. For example: “I move we limit debate on this agenda item to 15 minutes.” Even in this format, the motion to limit debate requires a twothirds vote of the body. A similar motion is a motion to object to consideration of an item. This motion is not debatable, and if passed, precludes the body from even considering an item on the agenda. It also requires a two-thirds vote.
Majority and Super Majority Votes
In a democracy, a simple majority vote determines a question. A tie vote means the motion fails. So in a seven-member body, a vote of 4-3 passes the motion. A vote of 3-3 with one abstention means the motion fails. If one member is absent and the vote is 3-3, the motion still fails.
All motions require a simple majority, but there are a few exceptions.
The exceptions come up when the body is taking an action which effectively cuts off the ability of a minority of the body to take an action or discuss an item. These extraordinary motions require a two-thirds majority (a super majority) to pass:
Motion to limit debate. Whether a member says, “I move the previous question,” or “I move the question,” or “I call the question,” or “I move to limit debate,” it all amounts to an attempt to cut off the ability of the minority to discuss an item, and it requires a two-thirds vote to pass.
ATTACHMENT A
1168
6 Now, exactly how does a member cast an “abstention” vote? Any time a member votes “abstain” or says, “I abstain,” that is an abstention. However, if a member votes “present” that is also treated as an abstention (the member is essentially saying, “Count me for purposes of a quorum, but my vote on the issue is abstain.”) In fact, any manifestation of intention not to vote either “yes” or “no” on the pending motion may be treated by the chair as an abstention. If written ballots are cast, a blank or unreadable ballot is counted as an abstention as well.
Can a member vote “absent” or “count me as absent?” Interesting question. The ruling on this is up to the chair. The better approach is for the chair to count this as if the member had left his/her chair and is actually “absent.” That, of course, affects the quorum. However, the chair may also treat this as a vote to abstain, particularly if the person does not actually leave the dais.
The Motion to Reconsider
There is a special and unique motion that requires a bit of explanation all by itself; the motion to reconsider. A tenet of parliamentary procedure is finality. After vigorous discussion, debate and a vote, there must be some closure to the issue. And so, after a vote is taken, the matter is deemed closed, subject only to reopening if a proper motion to consider is made and passed.
A motion to reconsider requires a majority vote to pass like other garden-variety motions, but there are two special rules that apply only to the motion to reconsider.
First, is the matter of timing. A motion to reconsider must be made at the meeting where the item was first voted upon. A motion to reconsider made at a later time is untimely. (The body, however, can always vote to suspend the rules and, by a two-thirds majority, allow a motion to reconsider to be made at another time.)
Second, a motion to reconsider may be made only by certain members of the body. Accordingly, a motion to reconsider may be made only by a member who voted in the majority on the original motion. If such a member has a change of heart, he or she may make the motion to reconsider (any other member of the body — including a member who voted in the minority on the original motion — may second the motion). If a member who voted in the minority seeks to make the motion to reconsider, it must be ruled out of order. The purpose of this rule is finality. If a member of minority could make a motion to reconsider, then the item could be brought back to the body again and again, which would defeat the purpose of finality.
If the motion to reconsider passes, then the original matter is back before the body, and a new original motion is in order. The matter may be discussed and debated as if it were on the floor for the first time.
California, as another example, resolutions or orders for the payment of money and all ordinances require a recorded vote of the total members of the city council. (California Government Code Section 36936.) Cities with charters may prescribe their own vote requirements. Local elected officials are always well-advised to consult with their local agency counsel on how state law may affect the vote count.
After consulting state statutes, step number two is to check the rules of the body. If the rules of the body say that you count votes of “those present” then you treat abstentions one way. However, if the rules of the body say that you count the votes of those “present and voting,” then you treat abstentions a different way. And if the rules of the body are silent on the subject, then the general rule of thumb (and default rule) is that you count all votes that are “present and voting.” Accordingly, under the “present and voting” system, you would NOT count abstention votes on the motion. Members who abstain are counted for purposes of determining quorum (they are “present”), but you treat the abstention votes on the motion as if they did not exist (they are not “voting”). On the other hand, if the rules of the body specifically say that you count votes of those “present” then you DO count abstention votes both in establishing the quorum and on the motion. In this event, the abstention votes act just like “no” votes.
How does this work in practice?
Here are a few examples.
Assume that a five-member city council is voting on a motion that requires a simple majority vote to pass, and assume further that the body has no specific rule on counting votes. Accordingly, the default rule kicks in and we count all votes of members that are “present and voting.” If the vote on the motion is 3-2, the motion passes. If the motion is 2-2 with one abstention, the motion fails.
Assume a five-member city council voting on a motion that requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass, and further assume that the body has no specific rule on counting votes. Again, the default rule applies.
If the vote is 3-2, the motion fails for lack of a two-thirds majority. If the vote is 4-1, the motion passes with a clear two-thirds majority. A vote of three “yes,” one “no” and one “abstain” also results in passage of the motion. Once again, the abstention is counted only for the purpose of determining quorum, but on the actual vote on the motion, it is as if the abstention vote never existed — so an effective 3-1 vote is clearly a two-thirds majority vote.
Now, change the scenario slightly. Assume the same five-member city council voting on a motion that requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass, but now assume that the body DOES have a specific rule requiring a two-thirds vote of members “present.” Under this specific rule, we must count the members present not only for quorum but also for the motion. In this scenario, any abstention has the same force and effect as if it were a “no” vote. Accordingly, if the votes were three “yes,” one “no” and one “abstain,” then the motion fails. The abstention in this case is treated like a “no” vote and effective vote of 3-2 is not enough to pass two-thirds majority muster.
ATTACHMENT A
1169
7 Appeal. If the chair makes a ruling that a member of the body disagrees with, that member may appeal the ruling of the chair. If the motion is seconded, and after debate, if it passes by a simple majority vote, then the ruling of the chair is deemed reversed.
Call for orders of the day. This is simply another way of saying, “return to the agenda.” If a member believes that the body has drifted from the agreed-upon agenda, such a call may be made. It does not require a vote, and when the chair discovers that the agenda has not been followed, the chair simply reminds the body to return to the agenda item properly before them. If the chair fails to do so, the chair’s determination may be appealed.
Withdraw a motion. During debate and discussion of a motion, the maker of the motion on the floor, at any time, may interrupt a speaker to withdraw his or her motion from the floor. The motion is immediately deemed withdrawn, although the chair may ask the person who seconded the motion if he or she wishes to make the motion, and any other member may make the motion if properly recognized.
Special Notes About Public Input
The rules outlined above will help make meetings very publicfriendly. But in addition, and particularly for the chair, it is wise to remember three special rules that apply to each agenda item:
Rule One: Tell the public what the body will be doing.
Rule Two: Keep the public informed while the body is doing it.
Rule Three: When the body has acted, tell the public what the body did.
Courtesy and Decorum
The rules of order are meant to create an atmosphere where the members of the body and the members of the public can attend to business efficiently, fairly and with full participation. At the same time, it is up to the chair and the members of the body to maintain common courtesy and decorum. Unless the setting is very informal, it is always best for only one person at a time to have the floor, and it is always best for every speaker to be first recognized by the chair before proceeding to speak.
The chair should always ensure that debate and discussion of an agenda item focuses on the item and the policy in question, not the personalities of the members of the body. Debate on policy is healthy, debate on personalities is not. The chair has the right to cut off discussion that is too personal, is too loud, or is too crude.
Debate and discussion should be focused, but free and open. In the interest of time, the chair may, however, limit the time allotted to speakers, including members of the body.
Can a member of the body interrupt the speaker? The general rule is “no.” There are, however, exceptions. A speaker may be interrupted for the following reasons:
Privilege. The proper interruption would be, “point of privilege.” The chair would then ask the interrupter to “state your point.” Appropriate points of privilege relate to anything that would interfere with the normal comfort of the meeting. For example, the room may be too hot or too cold, or a blowing fan might interfere with a person’s ability to hear.
Order. The proper interruption would be, “point of order.” Again, the chair would ask the interrupter to “state your point.” Appropriate points of order relate to anything that would not be considered appropriate conduct of the meeting. For example, if the chair moved on to a vote on a motion that permits debate without allowing that discussion or debate.
ATTACHMENT A
1170
1400 K Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 658-8200 | Fax (916) 658-8240
www.cacities.org
To order additional copies of this publication, call (916) 658-8200. $10
© 2011 League of California Cities. All rights reserved.
Printed on recycled paper.
ATTACHMENT A
1171
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 26-0655, Version: 1
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency Designated Representative: City Manager Johnny Ford; Deputy City Manager Will Crew; Deputy City Manager Christine Tien; City Attorney Marci Arredondo; Chief Financial Officer Gilbert Garcia, Admin Budget Officer John al-Amin; Director of Human Resources Alecia Figieroa; Supervising HR Analyst Labor Jasmine Pantoja; Police Chief McFadden; Assistant Chief Scott Graviette; Fire Chief Carr; and Legal Counsel, Che Johnson and Michael Jarvis of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
Employee Organizations: Unrepresented Units, Stockton City Employees’ Association, Operating Engineer’s Local 3, Mid-Management/Supervisory Level Unit, Unrepresented Management/Confidential, Law Department, Stockton Police Management Association, Stockton Firefighters Local 456 International Association of Firefighters, Stockton Fire Management, Stockton Police Officers’ Association (SPOA)
This Closed Session is authorized pursuant to section 54957.6(a) of the Government Code.
City of Stockton Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/19/2026
powered by Legistar™1172
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 26-0687, Version: 1
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Number of Cases: Two
Name of Case: City of Fresno, et al. v. Noem et al (United States District Court - Northern District of California, Case No. 3:26-cv-01535)
Name of Case: City of Fresno, et al. v. Turner, et al. (United States District Court - Northern District of California, Case No. 3:25-cv-07070-RS)
This Closed Session is authorized pursuant to section 54956.9(d)(1) of the Government Code.
City of Stockton Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/19/2026
powered by Legistar™1173
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 26-0719, Version: 1
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION Number of Cases: One
The City is in receipt of information concerning facts and circumstances that might result in litigation against the City which are known to potential plaintiffs and that pertain to potential charter violation claims by the potential plaintiffs against the City.
This Closed Session is authorized pursuant to section 54956.9, subd. (d)(2), (e)(2) of the Government Code.
City of Stockton Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/19/2026
powered by Legistar™1174
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 26-0708, Version: 1
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:
City Manager
This Closed Session is authorized pursuant to Government Code section 54957(b).
City of Stockton Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/19/2026
powered by Legistar™1175
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 26-0709, Version: 1
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:
City Clerk
This Closed Session is authorized pursuant to Government Code section 54957(b).
City of Stockton Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/19/2026
powered by Legistar™1176
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 26-0521, Version: 1
COUNCIL COMMITTEE/BOARD AND COMMISSION MINUTES
RECOMMENDATION
Information item only. No action required.
City of Stockton Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/19/2026
powered by Legistar™1177
MINUTES
CIVIL SERVICE/EQUAL EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION CONCURRENT
MEETING OF JANUARY 15, 2026
425 N. El Dorado St. Stockton, CA
1. CLOSED SESSION CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL - 3:02 PM
Roll Call
Present:
Michele Kimbrough
Dwight Williams
Raymond Zulueta Jr.
Michele J. Sherman
Jahari Williams
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION - 3:04 PM
3.1 26-0024 ANIMAL SERVICES OFFICER (OPEN/PROMOTIONAL) ELIGIBLE LIST
CERTIFICATION
Resolution 2026-01-15-0301 certifying the results of the open/promotional examination for Animal Services Officer.
Legislation Text
ProRosed Resolution -Exam Results -Animal Services Officer 6RRroved Resolution 2026-01-15-0301
3.2 26-0022 CIRCULATION ASSISTANT I (OPEN/PROMOTIONAL) ELIGIBLE LIST
CERTIFICATION
Resolution 2026-01-15-0302 certifying the results of the open/promotional examination for Circulation Assistant I.
Legislation Text
ProQosed Resolution -Exam Results -Circulation Assistant I 8RRroved Resolution 2026-01-15-0302
3.3 26-0023 CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR (OPEN/PROMOTIONAL) ELIGIBLE
LIST CERTIFICATION
Resolution 2026-01-15-0303 certifying the results of the open/promotional examination for Code Enforcement Supervisor.
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206