City of Stockton
2023-2031 Housing Element
⬚ figure
Adopted July 9, 2024
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
Adopted July 9, 2024
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
Adopted July 9, 2024
Prepared By:
PLACEWORKS
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 200 Folsom, California 95630 t 916.245.7500
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE
(blank page)
HOUSING .................................................................................................................................... HE-1 Introduction to the Policy Document ........................................................................................... HE-1 Goals, Policies, and Implementation Programs............................................................................ HE-2 Goal HE-1 and Associated Policies ............................................................................................ HE-2 Goal HE-1 Implementation Programs ......................................................................................... HE-4 Goal HE-2 and Associated Policies ............................................................................................ HE-10 Goal HE-2 Implementation Programs ......................................................................................... HE-11 Goal HE-3 and Associated Policies ............................................................................................ HE-13 Goal HE-3 Implementation Programs ......................................................................................... HE-13 Goal HE-4 and Associated Policies ............................................................................................ HE-16 Goal HE-4 Implementation Programs ......................................................................................... HE-17 Goal HE-5 and Associated Policies ............................................................................................ HE-19 Goal HE-5 Implementation Programs ......................................................................................... HE-20 Quantified Objectives ................................................................................................................. HE-34
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... BR-1 Overview of State Requirements ................................................................................................. BR-1 General Plan and Housing Element Consistency.......................................................................... BR-2 General Plan and Housing Element Differences........................................................................... BR-3 Public Participation...................................................................................................................... BR-3
EXISTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................. BR-5 Major Findings ............................................................................................................................ BR-5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ BR-6 Demographic and Employment Profile ......................................................................................... BR-6 Demographics ............................................................................................................................. BR-6 Household Characteristics and Housing Supply ............................................................................ BR-12 Special Housing Needs ................................................................................................................ BR-26 Preserving At-Risk Units ............................................................................................................. BR-43
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING ............................................................................................ BR-49 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ BR-49 Outreach ..................................................................................................................................... BR-50 Integration and Segregation......................................................................................................... BR-55 Access to Opportunity .................................................................................................................. BR-82
Disproportionate Housing Need and Displacement Risk ............................................................................BR-101 Other Relevant Factors.................................................................................................................................BR-120 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity ..........................................................................................................BR-131 Sites Inventory and Fair Housing Analysis..................................................................................................BR-132 Potential Effect on Patterns of Integration and Segregation .....................................................................BR-140 Potential Effect on Access to Opportunity...................................................................................................BR-147 Contributing Factors ....................................................................................................................................BR-155
Introduction..................................................................................................................................................BR-159 Regional Housing Needs Allocation ............................................................................................................BR-159 Availability of Land ......................................................................................................................................BR-160 Sites Suitably Zoned for Residential Uses at Appropriate Densities.........................................................BR-161 Sites Identified in Previous Housing Elements ...........................................................................................BR-161 Realistic Capacity .........................................................................................................................................BR-161 Representative Projects................................................................................................................................BR-165 Summary of Approach to Meeting RHNA...................................................................................................BR-167 Programs to Encourage and Facilitate Housing Development....................................................................BR-167 Pipeline Projects ..........................................................................................................................................BR-168 Vacant Sites .................................................................................................................................................BR-176 Accessory Dwelling Unit Potential...............................................................................................................BR-180 Hazards and Other Potential Site Constraints ............................................................................................BR-181 Adequacy of Public Facilities and Infrastructure .........................................................................................BR-182
Introduction..................................................................................................................................................BR-185 Local Housing Programs .............................................................................................................................BR-185 Private Funding ............................................................................................................................................BR-193 Energy Conservation Opportunities.............................................................................................................BR-193
Major Findings .............................................................................................................................................BR-197 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................BR-197 Potential Governmental Constraints ............................................................................................................BR-198 Potential Nongovernmental Constraints ......................................................................................................BR-231
Release of Public Review Draft Housing Element ......................................................................................B-1 Housing Element Service Provider Consultations ......................................................................................B-1 Housing Action Plan/Displacement Study Stakeholder Consultations........................................................B-3
Public Workshops ............................................................................................................................ B-6 Planning Commission and City Council Meetings ................................................................................... B-11 Written Public Comments................................................................................................................... B-11 Response to Input Received................................................................................................................ B-11
APPENDIX C: PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSE ...........................................................................C-1
Table HE-1: Summary Of Quantified Objectives ................................................................................ HE -34 Table HE-2: Historical Population Change .......................................................................................... BR-6 Table HE-3: Population Change ......................................................................................................... BR-7 Table HE-4: Age Characteristics ......................................................................................................... BR-7 Table HE-5: Population Breakdown by Race/Ethnicity ............................................................................ BR-8 Table HE-6: Personal Income1 ........................................................................................................ BR-8 Table HE-7: Household Income Distribution ......................................................................................... BR-9 Table HE-8: Income Limits for San Joaquin County and Regional Housing Needs Allocation .................... BR-10 Table HE-9: Top Employers in the City of Stockton ............................................................................. BR-10 Table HE-10: Employment by Industry .............................................................................................. BR-11 Table HE-11: Unemployment Rate ..................................................................................................... BR-11 Table HE-12: Population and Employment Projections.......................................................................... BR-12 Table HE-13: Family and Nonfamily Households ................................................................................. BR-13 Table HE-14: Tenure ....................................................................................................................... BR-14 Table HE-15: Overcrowding............................................................................................................... BR-15 Table HE-16: Household Size by Tenure.............................................................................................. BR-16 Table HE-17: Number of Bedrooms by Tenure ................................................................................... BR-16 Table HE-18: Average Household Size by Tenure................................................................................. BR-17 Table HE-19: Housing Units by Type ................................................................................................. BR-18 Table HE-20: Occupancy/Vacancy ..................................................................................................... BR-18 Table HE-21: Vacant Units by Type ................................................................................................... BR-19 Table HE-22: Age of Housing Stock and Housing Stock Conditions by Tenure ........................................ BR-20 Table HE-23: Code Enforcement Cases .............................................................................................. BR-21 Table HE-24: Housing Cost Burden by Household Income Classification ................................................ BR-22 Table HE-25: HCD Household Income Limits ..................................................................................... BR-23 Table HE-26: Ability to Pay for Housing based on HCD Income Limits1 ............................................. BR-24 Table HE-27: HUD Fair Market Rent ................................................................................................. BR-25 Table HE-28: Median Home Value .................................................................................................... BR-25 Table HE-29: Median Housing Value Over Time (Owner-Occupied) ....................................................... BR-25 Table HE-30: Average Rental Rates..................................................................................................... BR-26 Table HE-31: Senior Populations and Households ............................................................................... BR-27 Table HE-32: Senior Household Income Distribution ............................................................................ BR-28
Table HE-33: Disability Status and Types of Disabilities by Age Group, Persons Five Years and Older ............... BR-29 Table HE-34: Developmental Disability by Age Group ....................................................................................... BR-31 Table HE-35: Large Households.......................................................................................................................... BR-32 Table HE-36: Female-Headed Households ......................................................................................................... BR-32 Table HE-37: Homeless Population Survey........................................................................................................ BR-35 Table HE-38: Overnight and Emergency Facilities ............................................................................................ BR-37 Table HE-39: Transitional and Permanent Supportive Housing ........................................................................ BR-39 Table HE-40: Emergency and Transitional/Permanent Supportive Shelter Provider Capacities ........................ BR-40 Table HE-41: Housing Cost Burden of Extremely Low-Income Households..................................................... BR-42 Table HE-42: Federally Subsidized Rental Facilities At-Risk ............................................................................. BR-43 Table HE-43: Estimated Acquisition/ Rehabilitation Costs................................................................................. BR-46 Table HE-44: Estimated Cost to Subsidize Rents ............................................................................................... BR-47 Table HE-45: Estimated Replacement Costs ....................................................................................................... BR-47 Table HE-46: Performance Scores for Stockton Unified School District............................................................. BR-92 Table HE-47: Performance Scores for Lincoln Unified School District.............................................................. BR-94 Table HE-48 Distribution of RHNA Capacity by Census Tract......................................................................... BR-135 Table HE-49: Factors that Contribute to Fair Housing Issues............................................................................. BR-156 Table HE-50: Stockton’s 2023-2031 RHNA by Income Category .................................................................... BR-160 Table HE-51: Capacity Adjustment Factors – Residential Zones ....................................................................... BR-164 Table HE-52: Capacity Adjustment Factors – Other Zones ............................................................................... BR-164 Table HE-53: Representative Projects.................................................................................................................. BR-165 Table HE-54: Approach to Meeting 2023-2031 RHNA....................................................................................... BR-167 Table HE-55: Pipeline Projects Summary........................................................................................................... BR-168 Table HE-54: San Joaquin Housing Authority Public Housing .......................................................................... BR-189 Table HE-55: Financial Resources for Housing Activities.................................................................................. BR-190 Table HE-56: General Plan Land Use Designations Allowing Residential Uses ................................................ BR-199 Table HE-57: Zoning Districts Allowing Residential Uses.................................................................................. BR-200 Table HE-58: Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Residential Uses ............................................................ BR-202 Table HE-59: Development Standards in Zones That Allow Residential Development....................................... BR-203 Table HE-60: Allowable Land Uses and Permit Requirements for Residential Infill Projects ............................. BR-204 Table HE-61: Development Scenarios................................................................................................................. BR-206 Table HE-62: Required Off-Street Parking Spaces.............................................................................................. BR-209 Table HE-63: Community Development/ Planning Division Schedule of Residential Processing Times ............ BR-217 Table HE-64: Residential Approvals Required for Typical Permitted Residential Projects................................. BR-217 Table HE-65: Planning Fees................................................................................................................................. BR-220 Table HE-66: Development Impact and Planning-Related Fees .......................................................................... BR-222 Table HE-67: Review of 2015-2023 Housing Element Programs ..................................................................... BR-235 Table A-1: Sites Inventory .................................................................................................................................. A-3 Table A-2: Pipeline Projects................................................................................................................................ A-23 Table B-1: Summary of Public Outreach ............................................................................................................. B-1
Figure HE-1: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas ........................................................................ BR-58 Figure HE-2: Median Household Incomes ........................................................................... BR-61 Figure HE-3: Local Poverty Rates........................................................................................ BR-65 Figure HE-4: Local Racial Demographics ............................................................................ BR-69 Figure HE-5: Racially or Ethically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ........................................ BR-72 Figure HE-6: Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence ........................................................ BR-73 Figure HE-7: Children in Female-Headed Households ......................................................... BR-76 Figure HE-8: Adults Living Alone......................................................................................... BR-78 Figure HE-9: Percentage of the Population with a Disability ............................................... BR-80 Figure HE-10: AllTransit Performance Score, 2022 ............................................................. BR-83 Figure HE-11: Housing Choice Voucher Distribution in Stockton ......................................... BR-85 Figure HE-12: Local Labor Market Engagement................................................................... BR-88 Figure HE-13: Local Jobs Proximity ..................................................................................... BR-90 Figure HE-14: Local TCAC/HCD Educational Domain Score ................................................ BR-96 Figure HE-15: CalEnviroScreen Percentiles ......................................................................... BR-98 Figure HE-16: TCAC/HCD Environmental Domain ............................................................... BR-100 Figure HE-17: Overcrowded Households in Stockton ........................................................... BR-103 Figure HE-18: Renter Overpayment in Stockton .................................................................. BR-108 Figure HE-19: Homeowner Overpayment in Stockton.......................................................... BR-109 Figure HE-20: Elevated Displacement Risk.......................................................................... BR-116 Figure HE-21: Home Owners’ Loan Corporation Redlining Grade ........................................ BR-124 Figure HE-22a: Zoning in Stockton (South).......................................................................... BR-126 Figure HE-22b: Zoning in Stockton (North).......................................................................... BR-127 Figure HE-23: Stockton Census Tracts................................................................................ BR-134 Figure HE-24: Percent Unit Capacity by TCAC/HCD Resource Designation ......................... BR-142 Figure HE-25: Percent Unit Capacity by Median Income...................................................... BR-142 Figure HE-26: Percent Unit Capacity by Poverty Rate .......................................................... BR-143 Figure HE-27: Percent Unit Capacity by Non-White Population ........................................... BR-144 Figure HE-28: Percent Unit Capacity by Disability Rate ....................................................... BR-145 Figure HE-29: Percent Unit Capacity by Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households .. BR-146 Figure HE-30: Percent Unit Capacity by Jobs Proximity Index Score ................................... BR-149 Figure HE-31: TCAC/HCD Educational Domain Scores ......................................................... BR-149 Figure HE-32: Percent of Unit Capacity by CalEnviroScreen Scores ..................................... BR-151 Figure HE-33: Percent Unit Capacity by Rate of Overcrowded Households .......................... BR-152 Figure HE-34: Percent Unit Capacity by Renter Overpayment.............................................. BR-153 Figure HE-35: Percent of Unit Capacity by Homeowner Overpayment ................................. BR-154 Figure HE-36: Historical Mortgage Rates............................................................................. BR-231 Figure HE-37: Mortgage Rates ............................................................................................. BR-231
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sites Inventory Map Citywide .................................................................................................... A-33 Sites Inventory Map M1 .......................................................................................................... A-34 Sites Inventory Map M2 .......................................................................................................... A-35 Sites Inventory Map M3 .......................................................................................................... A-36 Sites Inventory Map M4 .......................................................................................................... A-37 Sites Inventory Map M5 .......................................................................................................... A-38 Sites Inventory Map M6 .......................................................................................................... A-39 Sites Inventory Map M7 .......................................................................................................... A-40 Sites Inventory Map M8 .......................................................................................................... A-41 Sites Inventory Map M9 .......................................................................................................... A-42 Sites Inventory Map M10 ........................................................................................................ A-43 Sites Inventory Map M11 ........................................................................................................ A-44 Sites Inventory Map M12 ........................................................................................................ A-45 Sites Inventory Map M13 ........................................................................................................ A-46 Sites Inventory Map M14 ........................................................................................................ A-47 Sites Inventory Map M15 ........................................................................................................ A-48 Sites Inventory Map M16 ........................................................................................................ A-49 Sites Inventory Map M17 ........................................................................................................ A-50 Sites Inventory Map M18 ........................................................................................................ A-51 Sites Inventory Map M19 ........................................................................................................ A-52 Sites Inventory Map M20 ........................................................................................................ A-53 Sites Inventory Map M21 ........................................................................................................ A-54 Sites Inventory Map M22 ........................................................................................................ A-55 Sites Inventory Map M23 ........................................................................................................ A-56 Sites Inventory Map M24 ........................................................................................................ A-57 Sites Inventory Map M25 ........................................................................................................ A-58 Sites Inventory Map M26 ........................................................................................................ A-59 Sites Inventory Map M27 ........................................................................................................ A-60 Sites Inventory Map M28 ........................................................................................................ A-61
This main element is divided into three sections:
Under California law, a housing element must include the community's goals, policies, quantified objectives, and housing programs for the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.
This Housing Element includes nine goal statements. Under each goal statement are policies that amplify the goal statement. Implementation programs are listed after the policies and briefly describe the proposed action, City departments with primary responsibility for carrying out the program, funding source(s), and time frame for accomplishing the program.
The following definitions describe the nature of the statements of goals, policies, implementation programs, and quantified objectives as they are used in the Housing Element Policy Document:
but should establish the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved, or households assisted over an eight-year time frame.
Policy HE-1.1 Availability of Land: The City shall maintain sufficient designated and zoned vacant and underutilized sites for housing to achieve a mix of single-family and multifamily development that will accommodate anticipated population growth and the housing needs established in the City’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) of 12,673 units (1,232 extremely low, 1,233 very low, 1,548 low, 2,572 moderate, 6,088 above moderate). In addition to the Housing Capacity sites needed toward RHNA, the Housing Action Plan (HAP) shall explore additional areas that could potentially support housing. This could include underutilized properties, underutilized buildings, and unincorporated areas. This surplus shall be used to maintain the City’s Pro-Housing Designation that requires the City to maintain 30-percent surplus over the RHNA requirement. (Programs 1, 2 and 3)
Policy HE-1.2 Avoid Downzoning: The City shall not downzone parcels identified in the Housing Element inventory unless they are replaced concurrently by comparably zoned land elsewhere within the City, or the City makes the determination that there are still adequate sites in the inventory to meet the remaining regional housing needs allocation. (Program 1)
Policy HE-1.3 Parcel Consolidation: The City shall encourage the splitting or consolidation of parcels to facilitate more effective residential development and continue to process these requests ministerially. (Program 8)
Policy HE-1.4 Infrastructure and Public Facilities to Support Residential Development: The City shall take into consideration where housing is planned or likely to be built when preparing plans for capital improvements to expand or improve infrastructure and public facilities that support new residential development and ensure adequate services. The City shall also use the place-based strategy of identifying and targeting lower-income and high-poverty areas for prioritizing capital improvements related to infrastructure and public facilities, such as the South Stockton neighborhood, Downtown, and parts of the East Stockton and Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhoods. (Program 4)
Policy HE-1.5 Higher Residential Densities: The City shall encourage residential densities at the high end of the allowable density range to make more efficient use of land and public facilities and services, and expand programs that would allow densities increase beyond the maximum allowable density range for projects that adhere to Housing Element policies. This includes the existing Supplemental Density Bonus program and new programs as part of the Development Code Overhaul. (Program 1 and 20)
Policy HE-1.6 Residential Mixed-Use Development: The City shall encourage the development of mixed-use residential-office and residential-retail projects. (Programs 2, 5, and 7)
Policy HE-1.7 Housing Variety: The City shall encourage and provide opportunities for a variety of housing types that provide market-rate and affordable housing opportunities and promote balanced mixed-income neighborhoods. The Development Code Update shall amend zoning to allow more housing variety and higher densities in various residential and commercial zones. (Program 5)
Policy HE-1.8 Accessory Dwelling Units in New and Existing Developments: The City shall encourage the development of accessory dwelling units within new and existing residential development and single-family neighborhoods. (Program 6)
Policy HE-1.9 Infill Development Targets: In an effort to meet the infill target of 4,400 new units in the Greater Downtown Area, the City shall promote infill development within the Downtown and Greater Downtown areas through incentives such as less restrictive height limits, less restrictive setback and parking requirements, subsidies, infrastructure improvements, and streamlined permitting process. (Programs 2 and 7)
Policy HE-1.10 Balanced Growth: The City shall ensure that development at the city's outskirts, particularly residential or mixed-use development, does not occur in a manner that is out of balance with infill development. (Program 7)
Policy HE-1.11 Transit Oriented Development: The City shall encourage higher-density residential uses and mixed-use development to locate near main transportation routes to offer an alternative means of transportation to employment centers, schools, shopping, and recreational facilities and to promote walking and biking. Consistent with the General Plan policies, the City will establish Transit Oriented Development overlays as part of the Development Code Update. (Programs 2, 5 and 7)
Policy HE-1.12 Adaptive Reuse: The City shall encourage the adaptive reuse of existing buildings for residential and mixed use. The HAP shall outline potential reuse sites in the downtown area and explore potential partnerships and resources to retrofit chronically vacant buildings for residential and mixed uses. (Program 2)
Policy HE-1.13 Public/Private Partnerships: The City shall strive to establish public-private partnerships for the revitalization of blighted areas. The HAP shall explore these partnerships and make recommendations on where these partnerships should be achieved to address existing barriers to new housing. (Program 5)
Policy HE-1.14 Pursue State Funding for Infill: The City shall pursue State funding to support infill development in the Downtown and Greater Downtown areas. (Program 7)
Policy HE-1.15 Improve the Downtown Image: The City shall strive to reshape the perception of Downtown Stockton as a livable city center. (Program 2)
Policy HE-1.16 Integrated Affordable Housing: The City shall encourage the integration of sites for affordable housing throughout the residentially designated areas of the city and avoid concentration of low-income housing units. (Programs 5 and 7)
Policy HE-1.17 Mixed Income Housing: The City shall encourage mixed income developments to create more economically diverse neighborhoods. (Programs 5 and 6)
Policy HE-1.18 Facilities and Services: The City shall provide, maintain, and upgrade, as necessary, community facilities and municipal services in support of residential development. (Program 4 and 31)
Program 1. Adequate Sites Monitoring and No Net Loss. As part of the annual progress report on the Housing Element to the State, the City shall update its vacant land inventory, including an updated inventory of potential infill sites (smaller parcels). The City shall make the updated inventory available to the public and development community via the City’s website. For any project approval on a Housing Element site for fewer housing units/or at lower densities than assumed in the Housing Element, the City shall determine whether there is still adequate capacity to meet the remaining housing need, consistent with “no net loss” state law. In addition, the City will track development approvals on sites in the inventory that allow non-residential uses. If projects approved on this type of site by December 31, 2027 are not in line with the City’s non-residential RHNA projections in the inventory, within one year (by December 31, 2028) the City will identify additional sites to address the remaining RHNA and if necessary will rezone to make the sites available for residential development.
Quantified Objectives: Continue to maintain sufficient sites to address 12,673 units.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department, Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Update inventory annually as part of the Housing Element Annual Progress Report and assess “no net loss” as projects come forward on Housing Element sites. Assess project approvals on Housing Element inventory sites as of December 31, 2027. If approved projects are not in line with the City’s non-residential RHNA projections in the inventory, within one year (by December 31, 2028) the City will identify additional sites beyond the sites in the inventory that allow non-residential uses in order to further facilitate residential development.
Program 2. Downtown Implementation: The City shall continue to implement measures to enable development of 4,400 residential units in the Greater Downtown Area by 2035, as laid out in the Climate Action Plan and General Plan. This will include strategies and regulations anticipated as part of the Comprehensive Development Code Update and Housing Action Plan (HAP) currently underway. The HAP shall specifically explore the following topics:
Quantified Objectives: 4,400 residential units in the Greater Downtown Area by 2040.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department, Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Adopt Comprehensive Development Code Update and HAP by April 2024; and annually thereafter to identify any additional strategies to address General Plan goals.
Program 3. Sites Included in Previous Housing Elements: As specified in Appendix A, some vacant parcels have been included in the land inventories of the 5th Cycle and 4th Cycle Stockton Housing Elements as suitable to address the City’s RHNA allocation. Per Government Code Section 65583.2(c), to continue to include these parcels in that portion of the land inventory for this 6th Cycle Housing Element, the City will commit to update all required Development Code and General Plan provisions to allow projects that have at least 20 percent affordable units (extremely low, very low, or low) without discretionary review or “by right” (Government Code Section 65583.2 (i)).
Quantified Objectives: Units on repeat sites identified in Appendix A with lower income units that don’t already allow residential development by right.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Update Development Code and, if needed, Land Use Element by December 31, 2026
Program 4. Public Facilities Repair and Replacement: Through implementation of the HUD Consolidated Plan, and upon funding availability, the City shall continue to use place-based strategies by identifying and targeting low-income neighborhoods for the expansion of existing facilities/infrastructure, replacement of deteriorating facilities, and construction of new facilities/infrastructure to increase quality of life for Stockton residents. To help identify these neighborhoods and facilities, the City shall update its Housing Conditions survey to better direct staff time and resources in identifying areas and facilities that could benefit the most.
Quantified Objectives: 5 public facility/ infrastructure projects, prioritizing lower-income, high-poverty neighborhoods such as the South Stockton neighborhood, Downtown, and parts of the East Stockton and Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhoods.
Potential Funding: CDBG
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department, Community Development
Time Frame: Annually
Program 5. Housing and Neighborhood Action Plans: The City is currently preparing a Housing Action Plan (HAP) to provide a guidebook with information to interested developers and property owners about residential opportunities in the city. This plan will include the top priority sites the City has identified as "shovel-ready" for housing development. Selection of the priority sites will be based on financial feasibility analysis and policy goals. The HAP will be marketed and provided to potential developers upon completion. Implementation of the HAP will include marketing and incentivizing development of missing middle housing types including tiny homes, cottage homes, single-room occupancy units, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. All of these housing types are already allowed in the city. As detailed in Program 17, the city is proposing to expand where multi-unit residential (duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes) is allowed in the city as part of the Comprehensive Development Code Update. Incentivizing housing types such as single-room occupancy units and tiny homes is expected to create new housing opportunities for extremely low-income households.
The City is also preparing Neighborhood Action Plans for three (3) neighborhoods - South Airport Way Corridor, Little Manila/Gleason Park, and Cabral/East Cabral. The plans are focusing on eliminating barriers to housing construction and will result in recommended actions and strategies for each of the Neighborhood Areas. In particular, the Neighborhood Action Plans for Cabral Station Area and Little Manila/Gleason Park neighborhoods will serve as a tool to improve conditions and opportunities in these two primarily lower-income areas.
Quantified Objectives: Objective is that adoption of HAP will help facilitate permitting 1,000 residential units, prioritizing affordable housing in high-opportunity areas such as the Morada/Holman, Brookside/Country Club, Eight Mile/Bear Creek, and Midtown neighborhoods. Additional focus will be given to eliminating barriers to housing construction in lower-income areas such as the Cabral Station Area and Little Manila/Gleason Park neighborhoods.
Potential Funding: LEAP, REAP, General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Neighborhood Action Plans by December 2023 and Housing Action Plan by April 2024
Program 6. Accessory Dwelling Units: The City will update its ADU regulations as needed throughout the planning period to address changes to State law. The City will encourage the construction of ADUs throughout the city through the following actions. These actions are aimed at providing an increased supply of affordable units and therefore help reduce
displacement risk for low-income households resulting from housing overpayment and facilitate mixed-income neighborhoods:
Quantified Objectives: Approve 180 ADUs over the course of the planning period, targeting areas of high opportunity, specifically the following neighborhoods - Brookside/Country Club, Weston Ranch, Eight Mile/Bear Creek, Midtown around the University of the Pacific (between I-5 and “Miracle Mile”/Pacific Avenue), western Upper Hammer/Thornton Rd, and eastern Morada/Holman.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: The City is currently updating the ADU regulations as part of the Comprehensive Development Code Update, to be completed by April 2024. The City currently defers to state law regarding ADUs and JADUs until the local ordinance is updated to be consistent with state ADU law. Starting in November 2024, evaluate the consistency of Stockton’s ADU regulations with State law and update accordingly. Continue to make ADU materials available; evaluate effectiveness of ADU approvals every other year, starting April 2025; and, identify additional site capacity, if needed, by December 2026. Apply annually, or as grants are available, for funding to support ADU incentives.
Program 7. Infill Strategy: The City shall continue to implement the Downtown Infrastructure Infill Incentive Program or explore other financing strategies to facilitate the development of infill projects in the Downtown and Greater Downtown areas. The Downtown Infrastructure Infill Incentive Program provides financial incentives to eligible parties in developing new market-rate residential, commercial, or mixed-use projects in Downtown Stockton. Under the Downtown Infill Infrastructure Program, eligible development projects may receive a reimbursement for certain public infrastructure improvements based on the project meeting certain criteria including a threshold number of residential units or square footage, being within the qualifying geographic area, investing at least $500,000, and needing public infrastructure improvements of at least $100,000. The program identifies actions and incentives to promote infill development, including brownfield remediation.
In addition, the Housing Action Plan, currently underway, will identify additional recommended strategies that could include:
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Continue to offer the Downtown Infrastructure Infill Incentive Program. Adopt Housing Action Plan by April 2024. Implement Housing Action Plan strategies by 2025. Annually, beginning in 2026, identify any additional strategies needed to address overpayment and reduce displacement risk and implement them within 2 years of identification.
Program 8. Site Assembly: The City shall actively work with local property owners and developers to assist in the consolidation and assembly of small privately-owned parcels (including infill parcels) for residential projects, particularly as related to parcels listed in the sites inventory and parcels with multiple owners. The City is updating infill requirements as part of the Comprehensive Development Code Update. The City is also working on mapping potential infill sites that are vacant and ready for development as part of the Housing Action Plan, currently underway (see Programs 5 and 17). The City shall continue to process lot mergers ministerially and shall offer incentives, in addition to the incentives already offered to infill development. The City shall also conduct meetings to connect owners of properties with potential developers and to discuss development opportunities and incentives for lot consolidation to accommodate affordable housing units and consider additional incentives brought forth by developers. As developers/owners approach the City with interest in lot consolidation for the development of affordable housing, the City could defer certain fees, allow more height or additional stories, waive lot merger fees for certain small contiguous lots, and provide concurrent/fast tracking of project application reviews to developers who provide affordable housing. By 2027, the City will review the effectiveness of this program and revise as appropriate. The City will also evaluate grant funding for parcel assemblage land banking when it is available.
Quantified Objectives: Support at least 5 lot consolidations on sites with lower income units during the planning period. Facilitate lot consolidation to produce sites for 2,300 moderate and above moderate residential units to produce new housing opportunities throughout city.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Establish program or resources to connect property owners and developers by December 2025, and assess incentives and resources annually thereafter. Based on the meetings with developers and property owners, add and evaluate incentives as appropriate. Ongoing: Support consolidation as applicable housing applications are received; Pursue grant funding during planning period if California legislation and/or programs enable a tax-increment or similar program that leads to funding for site assembly.
Program 9. Government-Owned Sites: As specified in Chapter 4 and Appendix A, the Housing Element is relying on a cluster of vacant parcels totaling 3.7 acres that are owned by the Stockton Unified School District (SUSD) to satisfy a portion of its RHNA allocation, including 32 lower-income units and 182 above moderate-income units. The City is committed to continuing to coordinate with SDSU on development plans for these parcels. Additionally, the Housing Element is relying on 14 parcels owned by the City, totaling 15.54 acres to satisfy a portion of its RHNA allocation, including 68 lower-income units and 412 above moderate-income units. If a plan for housing development on these parcels is not underway by 2026, with building permits issued by June 2029 the City will identify additional sites for housing accordingly, including rezoning sites to address the RHNA if needed.
The City will utilize City-owned sites to develop mixed-income housing projects. All sites are presently suitably zoned and vacant. The City will make such parcels available to developers building affordable housing or otherwise ensure the development of housing on such sites. The anticipated timelines for development are listed in the Timeframe section below and described more fully in Chapter 4. The process to make City-owned sites available will include outreach to create partnerships with affordable housing developers that can maximize the opportunities and number of units. This will include facilitation of lot consolidation, if needed (as described in Program 8) on any city sites in the list below that could benefit from lot consolidation to create a project. The City will facilitate development by providing incentives, as described in Program 7, as appropriate. As described in Chapter 4, the City will continue to use the Surplus Lands Act (SLA) process to pursue affordable housing projects in the city. The City will require an affordability covenant recorded against the land stipulating a specified percent of the total units developed will be affordable to lower-income households, in accordance with State law. The City will comply with State law to implement the SLA process as follows:
Quantified Objectives: Facilitate development of government-owned sites for 100 lower-income units and 594 above moderate-income units to produce new housing opportunities throughout city.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame:
If a plan for housing development on these parcels is not underway by 2026, with building permits issued by June 2029 the City will identify additional sites for housing accordingly, including rezoning sites to address the RHNA if needed.
Program 10. Large Site Development: As specified in Chapter 4 and Appendix A, the Housing Element is relying on 4 large vacant sites (9-12, 12-34, 12-35, 12-36), totaling 106.23 acres, to satisfy a portion of its RHNA allocation, including 1,512 lower-income units. The City shall actively work with local property owners and developers to assist in the development of these sites. The City will promote, incentivize, and support lot splits and/or large lot development by offering expedited processing. The City will proactively conduct outreach efforts on an annual basis until large higher-density sites in the inventory have been developed in order to distribute information to potential developers and provide notice of incentives to further encourage development of larger parcels. Outreach efforts may include, but will not be limited to, one-on-one meetings with developers and property owners, as well as maintaining and advertising an inventory of large sites appropriate for residential development and informational materials on available incentives. City staff will continue to work with affordable housing builders that have built projects within the City and keep them apprised of available properties for development.
The City will offer the following incentives for the development of affordable housing on large sites, which may include, but is not limited to:
In addition, the City will track development approvals on large sites in the inventory. If projects approved on this type of site by December 31, 2027 are not in line with the City's RHNA projections on larges sites in the inventory, within one year (by December 31, 2028) the City will identify additional sites to address the remaining RHNA and if necessary will rezone to make the sites available for residential development.
Quantified Objectives: Facilitate large lot development, including lot splits, as needed to produce sites for 1,512 lower-income units to produce new housing opportunities throughout city.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing, as projects come forward. Establish program to connect property owners and developers by December 2025. Annually reach out to developers to gather input on available incentives. Annually conduct outreach and advertising. Facilitate and streamline parceling, or other similar actions, for large sites through 2031. Assess project approvals on large Housing Element inventory sites as of December 31, 2027. If approved projects are not in line with the City's RHNA projections on large sites in the inventory, within one year (by December 31, 2028) the City will identify additional sites beyond the large sites in the inventory in order to further facilitate residential development and if necessary will rezone to make the sites available for residential development.
GOAL HE-2: PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY HOUSING FOR ALL INCOME GROUPS. ENCOURAGE AND PROMOTE THE CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE AND MARKET RATE HOUSING TO MEET CITY'S HOUSING NEEDS AND PROMOTE DEVELOPMENTS THAT CONSERVE ENERGY.
Policy HE-2.1 Pursue Funding: The City shall pursue Federal and State housing assistance programs designed to help meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. (Program 12)
Policy HE-2.2 Networking and Collaboration: The City shall continue to collaborate with public agencies and private and nonprofit entities to access State, Federal, and other sources of funding to provide housing to lower- and moderate-income households. (Program 11)
Policy HE-2.3 Affordable Housing Incentives: The City shall explore incentives, bonuses, and flexibility in standards and requirements in the Development Code that could benefit affordable housing development, such as density bonuses, flexible development standards, and deferred payment of fees. (Programs 5, 13 and 20)
Policy HE-2.4 Homeownership Opportunities: The City shall continue to provide opportunities for and reduce barriers to homeownership and promote financial literacy and public awareness of the various means available to become a homeowner. (Program 12)
Policy HE-2.5 Priority Sewer and Water Service for Affordable Housing: The City shall provide priority sewer and water service for developments that include lower income housing units, consistent with State law (Government Code Section 65589.7). (Program 13)
Policy HE-2.6 Energy Conservation and Waste Reduction: The City shall promote energy conservation and waste reduction in residential site planning, design, and construction. (Program 14)
Policy HE-2.7 Energy Conservation and Efficiency in City Regulations: The City shall use its review and regulatory power to enhance and expand residential energy conservation and efficiency. (Programs 14, 15, and 16)
Policy HE-2.8 Green Building Concepts: The City shall require green building concepts and processes in new residential construction and rehabilitation of existing housing consistent with State building standards and local subdivision and zoning standards. (Program 14)
Policy HE-2.9 Energy Conservation and Efficiency Programs: The City shall work with local energy providers to promote weatherization and energy conservation programs and incentives to new and existing residential developments, especially low-income households. (Programs 14, 15, and 16)
Policy HE-2.10 Green-Up Stockton: The City shall encourage voluntary residential energy efficiency assessments and retrofits for existing dwelling units. (Program 15)
Program 11. Coordination with the Housing Authority of San Joaquin County: The City shall continue to work closely with the Housing Authority of San Joaquin County in providing assisted housing through the Housing Voucher Program, and in providing housing and supportive services to special needs households and individuals, including farmworkers. In addition, working with the Housing Authority, implement a Housing Choice Voucher education program to share information about the program and available incentives with rental property owners and managers as well as training on avoiding discriminatory practices based on income or other protected classes. Distribute this information at least annually to property owners and managers across the City, though with an emphasis on higher (moderate, high, and highest) resource areas where there are no public housing opportunities available, a disproportionately low rate of voucher usage, and high performing schools. Additional outreach will be targeted in areas with the highest concentration of children in single female-headed households, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, Downtown, and South Stockton.
Quantified Objectives: Provide vouchers to 3,800 households in Stockton and assist these lower income households in accessing rental opportunities with Housing Choice Vouchers to facilitate housing mobility. Target additional outreach in areas with the highest concentration of children in single female-headed households, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, Downtown, and South Stockton.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department, Housing Authority of San Joaquin County
Time Frame: Ongoing; establish education program by the end of 2024 and distribute information. Then distribute information at least annually through the end of the planning period.
Program 12. State and Federal Funding: The City shall continue to apply annually for Federal entitlement funds under the CDBG, HOME and ESG Programs, and shall pursue additional State and Federal funding that becomes available during the planning period. The City shall continue to administer its Down Payment Assistance Program for low-income first-time homebuyers using a variety of funding sources, including CDBG and HOME funds. The program will be targeted to those buying in higher opportunity areas and farmworkers. The City shall support housing organizations and affordable housing developers by assisting in applications for funding, drafting letters of support and resolutions, and identifying potential sites for affordable housing. The City shall also discuss the possibility of requiring affordable units as part of development agreements when initiating discussions with applicants.
Quantified Objectives: Fund 200 extremely low-, 400 very low-, 450 low-income units; Provide down payment assistance to 75 low-income households, particularly in high opportunity areas such as the Morada/Holman, Brookside/Country Club, Eight Mile/Bear Creek, and Midtown neighborhoods. Outreach for the program will target the areas above as well as areas in relative proximity to agricultural employment including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood to provide residential opportunities for farmworkers near areas of agricultural employment.
Potential Funding: General Fund; CDBG, HOME, HELP, and CalHome
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Review funding opportunities annually; down payment assistance program is ongoing
Program 13. Priority Sewer and Water Service for Affordable Housing: The City shall include language in the development code to provide priority sewer and water service for developments that include lower income housing units, consistent with State law (Government Code Section 65589.7).
Quantified Objectives: Include in Development Code as part of Comprehensive Update
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: City Council, Municipal Utilities Department, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Include in Development Code as part of Comprehensive Update by April 2024
Program 14. Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program. The City shall continue to provide programs for property owners to finance the purchase and installation of infrastructure improvements to their properties with no up-front costs for: renewable energy, energy- and water-efficiency improvements, water conservation upgrades, and/or electric vehicle charging to increase place-based strategies.
Quantified Objectives: Connect 60 eligible Stockton residents with energy- and cost-saving programs to reduce overpayment on housing costs, with a target of 50 percent in the areas listed under program outreach in the next sentence, to increase place-based strategies. Program outreach will be prioritized in areas with high rates of homeowner overpayment, including the Mariposa Lakes neighborhood, parts of Downtown and East Stockton, the Industrial Annex area, and parts of the Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village and Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhoods.
Potential Funding: Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing. A unique, centralized location for this program on the City’s website will be created by December 2025. Annual updating will occur thereafter.
Program 15. Green-Up Stockton: The City shall continue to encourage voluntary energy assessments for housing units built prior to November 1, 2002. The City shall continue to work with community services agencies and PG&E and other funding sources to identify funding and incentivize residential energy efficiency projects to increase place-based strategies.
Quantified Objectives: Connect 60 eligible Stockton residents with energy- and cost-saving programs to reduce overpayment on housing costs, with a target of 50 percent in the areas listed under program outreach in the next sentence, to increase place-based strategies. Program outreach will be prioritized in areas with high rates of homeowner or renter overpayment, including the South and East Stockton, Midtown, Industrial Annex, Downtown, and Mariposa Lakes neighborhoods.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Program 16. Weatherization Activities: The City shall advertise local weatherization programs by posting information on the City website and distributing fliers and brochures, and shall refer elderly homeowners, low-income households within certain income limits, and the general public to agencies offering weatherization programs. The City will also pursue funding opportunities as available to provide small loans or grants to extremely low income households looking to complete weatherization projects to reduce displacement risk caused by substandard housing conditions or high energy costs. Additionally, the City will target outreach in high and moderate resource areas in relative proximity to agricultural employment opportunities to ensure housing where farmworkers reside is sufficiently maintained, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood. Additional outreach will be targeted in areas with the highest concentration of children in single female-headed households, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, Downtown, and South Stockton to increase place-based strategies.
Quantified Objectives: 200 units weatherized, with a target of 50 percent in the areas listed under additional program outreach below to increase place-based strategies. Program outreach will be prioritized in lower-income neighborhoods and areas with high rates of homeowner or renter overpayment, including the South and East Stockton, Midtown, Industrial Annex, Downtown, and Mariposa Lakes neighborhoods. Additionally, outreach will be prioritized in the area southeast of the intersection of Thornton Road/Pacific Avenue and West Hammer Lane, where the city may be able to reach more senior households. Additional program outreach will target areas in relative proximity to agricultural employment including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman
neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood. Additional outreach will be targeted in areas with the highest concentration of children in single female-headed households, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, Downtown, and South Stockton.
Potential Funding: Home Energy Assistance Program HEAP
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Program availability is ongoing. Advertising of the program by the City on the City website and direct outreach will begin by December 2024.
Policy HE-3.1 Mitigate Governmental Constraints: The City shall strive to mitigate local governmental constraints to the development, improvement, and maintenance of housing. (Programs 17, 18, and 19)
Policy HE-3.2 Streamlined Permitting: The City shall continue to streamline the local permit review and approval processes for affordable and infill housing projects. (Programs 17, 18 and 19)
Policy HE-3.3 Application and Development Fees: The City shall strive to ensure that application and development fees do not unnecessarily constrain production of new infill and multifamily housing. (Program 18)
Policy HE-3.4 Defer Fees for Affordable Housing: The City shall continue waiving and deferring eligible fees to help offset development costs for affordable housing. (Program 18)
Policy HE-3.5 Creativity and Flexibility: The City shall allow for flexibility in the application of development standards to encourage creative and innovative housing solutions. (Program 20)
Program 17. Development Code Revisions: As part of the Comprehensive Development Code Update, the City shall complete the following changes to the Development Code:
Amend the Development Code to allow employee housing for six persons or fewer in the same way residential structures are allowed in all zones allowing residential uses.
Amend the Development Code to allow emergency shelters without discretionary review (by right – without conditional or other discretionary permit) in additional zoning districts that allow residential uses, is in proximity to transportation and services, with appropriate development standards, and contains sufficient capacity per capacity analysis required by state law, to address the 893-person unsheltered need in the City. This use will be allowed without discretionary review in one or more of the following zoning districts:
Amend the Development Code to update the definition of emergency shelter to comply with current state law to expand the definition of emergency shelter to include interim interventions, including but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care.
Amend the Development Code to update standards for emergency shelters, including parking, minimum distance, and any other updates needed for consistency with State law.
Include a State-compliant definition of “family” in the Development Code.
Evaluate the possibility of implementing SB 10 (Planning and Zoning Law) in appropriate areas of the city. SB 10 is an option for jurisdictions to allow for streamlined review of certain housing projects up to 10 units in transit-rich areas or urban infill sites to increase housing opportunity and reduce VMT.
Per the agreements with the Department of Justice and Sierra Club, the City shall create new industrial design and operational standards that will regulate new industrial uses and buildings adjacent to residential communities.
Amend Development Standards as follows:
Development Code Amendments to Facilitate Opportunities for Residential Development in Zoning Districts that allow Non-Residential Development
Expand Development Code to allow residential projects in all residential and commercial zoning designations.
State explicitly in the Development Code that 100 percent residential projects are allowed in all commercially zoned districts as is currently allowed in practice in CN, CG and CD.
Amend the Development Code to address missing middle sized housing types by allowing Multi-Unit Residential (up to 4 units) without discretionary review in all Residential and Commercial zones.
Amend Development Standards as follows:
Amend the Development Code and possibly General Plan to encourage future transitions in disadvantaged communities via new commercial/industrial zones that would remove heavy industrial uses from many of the South Stockton areas.
Quantified Objectives: N/A
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Amend Development Code to allow emergency shelters without discretionary review in additional zoning districts within one year of Housing Element adoption. All other amendments in this program will be completed by April 2024.
Program 18. Fiscally Positive Impact Fees: The City's adopted impact fees on new development or other ongoing funding mechanisms (e.g., community facilities districts) are fiscally positive to the City. The City shall continue to consider the impacts on the cost, supply, and affordability of housing and ensure that fees do not unduly constrain housing development by continuing to monitor the Residential Development Public Facilities Fees (PFFs) Exemption Program, Citywide Affordable Housing Development Public Facilities Fees Exemption Program, Greater Downtown Stockton Residential Development Public Facilities Fees Exemption Program, and Stockton Economic Stimulus Plan (SESP) fee reduction components to ensure they are addressing potential constraints. To encourage the development of housing affordable to extremely low-income households, the City will evaluate the feasibility of providing impact or other development fee waivers or deferrals for projects with extremely low-income units.
Quantified Objectives: Provide exemptions and reductions to 200 housing units to reduce overpayment for housing costs and reduce displacement risk specifically for lower-income communities, including 30 units affordable to extremely low-income households.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department, Public Works Department
Time Frame: Annually, evaluate exemptions provided and determine whether all constraints to housing development associated with impact fees or other funding mechanisms are sufficiently addressed. If it is found that they are not being addressed, modifications will be made to one or more exemption programs within one year. This will occur after each annual review until the end of the planning period. The City will evaluate the feasibility of providing impact or other development fee waivers or deferrals for projects with extremely low-income units by the end of 2025.
Program 19. Streamline Approvals and Support for Affordable Housing Projects: The City will develop a preliminary application form and procedure or will formally adopt the Preliminary Application Form developed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), pursuant to SB 330. The City will also establish a written policy and/or procedure, and other guidance as appropriate, to specify the SB 35 streamlining approval process and standards for eligible projects under Government Code Section 65913.4. The applications will be available on the City's website for developers interested in pursuing the streamlined process or vesting rights. In addition, to facilitate housing mobility and approve more lower income units in higher resourced areas of the city, the City will implement a minimum of two of the items below:
Community benefit options that could be included in the criteria for initiating modified and new Development Agreements. These benefits could include Inclusionary Housing requirements and fees, Community Benefit agreements, increased land dedications for future city services, and joint-lease agreements for schools and civic uses.
Other community benefits the City will explore to prevent displacement include a right to counsel program, tenant bill of rights, housing trust fund, rent escrow account program, and land banking. If additional community benefits are approved, put into place by December 2024.
Additional funding for pre-construction analysis and remediation of infill sites for affordable housing projects and/or infill sites in low-resource areas.
Additional funding for infrastructure deficiency analysis and improvements in low-income and low resource areas.
Quantified Objectives: 150 new affordable units permitted through SB 35 approval streamlining and development of 150 affordable units facilitated by using the adopted preliminary application form.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Develop or adopt HCD’s SB 330 preliminary application form and develop an SB 35 streamlined approval process by December 2024 and implement as applications are received. The City will implement a minimum of two of the options listed in Program 19, to further streamline approvals and support affordable housing projects by December 2026. Program 20. Density Bonuses: The City will continue to allow density bonuses that exceed State requirements and periodically amend its Development Code to comply with changes in California’s density bonus law (Government Code Section 65915 et seq., as revised) and will promote the use of density bonuses for lower-income units by providing information through a brochure in City buildings and on the City’s website. In addition, as part of the Development Code process the City is currently exploring the creation of a new staff level process that would allow projects for all income levels to exceed density maximums (General Plan prescribed and 100-percent bonuses).
Quantified Objectives: Facilitate the construction of 1,000 lower-income units to increase mobility opportunities; encourage density bonus units in high-resource areas.
Potential Funding: General Fund and grant funding
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Complete as part of Comprehensive Development Code Update by April 2024; annually review Development Code and revise as needed; produce brochures and make information available on the City’s website by December 2024.
GOAL HE-4: PRESERVE EXISTING HOUSING. CONSERVE AND ENHANCE EXISTING HOUSING IN STOCKTON'S NEIGHBORHOODS.
Policy HE-4.1 Preserve Existing Affordable Housing: The City shall seek to preserve existing affordable rental housing, such as subsidized apartments for lower-income households, mobile homes in mobile home parks, and low-cost private rental housing. (Program 21 and 24)
Policy HE-4.2 Housing Maintenance and Rehabilitation: The City shall encourage maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of existing owner-occupied, rental, and affordable housing to prevent deterioration of housing and ensure that housing is safe and sanitary. (Program 22)
Policy HE-4.3 Housing Unit Replacement: The City shall promote the removal and replacement of dilapidated housing units in compliance with State law regarding replacement of existing affordable housing. (Program 23 and 24)
Policy HE-4.4 Property Management: The City shall encourage good property management practices in rental properties through regulatory agreements, informational items, code enforcement staffing, the Crime Free Multi-family Housing program, and the City’s rental inspection ordinance. (Program 23)
Program 21. Preserve At-Risk Units: Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 1521, the City will monitor the list of all dwellings in Stockton that are subsidized by government funding or low-income housing developed through local regulations or incentives. The list will include, at a minimum, the number of units, the type of government program, and the date on which the units are at risk to convert to market-rate dwellings. There have been 392 units (see Analysis of At-Risk Housing section in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment) identified as at risk of converting to market rate within ten (10) years of the beginning of the 6th Cycle Housing Element planning period. The list will include, at a minimum, the project address; number of deed-restricted units, including affordability levels; associated government program; date of completion/occupancy; and the date on which the units are at risk to convert to market rate. The City will work to reduce the potential conversion of any units to market rate, in order to reduce the potential for displacement and/or placement of additional constraints on the existing affordable housing stock through the following actions:
Pursuant to State law (Government Code Sections 65853.10, 65863.11, and 65863.13), owners of deed-restricted affordable projects are required to provide notice of restrictions that are expiring to all prospective tenants, existing tenants, and the City within three (3) years, 12 months, and six (6) months before the scheduled expiration of rental restrictions. In addition, the City or owner will provide notice to HUD, HCD, and the local legal aid organization. Owners shall also refer tenants of at-risk units to educational resources regarding tenant rights and conversion procedures and information regarding Section 8 rent subsidies and any other affordable housing opportunities in the City. In addition, notice shall be required prior to conversion of any units to market rate for any additional deed-restricted lower-income units that were constructed with the aid of government funding, that were required by inclusionary zoning requirements, that were part of a project granted a density bonus, or that were part of a project that received other incentives.
If a development is offered for sale, HCD must certify persons or entities that are eligible to purchase the development and to receive notice of the pending sale. Placement on the eligibility list will be based on experience with affordable housing administration / management.
When necessary, the City shall continue to work with property owners of deed-restricted affordable units who need to sell within 55 years of the unit’s initial sale. When the seller is unable to sell to an eligible buyer within a specified time period, equity-sharing provisions are established (pursuant to the affordable housing agreement for the property), whereby the difference between the affordable and market values is paid to the City to eliminate any incentive to sell the converted unit at market rate. Funds generated would then be used to develop additional affordable housing in the City. The City shall continue tracking all residential projects that include affordable housing to ensure that the affordability is maintained for at least 55 years for owner-occupied units and 55 years for rental units, and that any sale or change of ownership of these affordable units prior to satisfying the 55-year restriction shall be “rolled over” for another 55 years to protect “at-risk” units.
Quantified Objectives: Continue to monitor the 392 assisted units, and if any become at risk, work with property owners to develop a strategy to provide assistance to maintain or replace 392 at-risk units as affordable to reduce potential for displacement of tenants and loss of affordable housing stock in the city.
Potential Funding: HOME, CDBG, CalHOME
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing communication with owners, service providers, and eligible potential purchasers; work with owners of deed-restricted units on an ongoing basis, in particular at the time of change of ownership.
Program 22. Housing Rehabilitation Programs: The City shall continue to administer its owner-occupied loan program and emergency repair program using a variety of funding sources, including CDBG and HOME funds. The City will improve communication regarding rehabilitation assistance programs currently available for lower-income households, including to eligible owners of mobile homes, and rental property owners to alleviate substandard conditions to increase place-based strategies. The City recently conducted a blight study that included a windshield survey of the former redevelopment areas and opportunity zones to identify parcels/properties with physical signs of deterioration, vacant properties, and potential environmentally contaminated sites. The results of the study and survey will inform a place-based strategy for prioritizing rehabilitation during the planning period. In addition, the HAP and Neighborhood Action Plans will outline underutilized and vacant parcels as well as complete a housing condition survey to indicate units in need of repair. The City will also pursue funding opportunities as available to provide small loans or grants to extremely low income households looking to complete home rehabilitation projects to reduce displacement risk caused by substandard housing conditions. Additionally, the City will target outreach in high and moderate resource areas in relative proximity to agricultural employment opportunities to ensure housing where farmworkers reside is sufficiently maintained, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood. Additional outreach will be targeted in areas with the highest concentration of children in single female-headed households, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, Downtown, and South Stockton.
Quantified Objectives: Assist 300 lower-income units to address potential displacement, with a target of at least 50 percent in areas of the city with the poorest housing conditions as identified during the windshield survey to increase place-based strategies, including the Downtown area; areas in close proximity to agricultural employment opportunities such as parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood; as well as any areas identified during the development of the HAP and Neighborhood Action Plans. Additional outreach will be targeted in areas with the highest concentration of children in single female-headed households, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, Downtown, and South Stockton. Of these units, assist 75 units with extremely low-income households.
Potential Funding: HOME, CDBG, CalHOME
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Complete study and survey in 2023. Rehabilitation program is ongoing. Annually review the availability of funding opportunities and apply as opportunities become available.
Program 23. Code Enforcement Program: The City shall continue to inspect housing units in targeted areas to check for building code violations to increase place-based strategies. In situations where properties cannot be rehabilitated, the City will continue to enforce the removal and replacement of substandard units. The City will utilize a place-based strategy for prioritizing areas for inspection based on the results of its recent blight study, which highlighted the need for addressing blight conditions in the Downtown area. Additionally, the City will target inspection in high and moderate resource areas in relative proximity to agricultural employment opportunities to ensure housing where farmworkers reside is sufficiently maintained, including the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood.
Quantified Objectives: Inspect 2,000 units annually, with a target of prioritizing at least 50 percent in the areas with high potential need for rehabilitation, including the Downtown area; as well as areas in close proximity to agricultural employment opportunities including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood; as well as any areas identified during the development of the HAP and Neighborhood Action Plans.
Potential Funding: CDBG
Who Is Responsible: Police Department: Neighborhood Services Division
Time Frame: Ongoing
Program 24. Replacement of Existing Affordable Units: In accordance with California Government Code Section 65583.2(g), the City will require replacement housing units subject to the requirements of California Government Code Section 659151(3) on sites identified in the sites inventory when any new development that removes existing residential units (residential, mixed-use, or nonresidential) occurs on a site that has been occupied by or restricted for the use of lower-income households at any time during the previous five years. This requirement applies to:
Quantified Objectives: N/A
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
PROVIDE A RANGE OF HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND SERVICES FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS, PROMOTE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL RESIDENTS, AND SUPPORT THE ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING.
Policy HE-5.1 Special Needs Accommodation: The City shall seek to accommodate housing and shelter for residents with special needs through appropriate zoning standards and permit processes. (Programs 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29)
Policy HE-5.2 Homeless Needs: The City shall strive to address the shelter needs of its homeless residents, and continue to support the provision of facilities and services to meet the needs of homeless individuals and families. (Program 25)
Policy HE-5.3 Temporary Housing: The City shall support temporary housing for individuals with special needs (e.g., seniors who have experienced abuse or neglect, individuals who may be at physical or psychological risk, mentally ill homeless individuals, those with HIV/AIDS or other debilitating illnesses) in board and care homes and respite centers. (Program 25)
Policy HE-5.4 Large Households: The City shall encourage the development of single-family and multifamily housing affordable to large households. (Program 30)
Policy HE-5.5 Households with Language Barriers: The City shall make information available on housing opportunities and programs to residents who are primarily non-English speaking. (Program 30)
Policy HE-5.6 Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The City shall encourage the development of housing accessible to people with disabilities, including developmental disabilities. The City shall ensure equal access to housing by providing reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities. (Programs 26, 27, and 28)
Policy HE-5.7 Farmworkers: The City shall work with San Joaquin County in efforts to increase the availability of safe, sound, and affordable housing for farmworkers. (Program 28)
Policy HE-5.8 Prohibit Discrimination: The City shall support the strict observance and enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and practices including prohibiting discrimination in the sale or rental of housing with regard to race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, source of income, gender/gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, and familial status. (Programs 30 and 32)
Policy HE-5.9 Affirmatively Further Fair Housing: The City shall affirmatively further fair housing consistent with State and Federal law through implementation of programs in this Housing Element and in all other City practices. (Program 30 and 31)
Program 25. Continue to Support Organizations Assisting Homeless Persons: The City shall annually apply for and continue to pursue State and Federal funds available to the City, private donations, and volunteer assistance to support homeless shelters. The City shall continue to provide financial assistance from its Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funding to homeless service providers and continue to support additional development of shelter facilities as requested by shelter providers. In addition, the City shall review the need for additional shelter facilities and services when it updates its Consolidated Plan, prioritizing higher-resource areas.
In accordance with its 2022 Homeless Action Plan, the City will also do the following:
Quantified Objectives: Annually, assist up to 2,000 unduplicated homeless persons; and 1,000 households at-risk of homelessness with limited-term rental assistance or utility payments. Target outreach and distribute information about these programs in the downtown area, close to existing homeless services. As part of this, increase the number of board and care or other types of residential or transitional care facilities for vulnerable populations by 300-500 beds. Prioritize
new residential or transitional care facilities for vulnerable populations in higher-opportunity areas or areas in close proximity to services, including the Midtown, Trinity/Northwest Stockton, Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village, Eight Mile/Bear Creek, and Morada/Holman neighborhoods.
Potential Funding: ESG, CDBG
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Apply for funding annually and provide funding to housing providers to fund on-site case managers and other support services annually. Provide operating support for organizations that provide basic services, outreach, and engagement annually. Provide financial support for the Coordinated Entry system annually through at least 2027.
Program 26. Continue to Assist the Disabled in Community Development Block Grant Project Areas: The City shall continue to include special provisions for housing the disabled in CDBG project areas, including mobility grants for homes (e.g., Emergency Repair Program) and accessibility features.
Quantified Objectives: Provide mobility assistance home-repair grants for 120 low-income individuals and households including those with special needs including disabilities, in Stockton, including rental units. Of these individuals or households, provide mobility assistance for home-repair grants for 15 extremely low-income individuals or households including those with special needs including disabilities.
Potential Funding: CDBG
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department, Public Works Department
Time Frame: Annually, contingent upon CDBG funding
Program 27. Universal Design: Update the City’s standards in the Development Code to encourage universal design features in new homes and accessory dwelling units and improve access to housing for senior residents and other residents with disabilities. In addition, Program 29 includes other actions to facilitate full accessibility, which is different than universal design.
Quantified Objectives: 100 housing units with universal design features to facilitate accessibility for persons with disabilities and seniors; encouraging at least five (5) of these units to be located near transit stations and services.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Make updates as part of the Comprehensive Development Code update by April 2024
Program 28. Assist Farm Workers and other Members of the Workforce: The City shall continue to provide ongoing assistance to farm laborers by working with the San Joaquin Housing Authority, San Joaquin County, agricultural employers, farm labor housing advocates, and the development community to develop affordable, decent housing, including rental housing, for farm workers. The City will update how employee housing (including housing for agricultural workers) is allowed in the Development Code in Program 14.
Quantified Objectives: Assist other organizations in developing at least 500 units of housing for farmworkers in Stockton or in the County during the planning period, including 300 in high and moderate resource areas in relative proximity to agricultural employment opportunities, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood.
Potential Funding: CDBG, HOME, CalHOME
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Meet twice per year to explore opportunities for farmworker housing
Program 29. Addressing the Needs of Those with Disabilities: The City shall continue to work with the Valley Mountain Regional Center to implement an outreach program that informs families in the City about housing and services available for persons with developmental disabilities. The program includes informational brochures, and information is available on the City’s website. Specifically, the City will collaborate with the Regional Center on:
For compliance with State law, the City will revise or delete the following two findings for granting a reasonable accommodation:
The City will also make the following revisions:
The City shall also prepare public information brochures and website information on reasonable accommodations for disabled persons and translate the materials to provide information to residents with language barriers. The City shall make this information available at the public counter and distribute the materials to community groups and organizations that represent persons with disabilities.
Quantified Objectives: By revising its Development Code to remove development constraints, the City will facilitate the development of 300 units for households with a household member who has a disability.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department
Time Frame: Revise the Reasonable Accommodation procedure including the findings as part of the Comprehensive Development Code Update by April 2024. Prepare public information on Reasonable Accommodations by June 2024. Continue to partner with the Valley Mountain Regional Center and review the materials on the City website annually starting in 2024 and update as needed after each annual review.
Program 30. Practices to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing: In compliance with California Government Code Sections 8899.50, 65583(c)(5), 65583(c)(10), and 65583.2(a) (AB 686), develop a plan to "affirmatively further fair housing" (AFFH). The AFFH plan shall take actions to address significant disparities in housing access and needs for all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, gender/gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or disability and any other characteristic protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8, commencing with Section 12900, of Division 3 of Title 2), Government Code Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law.
Specific actions include:
Quantified Objectives: See individual strategies bulleted in the program language at left with specific targets.
Potential Funding: CDBG; HOME; General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Economic Development Department, Community Development Department
Time Frame: Refer to each strategy in this Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) program for specific time frames.
Program 31. Environmental Health and Access to Resources: Environmental health is determined by air quality, climate change related outcomes, water quality, cancer prevalence, and more. Neighborhoods with poor environmental health conditions are often correlated to their proximity to industrial uses, major transit corridors, and other larger pollution sources. The City will facilitate environmental health-oriented, place-based revitalization of neighborhoods, particularly for housing in closer proximity to the lowest scoring areas in terms of environmental health, including the Port of Stockton along the San Joaquin River, Rough and Ready Island, downtown Stockton, and industrial areas east of the Union Pacific Railroad and south of Duck Creek to the southern boundary of the city adjacent to the Stockton Municipal Airport, which are more heavily impacted by pollution from prior industrial uses and diesel particulate matter from proximity to regional freeways and rail lines, through the following strategies:
Quantified Objectives: See individual strategies bulleted in the program language at left with specific targets.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department and Public Works Department
Time Frame: Refer to each strategy in this program for specific time frames.
Program 32. Removal of Racially Restrictive Covenants: Historically, covenants that restricted the sale of property to Whites or Caucasians-only were prevalent in the City, especially on residential properties. Although such covenants were declared unconstitutional and have not been enforceable since 1948, many remain on recorded property deeds. Furthermore, if there are properties owned by the City of Stockton found to have racially restrictive covenants, the City will review the deeds of all City-owned properties and remove any existing racially restrictive housing covenants found on them. In the future, any property purchased will require removal of any racially restrictive housing covenant prior to recording the property in the City's name. Additionally, State law (AB 1466) gives property owners the opportunity to remove racially restrictive covenants from their own deeds. Since July 1, 2022, county recorders must provide a Restrictive Covenant Modification form to every person purchasing a property with a restrictive covenant and establish an implementation plan to identify unlawful restrictive covenants in the records of their office. The City will develop a program to support and encourage individual property owners to remove such restrictions from their deeds and provide information about accessing the County process to do so. The City will use its social media platforms, website, and other communications tools to conduct outreach and provide information at community events to assist homeowners to identify and remove restrictive covenants
Quantified Objectives: Remove all racially restrictive covenants from Stockton City-owned properties by December 2025 and assist in the removal of all known privately owned properties by the end of the 6th housing cycle. Advertise County program starting in 2025; launch website and social media campaigns to support property owners to voluntarily remove these covenants by December 2025, with ongoing reminders in City publications and at City events. Support County enforcement of this State requirement as appropriate through City actions. Work with at least 20 property owners annually to support their efforts to remove restrictions from their deeds.
Potential Funding: General Fund; grants if offered through a State or County program
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department; San Joaquin County Recorder
Time Frame: Remove all covenants on City-owned properties by December 2025; launch informational campaign between June and December 2025; encouragement of removal of covenants from private properties is ongoing.
Program 33. Disperse Sites Suitable for Lower Income Housing to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing:
In compliance with California Government Code Sections 8899.50, 65583(c)(5), 65583(c)(10), 65583.2(a) (AB 686), to develop a plan to “affirmatively further fair housing” (AFFH) and ensure that sites to address the lower income RHNA are dispersed more evenly across the city in relatively higher income and higher resource areas, Stockton will identify or rezone additional lower-income units on sites suitably zoned to accommodate lower-income housing at densities up to 30 du/ac. Specifically, these additional sites will be identified in neighborhoods such as Trinity/Northwest Stockton, Eight Mile Rd/Bear Creek, and Northeast of Morada Lane. Development standards will be amended as appropriate to facilitate achieving maximum allowable densities.
Quantified Objectives: 1,193 additional lower income units on sites in relatively higher income and higher resource areas in neighborhoods such as Trinity/Northwest Stockton, Eight Mile Rd/Bear Creek, and Northeast of Morada Lane.
Potential Funding: General Fund
Who Is Responsible: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Make sites available including any needed General Plan or zoning code revisions, by December 31, 2026.
| IMPLEMENTATION | QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES | TIME FRAME |
|---|---|---|
| Goal HE-1: Increase Housing Production and Ensure Adequate Land for All Housing Types and Income Levels | ||
| 1. Adequate Sites Monitoring and No Net Loss | Continue to maintain sufficient sites to address 12,673 units | Update inventory annually as part of the Housing Element Annual Progress Report and assess "no net loss" as projects come forward on Housing Element sites. Assess project approvals on Housing Element inventory sites as of December 31, 2027. If approved projects are not in line with the City's non-residential RHNA projections in the inventory, within one year (by December 31, 2028) the City will identify additional sites beyond the sites in the inventory that allow non-residential uses in order to further facilitate residential development. |
| 2. Downtown Implementation | 4,400 residential units in the Greater Downtown Area by 2040 | Adopt Comprehensive Development Code Update and HAP by April 2024; and annually thereafter to identify any additional strategies to address General Plan goals. |
| 3. Sites Included in Previous Housing Elements | 437 residential units on 16 repeat sites identified in Appendix A that don't already allow residential development by right. | Update Development Code and, if needed, Land Use Element by December 31, 2026 |
| 4. Public Facilities Repair and Replacement | 5 public facility/ infrastructure projects, prioritizing lower-income, high-poverty neighborhoods such as the South Stockton neighborhood, Downtown, and parts of the East Stockton and Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhoods. | Annually |
| 5. Housing and Neighborhood Action Plans | Permit 1,000 residential units, prioritizing affordable housing in high-opportunity areas such as the Morada/Holman, Brookside/Country Club, Eight Mile/Bear Creek, and Midtown neighborhoods. Additional focus will be given to eliminating barriers to housing construction in lower-income areas such as the Cabral Station Area and Little Manila/Gleason Park neighborhoods. | Neighborhood Action Plans - December 2023; Housing Action Plan – April 2024 |
| 6. Accessory Dwelling Units | Approve 180 ADUs over the course of the planning period, targeting areas of high opportunity, specifically the following neighborhoods - Brookside/Country Club, Weston Ranch, Eight Mile/Bear Creek, Midtown around the University of the Pacific (between I-5 and "Miracle Mile/Pacific Avenue), western Upper Hammer/Thornton Rd, and eastern Morada/Holman. | The City is currently updating the ADU regulations as part of the Comprehensive Development Code Update, to be completed by April 2024. Starting in November 2024, evaluate the consistency of Stockton's ADU regulations with State law and update accordingly. Continue to make ADU materials available; evaluate effectiveness of ADU approvals every other year, starting April 2025; and, identify additional site capacity, if needed, by December 2026. Apply annually, or as grants are available, for funding to support ADU incentives. |
| IMPLEMENTATION | QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES | TIME FRAME |
|---|---|---|
| 7. Infill Strategy | 100 extremely low-income units and 150 other lower income units; funding for 10 brownfield sites minimum to promote new housing choices and affordability in areas of opportunity. | Continue to offer the Downtown Infrastructure Infill Incentive Program. Adopt Housing Action Plan by April 2024. Implement Housing Action Plan strategies by 2025. Annually, beginning in 2026, identify any additional strategies needed to address overpayment and reduce displacement risk and implement them within 2 years of identification. |
| 8. Site Assembly | Support at least 5 lot consolidations on sites with lower income units during the planning period. Facilitate lot consolidation to produce sites for 2,300 moderate and above moderate residential units to produce new housing opportunities throughout city. | Establish program or resources to connect property owners and developers by December 2025 , and assess incentives and resources thereafter. Ongoing: Support consolidation as applicable housing applications are received; Pursue grant funding during planning period if California legislation and/or programs enable a tax-increment or similar program that leads to funding for site assembly. |
| 9. Government-Owned Sites | Facilitate development of government-owned sites for 100 lower-income units and 594 above moderate-income units to produce new housing opportunities throughout city. | Coordinate with SDSU quarterly, starting immediately, with the goal of development of the sites by 2028.<br>City-Owned Sites 4-96, 4-97, 4-230, 4-33, 4-231, 4-232, 3-74, 4-183: RFI/SOQ Issued: Q4 2023, Entitlements: June 2025, Building Permits: December 2025, Construction Complete: June 2027.<br><br>City-Owned Sites 1-18, 1-19, 1-20, 1-21: RFP previously released in 2020, Entitlements: October 2024, Building Permits: May 2025, Construction Complete: July 2027.<br><br>City-Owned Sites 4-67, 4-210: RFI/SOQ Issued: Anticipated Q2 2025, Entitlements: June 2026, Building Permits: December 2026, Construction Complete: June 2028.<br><br>If a plan for housing development on these parcels is not underway by 2026, with building permits issued by June 2029 the City will identify additional sites for housing accordingly, including rezoning sites to address the RHNA if needed. |
| 10. Large Site Development | Facilitate large lot development, including lot splits, as needed to produce sites for 1,512 lower-income units to produce new housing opportunities throughout city. <ul><li>Conduct one-on-one meetings with developers and property owners.</li><li>Proactively conduct outreach advertising available incentives, resources, and relevant information for the development of larger sites.</li><li>Establish, maintain, and promote an inventory of large sites appropriate for residential development.</li><li>Facilitate and streamline parceling, or other similar planning methods, to encourage the development of large sites with affordable housing components.</li></ul> | Ongoing, as projects come forward; establish program to connect property owners and developers by December 2025. Annually reach out to developers to gather input on available incentives. Annually conduct outreach and advertising. Facilitate and streamline parceling, or other similar actions, for large sites through 2031. Assess project approvals on large Housing Element inventory sites as of December 31, 2027. If approved projects are not in line with the City’s RHNA projections on large sites in the inventory, within one year (by December 31, 2028) the City will identify additional sites beyond the large sites in the inventory in order to further facilitate residential development and if necessary will rezone to make the sites available for residential development. |
| IMPLEMENTATION | QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES | TIME FRAME |
|---|---|---|
| Goal HE-2: Provide High Quality Housing for All Income Groups | ||
| 11. Coordination with the Housing Authority of San Joaquin County | Provide vouchers to 3,800 households in Stockton and assist these lower income households in accessing rental opportunities with Housing Choice Vouchers to facilitate housing mobility. Target additional outreach in areas with the highest concentration of children in single female-headed households, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, Downtown, and South Stockton. | Ongoing; establish education program by the end of 2024 and distribute information. Then distribute information at least annually through the end of the planning period. |
| 12. State and Federal Funding | Fund 200 extremely low-, 400 very low-, 450 low-income units; Provide down payment assistance to 75 low-income households, particularly in high opportunity areas such as the Morada/Holman, Brookside/Country Club, Eight Mile/Bear Creek, and Midtown neighborhoods. | Review funding opportunities annually; down payment assistance program is ongoing |
| 13. Priority Sewer and Water Service for Affordable Housing | Include in Development Code as part of Comprehensive Update | Include in Development Code as part of Comprehensive Update by April 2024 |
| 14. Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program | Connect 60 eligible Stockton residents with energy- and cost-saving programs to reduce overpayment on housing costs. Program outreach will be prioritized in areas with high rates of homeowner overpayment, including the Mariposa Lakes neighborhood, parts of Downtown and East Stockton, the Industrial Annex area, and parts of the Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village and Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhoods. | Ongoing. A unique, centralized location for this program on the City’s website will be created by December 2025. Annual updating will occur thereafter. |
| 15. Green-Up Stockton | Connect 60 eligible Stockton residents with energy- and cost-saving programs to reduce overpayment on housing costs. Program outreach will be prioritized in areas with high rates of homeowner or renter overpayment, including the South and East Stockton, Midtown, Industrial Annex, Downtown, and Mariposa Lakes neighborhoods. | Ongoing |
| 16. Weatherization Activities | 200 units weatherized. Program outreach will be prioritized in lower-income neighborhoods and areas with high rates of homeowner or renter overpayment, including the South and East Stockton, Midtown, Industrial Annex, Downtown, and Mariposa Lakes neighborhoods. Additionally, outreach will be prioritized in the area southeast of the intersection of Thornton Road/Pacific Avenue and West Hammer Lane, where the city may be able to reach more senior households. Additional program outreach will target areas in relative proximity to agricultural employment including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex | Program availability is ongoing. Advertising of the program by the City on the City website and direct outreach will begin by December 2024. |
| IMPLEMENTATION | QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES | TIME FRAME |
|---|---|---|
| neighborhood. Additional outreach will be targeted in areas with the highest concentration of children in single female-headed households, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, Downtown, and South Stockton. | ||
| Goal HE-3: Remove Governmental Constraints | ||
| 17. Development Code Revisions | N/A | April 2024 |
| 18. Fiscally Positive Impact Fees | Provide exemptions and reductions to 200 housing units to reduce overpayment for housing costs and reduce displacement risk specifically for lower-income communities, including 30 units affordable to extremely low-income households. | Annually, evaluate exemptions provided and determine whether all constraints to housing development associated with impact fees or other funding mechanisms are sufficiently addressed. If it is found that they are not being addressed, modifications will be made to one or more exemption programs within one year. This will occur after each annual review until the end of the planning period. The City will evaluate the feasibility of providing impact or other development fee waivers or deferrals for projects with extremely low-income units by the end of 2025. |
| 19. Streamline Approvals for Affordable Housing Projects | 150 new affordable units permitted through SB 35 approval streamlining and development of 150 affordable units facilitated by using the adopted preliminary application form. | Develop or adopt HCD’s SB 330 preliminary application form and develop an SB 35 streamlined approval process by December 2024 and implement as applications are received. The City will implement a minimum of two of the options listed in Program 19, to further streamline approvals and support affordable housing projects by December 2026. |
| 20. Density Bonuses | Facilitate the construction of 1,000 lower-income units to increase mobility opportunities; encourage density bonus units in high-resource areas. | Complete as part of Comprehensive Development Code Update by April 2024; annually review Development Code and revise as needed; produce brochures and make information available on the City’s website by December 2024. |
| Goal HE-4: Preserve Existing Housing | ||
| 21. Preserve At-Risk Units | Continue to monitor the 392 assisted units, and if any become at risk, work with property owners to develop a strategy to provide assistance to maintain or replace 392 at-risk units as affordable to reduce potential for displacement of tenants and loss of affordable housing stock in the city. | Ongoing communication with owners, service providers, and eligible potential purchasers; work with owners of deed-restricted units on an ongoing basis, in particular at the time of change of ownership. |
| IMPLEMENTATION | QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES | TIME FRAME |
|---|---|---|
| 22. Housing Rehabilitation Programs | Assist 300 lower-income units to address potential displacement, especially in areas of the city with the poorest housing conditions as identified during the windshield survey, including the Downtown area; areas in close proximity to agricultural employment opportunities such as parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood; as well as any areas identified during the development of the HAP and Neighborhood Action Plans. Additional outreach will be targeted in areas with the highest concentration of children in single female-headed households, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, Downtown, and South Stockton. Of these units, assist 75 units with extremely low-income households.. | Complete study and survey in 2023. Rehabilitation program is ongoing. Annually review the availability of funding opportunities and apply as opportunities become available. |
| 23. Code Enforcement Program | Inspect 2,000 units annually, prioritizing areas with high potential need for rehabilitation, including the Downtown area; as well as areas in close proximity to agricultural employment opportunities including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood; as well as any areas identified during the development of the HAP and Neighborhood Action Plans. | Ongoing |
| 24. Replacement of Existing Affordable Units | N/A | Ongoing |
| Goal HE-5: Provide Equitable Housing and Supportive Services | ||
| 25. Continue to Support Organizations Assisting Homeless Persons | Annually, assist up to 2,000 unduplicated homeless persons; and 1,000 households at-risk of homelessness with limited-term rental assistance or utility payments. Target outreach and distribute information about these programs in the downtown area, close to existing homeless services. As part of this, increase the number of board and care or other types of residential or transitional care facilities for vulnerable populations by 300-500 beds. Prioritize new residential or transitional care facilities for vulnerable populations in higher-opportunity areas or areas in close proximity to services, including the Midtown, Trinity/Northwest Stockton, Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village, Eight Mile/Bear Creek, and Morada/Holman neighborhoods. | Apply for funding annually and provide funding to housing providers to fund on-site case managers and other support services annually. Provide operating support for organizations that provide basic services, outreach, and engagement annually. Provide financial support for the Coordinated Entry system annually through at least 2027. |
| IMPLEMENTATION | QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES | TIME FRAME |
|---|---|---|
| 26. Continue to Assist the Disabled in Community Development Block Grant Project Areas | Provide mobility assistance home-repair grants for 120 low-income individuals and households including those with special needs including disabilities, in Stockton, including rental units. Of these individuals or households, provide mobility assistance for home-repair grants for 5 extremely low-income individuals or households including those with special needs including disabilities. | Annually, contingent upon CDBG funding |
| 27. Universal Design | 100 housing units with universal design features to facilitate accessibility for persons with disabilities and seniors; encouraging at least five (5) of these units to be located near transit stations and services. | Make updates as part of the Comprehensive Development Code update by April 2024 |
| 28. Assist Farm Workers and other Members of the Workforce | Assist other organizations in developing at least 500 units or housing for farmworkers in Stockton or in the County during the planning period, including 300 in high and moderate resource areas in relative proximity to agricultural employment opportunities, including parts of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the Industrial Annex, the Morada/Holman neighborhood, and the North Stockton Annex neighborhood. | Meet twice per year to explore opportunities for farmworker housing |
| 29. Addressing the Needs of Those with Disabilities | By revising its Development Code to remove development constraints, the City will facilitate the development of 300 units for households with a household member who has a disability. | Revise the Reasonable Accommodation procedure including the findings as part of the Comprehensive Development Code Update by April 2024. Prepare public information on Reasonable Accommodations by June 2024. Continue to partner with the Valley Mountain Regional Center and review the materials on the City website annually starting in 2024 and update as needed after each annual review. |
| 30. Practices to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing | See individual strategies bulleted in the program language at left with specific targets. | Refer to each strategy in this Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) program for specific time frames. |
| 31. Environmental Health and Access to Resources | See individual strategies bulleted in the program language at left with specific targets. | Refer to each strategy in this program for specific time frames. |
| 32. Removal of Racially Restrictive Covenants | Remove all racially restrictive covenants from Stockton City-owned properties by December 2025 and assist in the removal of all known privately owned properties by the end of the 6th housing cycle. Advertise County program starting in 2025; launch website and social media campaigns to support property owners to voluntarily remove these covenants by December 2025, with ongoing reminders in City publications and at City events. Support County enforcement of this State requirement as appropriate through City actions. Work with at least 20 property owners annually to support their efforts to remove restrictions from their deeds. | Remove all covenants on City-owned properties by December 2025; launch informational campaign between June and December 2025; encouragement of removal of covenants from private properties is ongoing. |
| IMPLEMENTATION | QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES | TIME FRAME |
|---|---|---|
| 33. Disperse Sites Suitable for Lower Income Housing to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing | 1,193 additional lower income units on sites in relatively higher income and higher resource areas in neighborhoods such as Trinity/Northwest Stockton, Eight Mile Rd/Bear Creek, and Northeast of Morada Lane. | Make sites available including any needed General Plan or zoning code revisions, by December 31, 2026. |
Table HE-1 below summarizes the City's quantified objectives for new construction, rehabilitation, preservation, and housing assistance over an eight-year time frame. These quantified objectives represent targets. They are estimates based on past experience, anticipated funding levels, and anticipated housing market conditions.
2023-2031
| PROGRAM | EXTREMELY LOW | VERY LOW | LOW | MODERATE | ABOVE-MODERATE | TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Construction¹ | 1,232 | 1,233 | 1,548 | 2,572 | 6,088 | 12,673 |
| Rehabilitation² | 700 | 900 | 900 | - | - | 2,500 |
| Conservation/Preservation of At-Risk Units³ | 600 | 957 | 985 | 825 | 825 | 4,192 |
Notes:
State housing element law (Government Code Section 65580) mandates that local governments must adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. This section provides a snapshot of current (2022) information on household characteristics, housing needs, housing supply, land inventory for new development, housing programs, constraints, and incentives for new housing development. It also evaluates progress made since the last Housing Element was adopted in 2015.
State law recognizes the vital role local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing. Each local government in California is required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of their city or county. The housing element is one of eight mandated elements of the general plan. State law requires local government plans to address the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community through their housing elements. The law acknowledges that for the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development. As a result, housing policy in the state rests largely upon the effective implementation of local general plans and local housing elements in particular.
The purpose of the housing element is to identify the community's housing needs, to state the community's goals and objectives with regard to housing production, rehabilitation, and conservation to meet those needs, and to define the policies and programs that the community will implement to achieve the stated goals and objectives.
State law requires cities and counties to address the needs of all income groups in their housing elements. The official definition of these needs is provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for each city and county within its geographic jurisdiction. Beyond these income-based housing needs, the housing element must also address special-needs groups such as persons with disabilities and homeless persons.
As required by State Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65583(a)), the assessment and inventory for this Housing Element includes the following:
"at-risk" assisted housing developments that are eligible to change from lower-income housing to market-rate housing during the next 10 years.
The Housing Element identifies the nature and extent of the City's housing needs, which in turn provides the basis for the City's response to those needs in the Housing Element Policy Document. In addition to identifying housing needs, the element also presents information on the setting in which the needs occur, which provides a better understanding of the community and facilitates planning for housing.
The Housing Element sections draw on a broad range of information sources. Information on population, housing stock, and the economy comes primarily from the HCD pre-approved data package1 as well as the 2020 US Census, American Community Survey (ACS), the California Department of Finance (DOF), and City of Stockton records. Information on available sites and services for housing comes from numerous public agencies. Information on constraints on housing production and past and current housing efforts in the City of Stockton comes from City staff, other public agencies, and a number of private sources.
The Housing Element is a component of the 2040 General Plan, which provides guiding policy for all growth and development within the city. The General Plan consists of elements that address both State-mandated planning issues plus optional subjects that are of particular concern within Stockton. These elements are:
San Joaquin Valley Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Collaborative compiled a significant amount of data needed to update the Housing Element. Much of the data in the HCD pre-approved data. package is from the 2016-2020 American Community Survey. The source of information for the tables identifies when the data is from the data package. ↩
All State-mandated elements except the Housing Element are included in one of these elements as a sub-element. The Housing Element is updated in a separate State-dictated schedule from the rest of the General Plan. This Housing Element will be effective from December 31, 2023, through December 31, 2031. This Housing Element updates the City of Stockton Housing Element that was adopted in 2016. The City is also currently updating its Safety Element. During the update process, the City has conducted an internal consistency review to ensure consistency between the Housing and Safety Element and all other elements of the General Plan. The City will maintain consistency as future General Plan amendments are processed by evaluating proposed amendments for consistency with all elements of the General Plan, including the Housing Element.
The housing element is one of eight State-mandated elements that every general plan must contain. Although the housing element must follow all the requirements of the general plan, the housing element has several State-mandated requirements that distinguish it from other general plan elements. Whereas the State allows local government the ability to decide when to update their general plan, State law sets the schedule for periodic update (eight-year time frame) of the housing element. Local governments are also required to submit draft and adopted housing elements to HCD for State law compliance review. This review ensures that the housing element meets the various State mandates. When the City satisfies these requirements, the State will “certify” that the element is legally adequate. Failing to comply with State law could result in potentially serious consequences, such as reduced access to infrastructure, transportation, and housing funding and vulnerability to lawsuits.
As part of the Housing Element update process, the City is implementing the State’s public participation requirements in Housing Element law, set forth in Government Code Section 65583(c)(7), that jurisdictions “…shall make a diligent effort to achieve participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.”
The City has sought to engage all segments of the community during the preparation of the Housing Element update, including the individuals, organizations, and agencies with which the City consulted; the methods of community outreach; and a summary of comments received and how these comments have been addressed. All segments of the community were encouraged by the City to participate in preparation of the Housing Element through a series of efforts, including noticing of property owners of sites in the draft Housing Element sites inventory, announcements on the City’s social media channels, distribution to the Housing Element email listserv, and direct contacts by email and phone with organizations serving low-income and special-needs groups. The City invited representatives of these groups to attend the public workshops on the Housing Element. Spanish translation has been available at the workshop and translation into other languages has been available on request. Summaries of all outreach, input received, and the way input was incorporated into the Housing Element are described in Appendix B.
This page intentionally left blank.
Since 2005, Stockton has experienced an average annual growth rate (AAGR) of 0.9 percent and grew as a whole by 15.8 percent (an increase of 43,974 people). However, between 2021 and 2022, the population decreased by over 1,395. This was the first year of population decrease since 2008.
Stockton’s population was slightly younger than the county and state average in 2020. The city had a higher percentage of residents under the age of 34 than San Joaquin County, and the median age in Stockton (33.0) was lower than that of the county (34.4) and the state (36.7).
Stockton’s population was more ethnically and racially diverse than the county and state in 2020. Asian and Hispanic populations continue to make up about 64 percent of the population in Stockton.
Between 2018 and 2020, the per-capita personal income increased by 20.3 percent in the City of Stockton, 13.9 percent in California, and 10.0 percent in the U.S. Although income increased in Stockton between 2018 and 2020 at a higher rate than income in California and the United States, as of 2020, average personal income in Stockton was approximately $7,500 less than the United States and approximately $18,000 less than California.
Stockton’s household income distribution is more heavily concentrated in the lower end of the income spectrum than the county and state. In 2020, 21.0 percent of Stockton households earned less than $25,000 compared to 17.0 percent countywide and 16.0 percent statewide. Households earning $100,000 or more made up 26.0 percent of Stockton households but accounted for 33.0 percent of households countywide and 39.7 percent of all California households.
In August 2022, 9.7 percent of Stockton residents and San Joaquin County residents were unemployed, which was approximately twice the statewide unemployment rate (4.1 percent).
Homeownership rates in Stockton decreased from 51.6 percent in 2000 to 45.1 percent in 2014 following the housing market crash and foreclosure crisis. Since then, it rebounded to 49.9 percent in 2020. However, Stockton’s homeownership rate is lower than the countywide (57.7 percent) and statewide (55.3 percent) rates. Stockton has a greater need for large housing units than the county and state. Stockton had a larger average household size, smaller number of housing units, and higher overcrowding rates than the county and state.
As of 2020, about 1.9 percent of Stockton’s housing stock was built after 2010 and another
17.4 percent of the housing stock was built between 1990 and 1999. The majority of new home construction occurred prior to the recession from 2000 to 2007. According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Data Dashboard from January 1, 2016, to April 13, 2021, only 888 residential building permits were issued.
This section begins with a description of housing and demographic characteristics of Stockton. The section then discusses the existing housing needs of the city based on housing and demographic characteristics, and the housing needs of "special" population groups as defined in State law. Data for Stockton is presented, wherever possible, alongside data for San Joaquin County and California for comparison. This facilitates an understanding of the city's characteristics by illustrating how the city is similar to, or differs from, the county and state in various aspects related to demographic, employment, and housing characteristics and needs.
The purpose of this section is to establish "baseline" population, employment, and housing characteristics for Stockton. The main sources of the information in this section are the HCD pre-approved data package, 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020), and the California Department of Finance (DOF). Other sources of information include the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), the California Employment Development Department (EDD), and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), including HUD's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS). It is important to note that the ACS data is a multi-year estimate based on sample data and has a large margin of error. It is noted in the data source at the bottom of tables in this section where this data package was used.
As shown in Table HE-2, overall, Stockton's population has grown steadily in the last two decades. Since 2005, Stockton has experienced an AAGR of 0.9 percent and grew as a whole by 15.8 percent (an increase of 43,974 people). However, between 2021 and 2022, the population decreased by over 1,395 residents. This was the first year of population decrease since 2008.
Table HE-3 shows the population growth rate in Stockton relative to San Joaquin County and the state of California. From 2000 to 2022, both the city of Stockton and the county as a whole grew at a faster rate than the state average. In each jurisdiction, population increased between 2000 and 2010 at approximately twice the rate of population growth between 2010 and 2022.
| YEAR | POPULATION | CHANGE | AAGR |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 243,771 | - | |
| 2005 | 278,515 | 34,744 | 2.9% |
| 2006 | 284,418 | 5,903 | 2.1% |
| 2007 | 295,070 | 10,652 | 3.7% |
| 2008 | 275,885 | -19,185 | -6.5% |
| 2009 | 287,584 | 11,699 | 4.2% |
| 2010 | 292,747 | 5,163 | 0.4% |
| 2011 | 296,367 | 3,620 | 1.2% |
| 2012 | 297,975 | 1,608 | 0.5% |
| 2013 | 298,115 | 140 | 0.0% |
| 2014 | 302,405 | 4,290 | 1.4% |
| 2015 | 306,138 | 3,733 | 1.2% |
| 2016 | 309,829 | 3,691 | 0.2% |
| 2017 | 313,255 | 3,426 | 1.1% |
| 2018 | 315,099 | 1,844 | 0.6% |
| 2019 | 317,356 | 2,257 | 0.7% |
| 2020 | 319,188 | 1,832 | 0.6% |
| 2021 | 323,884 | 4,696 | 1.5% |
| 2022 | 322,489 | -1,395 | -0.4% |
Source: DOF, Report E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2022, with 2010 Census Benchmark; DOF, Table 2a Historical Census Populations of California State, Counties, Cities, Places, and Towns.
Age Table HE-4 shows the distribution of Stockton’s population by age in 2020. According to the 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020), the median age in Stockton is 33.0 years, which is lower than the county (34.4 years) and the state (36.7 years). In 2020, 58.6 percent of the population in Stockton was 5 to 45 years of age. Young adults and middle-aged adults, which make up the workforce, may need homes near employment or transit centers with adequate size for families. Those 65 years and older represented about 12.5 percent of the population. When compared to San Joaquin County, the age distribution was similar although Stockton had a higher percentage of persons between the age of 45 and 64 and San Joaquin had a higher percentage of persons 65 and older.
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2000 to 2022
| STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 2010 | 2022 | 2000 | 2010 | 2022 | 2000 | 2010 | 2022 | |
| Population | 243,771 | 291,707 | 322,489 | 556,229 | 685,306 | 784,298 | 33,873,086 | 37,253,956 | 39,185,605 |
| Growth from Previous Period | 47,936 | 30,782 | 129,077 | 98,992 | 3,380,870 | 1,931,649 | |||
| AAGR from Previous Period | 1.8% | 0.9% | 2.1% | 1.2% | 1.0% | 0.4% |
Source: U.S. Census.
Stockton and San Joaquin County, 2020
| AGE GROUP | STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | |
| Under 5 Years | 22,922 | 7.4% | 52,370 | 13.7% | 2,409,082 | 12.9% |
| 5 to 17 Years | 63,563 | 20.4% | 57,392 | 15.0% | 2,431,647 | 13.0% |
| 18 to 24 Years | 32,757 | 10.5% | 59,177 | 15.5% | 2,597,443 | 13.9% |
| 25 to 34 Years | 45,143 | 14.5% | 34,731 | 9.1% | 1,518,469 | 8.1% |
| 35 to 44 Years | 41,033 | 13.2% | 20,997 | 5.5% | 1,029,603 | 5.5% |
| 45 to 54 Years | 35,355 | 11.4% | 10,858 | 2.8% | 545,047 | 2.9% |
| 55 to 64 Years | 31,725 | 10.2% | 11,504 | 3.0% | 540,872 | 2.9% |
| 65 to 74 Years | 22,950 | 7.4% | 29,126 | 7.6% | 1,608,717 | 8.6% |
| 75 to 84 Years | 11,130 | 3.6% | 54,303 | 14.2% | 3,084,036 | 16.5% |
| 85 Years and Over | 4,525 | 1.5% | 51,063 | 13.4% | 2,923,877 | 15.6% |
| Total | 311,103 | 100.0% | 381,521 | 100.0% | 18,688,793 | 100.0% |
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)
Table HE-5 summarizes data related to the race and ethnicity of residents of Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California in 2020. Compared to San Joaquin County and California, Stockton is more racially and ethnically diverse. In 2020, approximately 43.5 percent of the city's population was Hispanic or Latino, compared to 41.7 percent in the county and 39.1 percent in the state. The city also has a higher proportion of persons identifying as Asian at 20.5 percent, compared to the county at 15.5 percent and state at 14.6 percent. Additionally, 11.0 percent of Stockton's population was Black or African American, which is a greater proportion than countywide at 6.8 percent and statewide at 5.4 percent. Stockton has a smaller percentage of whites at 19.4 percent compared to 30.7 percent in the county and 36.5 percent in the state.
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
| RACE/ETHNICITY | STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | |
| Hispanic or Latino | 135,457 | 43.5% | 313,385 | 41.7% | 15,380,929 | 39.1% |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | ||||||
| White | 60,442 | 19.4% | 230,857 | 30.7% | 14,365,145 | 36.5% |
| Black or African American | 34,195 | 11.0% | 50,920 | 6.8% | 2,142,371 | 5.4% |
| American Indian and Alaska Native | 493 | 0.2% | 1,447 | 0.2% | 131,724 | 0.3% |
| Asian | 63,657 | 20.5% | 116,618 | 15.5% | 5,743,983 | 14.6% |
| Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander | 1,404 | 0.5% | 4,228 | 0.6% | 135,524 | 0.3% |
| Some Other Race | 1,252 | 0.4% | 2,043 | 0.3% | 124,148 | 0.3% |
| Two or more Races | 14,203 | 4.6% | 32,117 | 4.3% | 1,322,199 | 3.4% |
| TOTAL POPULATION | 311,103 | 100% | 751,615 | 100% | 39,346,023 | 100% |
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)
Local demand for housing is significantly impacted by income, employment characteristics, and regional job growth. To effectively address the housing and jobs relationship, an understanding of local salary and job profiles is needed. This section analyzes personal income, household income, and employment characteristics for San Joaquin County and the city of Stockton, when available.
Table HE-6 shows the change in average per-capita income for the Stockton Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), California, and the United States from 2018 to 2020. Between 2018 and 2020, the Per-Capita Personal Income increased by 20.3 percent in the City of Stockton, 13.9 percent in California, and 10.0 percent in the United States. Although income increased in Stockton between 2018 and 2020 at a higher rate than income in California and the United States, as of 2020, average personal income in Stockton was approximately $7,500 less than the United States and approximately $18,000 less than California.
Stockton, California, and United States, 2018 to 2020
| PER-CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | PERCENTAGE CHANGE | |
| Stockton | $43,077 | $45,075 | $51,816 | 20.3% |
| California | $61,633 | $64,513 | $70,192 | 13.9% |
| United States | $54,098 | $56,047 | $59,510 | 10.0% |
As shown in Table HE-7, household incomes in Stockton are generally lower than incomes countywide and in the state. The most significant income disparities when comparing Stockton with the county or state occur at either end of the income spectrum. For example, 21.0 percent of Stockton households earned less than $25,000 in 2020 compared to 17.0 percent countywide and 16.0 percent statewide. Households earning $100,000 or more made up 26.0 percent of Stockton households but accounted for 33.0 percent of households countywide and 39.7 percent of all California households.
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
| INCOME | STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | |
| Less than $29,999 | 24,229 | 25.4% | 48,181 | 20.9% | 2,486,133 | 19.0% |
| $30,000-$44,999 | 10,271 | 10.8% | 27,050 | 11.7% | 1,377,391 | 10.5% |
| $45,000-$59,999 | 11,434 | 12.0% | 26,081 | 11.3% | 1,258,858 | 9.6% |
| $60,000-$74,999 | 9,869 | 10.4% | 23,343 | 10.1% | 1,162,681 | 8.9% |
| $75,000- $125,000 | 20,420 | 21.4% | 53,173 | 23.0% | 2,911,428 | 22.2% |
| Above $125,000 | 19,013 | 20.0% | 53,264 | 23.0% | 3,906,623 | 29.8% |
| Total | 95,236 | 100.0% | 231,092 | 100.0% | 13,103,114 | 100.0% |
| Median Income | $58,393 | $68,628 | $78,672 |
Source: American Community Survey (2016-2020)
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the Housing Element planning period from December 31, 2023, through December 31, 2031, for San Joaquin County as a whole is 52,719. SJCOG developed a methodology to sub-allocate the county-level projection to the unincorporated county and the cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Tracy, and Stockton. Of the total 52,719 needed units in the SJCOG region, 12,673 are allocated to the City of Stockton.
Per State law, SJCOG further divided the housing need for each jurisdiction into four income categories. This division is intended to ensure adequate affordable housing for all income levels in the region. The four categories are Very Low Income, Low Income, Moderate Income, and Above Moderate Income. According to California Government Code Section 65583(a)(1), the City may “presume that 50 percent of the very low-income households qualify as extremely low-income households.” Stockton’s RHNA by income category is shown in Table HE-8 alongside representative income ranges that correlate with the RHNA categories.
The income categories shown in Table HE-8 are additionally used for the purpose of determining eligibility for housing assistance through State, federal and local programs. HCD publishes these income limits for the following categories annually for each county in California.
Table HE-8: Income Limits for San Joaquin County and Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2022
| INCOME CATEGORY | 2022 INCOME RANGE (HOUSEHOLD OF 4) | RHNA | RHNA PERCENT-AGE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extremely Low <30% of Median Income | <$27,750 | ||
| Very Low Income 31-50% of Median Income | $27,751 - $41,400 | 2,465* | 19.5% |
| Low Income 51-80% of Median Income | $41,401 - $66,200 | 1,548 | 12.2% |
| Moderate Income 81-120% of Median Income | $66,201 - $102,000 | 2,572 | 20.3% |
| Above Moderate Income >120% of Median Income | >$102,000 | 6,088 | 48.0% |
| Total RHNA | 12,673 | 100% |
HCD 2022 Median Income for a household of four in San Joaquin County: $85,000 *For purposes of the Housing Element, it is assumed that 50 percent of the City’s RHNA allocation of very low-income units represents the additional housing needed to be provided for extremely low-income households. Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development, State Income Limits for San Joaquin County, 2022; San Joaquin County Subregion 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Final Methodology
Table HE-9 shows the top employers in the City of Stockton in 2021 by number of employees. The top employers in Stockton were the Stockton Unified School District, St. Joseph’s Medical Center, and Amazon. Table HE-10 shows industry employment by major classification for Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California in 2020. Whether living in Stockton or elsewhere in the county or state, the most common industry of employment was Educational and Health Services (22.0 percent in Stockton, 21.0 percent in San Joaquin County and California. In Stockton and San Joaquin County, this was followed by Retail Trade (12.0 percent), while the second most common industry of employment statewide was Professional, Scientific, and Management, and Administrative, and Waste Management Services (14.0 percent).
Table HE-9: Top Employers in the City of Stockton City of Stockton, 2021
| EMPLOYERS | NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES |
|---|---|
| Stockton Unified School District | 5,205 |
| St. Joseph’s Medical Center | 4,600 |
| Amazon | 2,100 |
| City of Stockton | 2,099 |
| San Joaquin County | 2,000 |
| Pacific Gas and Electric Company | 1,550 |
| Lincoln Unified School Distinct | 1,212 |
| Kaiser Permanente | 1,065 |
| University of the Pacific | 1,021 |
| San Joaquin Delta College | 1,007 |
| Total | 21,859 |
Source: Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, City of Stockton, 2021
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
| STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | |
| Jobs by Place of Employment | ||||||
| Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, and Mining | 5,010 | 3.9% | 14,472 | 4.5% | 394,290 | 2.1% |
| Construction | 9,207 | 7.1% | 27,114 | 8.5% | 1,190,537 | 6.4% |
| Manufacturing | 10,425 | 8.1% | 30,223 | 9.5% | 1,676,497 | 9.0% |
| Wholesale Trade | 3,679 | 2.9% | 9,655 | 3.0% | 514,234 | 2.8% |
| Retail Trade | 15,650 | 12.1% | 37,996 | 11.9% | 1,942,421 | 10.4% |
| Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities | 12,342 | 9.6% | 27,176 | 8.5% | 1,028,818 | 5.5% |
| Information | 1,358 | 1.1% | 4,015 | 1.3% | 542,674 | 2.9% |
| Financial Activities | 5,690 | 4.4% | 14,579 | 4.6% | 1,118,253 | 6.0% |
| Professional, Scientific, and Management, and Administrative, and Waste Management Services | 10,947 | 8.5% | 30,877 | 9.7% | 2,581,266 | 13.8% |
| Educational and Health Services | 28,702 | 22.3% | 65,614 | 20.5% | 3,960,265 | 21.2% |
| Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, and Accommodation and Food Services | 11,358 | 8.8% | 25,917 | 8.1% | 1,894,858 | 10.2% |
| Other Services | 7,090 | 5.5% | 15,573 | 4.9% | 952,302 | 5.1% |
| Public Administration | 7,494 | 5.8% | 16,597 | 5.2% | 850,479 | 4.6% |
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)
Table HE-11 illustrates average annual unemployment rates in Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California from January 2010 to August 2022. Throughout the timeline, the unemployment rate in Stockton and San Joaquin County has been consistently higher than statewide, with Stockton’s rate slightly higher than the county’s rate. Overall, the unemployment rate in Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California steadily decreased by an average of 8.0 percent from January 2010 to August 2022. In August 2022, 9.7 percent of Stockton residents and San Joaquin County residents were unemployed, which was approximately twice the statewide unemployment rate (4.1 percent).
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, January 2010 to August 2022
| YEAR | STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 18.1% | 16.9% | 12.5% |
| 2011 | 17.7% | 16.5% | 11.9% |
| 2012 | 15.7% | 14.6% | 10.5% |
| 2013 | 13.4% | 12.5% | 9.0% |
| 2014 | 11.5% | 10.7% | 7.6% |
| 2015 | 9.7% | 8.9% | 6.3% |
| 2016 | 9.1% | 8.2% | 5.5% |
| 2017 | 8.1% | 7.0% | 4.8% |
| 2018 | 7.1% | 6.1% | 4.3% |
| 2019 | 7.0% | 6.0% | 4.1% |
| 2020 | 13.2% | 11.6% | 10.2% |
| 2021 | 10.0% | 8.7% | 7.3% |
| 2022¹ | 9.7% | 9.7% | 4.1% |
Note: Rates shown are a percentage of the labor force. ¹ August 2022. Source: Employment Development Department; Unemployment Rate (2010-2021), 2022.
SJCOG produces projections of population and employment for the cities in San Joaquin County, including Stockton. SJCOG's most recent projections, released in 2016, cover the period from 2020 to 2045. Table HE-12 shows SJCOG's population and employment estimates using 2015 as the base year with population and employment projections through 2045.
As shown in Table HE-12, Stockton's population is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent from 329,729 in 2020 to 463,445 in 2045 (total increase of 40.6 percent). The report was released in 2016 and does not account for the loss of jobs from the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the report, employment growth in Stockton is projected to occur at a lower rate than population growth. The number of jobs is projected to increase at an average rate of 1.2 percent each year from 121,350 jobs in 2020 to 158,946 in 2045 (total increase of 31.0 percent). The ratio of jobs per capita is projected to decline slightly from 0.4 jobs per person estimated in 2020 to 0.3 jobs per person estimated in 2045.
Stockton, 2015 - 2045
| YEAR | POPULATION | EMPLOYMENT | JOBS/ POPU- LATION RATIO |
|---|---|---|---|
| HOUSE- HOLDS | AAGR | JOBS | |
| 2015 | 309,919 | - | 112,225 |
| 2020 | 329,729 | 1.3% | 121,350 |
| 2025 | 352,239 | 1.4% | 128,522 |
| 2030 | 374,939 | 1.3% | 136,280 |
| 2035 | 401,961 | 1.4% | 144,228 |
| 2040 | 432,627 | 1.5% | 151,979 |
| 2045 | 463,445 | 1.4% | 158,946 |
Source: Center for Business and Policy Research 2015 to 2045 Population, Household, Employment Update, 2016.
This section provides an analysis of household characteristics and housing supply. The first section analyzes household characteristics, such as household population, composition, size, tenure, and overcrowding. The second section analyzes the city's housing inventory and supply, including a discussion of vacant units.
The US Census defines a household as consisting of all the people who occupy a housing unit. A household includes the related family members and all the unrelated people, if any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the housing unit. A person living alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated people sharing a housing unit, such as partners or roomers, is also counted as a household. Data on households does not include people living in group homes. The US Census defines group quarters as places where people live or stay in a group living arrangement that is owned or managed by an organization providing housing and/or services for the residents. Group quarters include such places as college residence halls, residential treatment centers, skilled nursing facilities, group homes, military barracks, prisons, and worker dormitories.
The US Census defines a family as a group of two or more people (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together. However, to facilitate fair housing, and remove constraints (for example housing for people with disabilities) under State Housing Element law, local jurisdictions are required to define “family” in a manner that does not distinguish between related and unrelated persons and does not impose limitations on the number of people that may constitute a family.
The US Census defines a family household as a household maintained by a householder who is in a family (as defined previously) and includes any unrelated people (unrelated subfamily members and/or secondary individuals) who may be residing there. In US Census data, the number of family households is equal to the number of families. However, the count of family household members differs from the count of family
members in that the family household members include all people living in the household, whereas family members include only the householder and his/her relatives. In US Census data, a nonfamily household consists of a householder living alone (a one-person household) or where the householder shares the home exclusively with people to whom he/she is not related.
Families often prefer single-family homes to accommodate children, while single persons often occupy smaller apartments or condominiums. Single-person households often include seniors living alone or young adults.
Household population is an important measure for establishing the number of persons residing in private households. Persons in institutional or group quarters are not included in the count of household population. According to the 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020), as of 2020, Stockton had a total population of 319,188 comprising 95,236 households. The city had an average of 3.20 persons per household.
The U.S. Census divides households into two different categories, depending on their composition: family and nonfamily. Family households are those consisting of two or more related persons living together and may also include nonrelated individuals. Nonfamily households include persons who live alone or in groups composed of unrelated individuals. As shown in Table HE-13, family households have made up a larger share of the population in Stockton and San Joaquin County than the state average. In 2020, 72.5 percent of Stockton households were family households compared to 74.7 percent countywide and 68.6 percent in the state. These proportions are very close to what they were in 2013 and 2000.
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2000, 2013, and 2020
| STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | |
| 2000 | ||||||
| Family Households | 56,186 | 71.5% | 134,708 | 74.2% | 7,920,049 | 68.9% |
| Nonfamily Households | 22,370 | 28.5% | 46,921 | 25.8% | 3,582,821 | 31.1% |
| Total Households | 78,556 | 100.00% | 181,629 | 100.00% | 11,502,870 | 100.00% |
| 2013 | ||||||
| Family Households | 66,226 | 73.3% | 160,476 | 74.4% | 8,603,822 | 68.6% |
| Nonfamily Households | 24,146 | 26.7% | 55,087 | 25.6% | 3,938,638 | 31.4% |
| Total Households | 90,372 | 100.00% | 215,563 | 100.00% | 12,542,460 | 100.00% |
| 2020 | ||||||
| Family Households | 69,029 | 72.5% | 172,583 | 74.7% | 8,986,666 | 68.6% |
| Nonfamily Households | 26,207 | 27.5% | 58,509 | 25.3% | 4,116,448 | 31.4% |
| Total Households | 95,236 | 100.00% | 231,092 | 100.00% | 13,103,114 | 100.00% |
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, 2014 American Community Survey; 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Tenure is a measure of the rates of homeownership in a jurisdiction. Tenure for a type of unit and the number of bedrooms can help estimate demand for a diversity of housing types. The owner versus renter distribution of a community’s housing stock influences several aspects of the local housing market. Residential stability is influenced by tenure, with ownership housing typically having a much lower turnover rate than rental housing.
Home equity is the largest single source of household wealth for most Americans. According to the National Builders Association in 2021, on average, homeowners had a median net worth of $255,000, which is approximately 40 times the median net worth of renters ($6,300), which reflects the value of homeownership.
Table HE-14 shows rates of homeownership and renter occupancy in Stockton in 2000, 2014, and 2020, and
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2000, 2014, and 2020
| STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 2014 | 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | ||||||
| NUMBER | PERCENT | NUMBER | PERCENT | NUMBER | PERCENT | NUMBER | PERCENT | NUMBER | PERCENT | |
| Owner Occupied | 40,534 | 51.6% | 42,962 | 45.1% | 47,481 | 49.9% | 133,381 | 57.7% | 7,241,318 | 55.3% |
| Renter Occupied | 38,022 | 48.4% | 52,204 | 54.9% | 47,755 | 50.1% | 97,711 | 42.28% | 5,861,796 | 44.7% |
| Total Units | 78,556 | 100.0% | 95,166 | 100.0% | 95,236 | 100.0% | 231,092 | 100.0% | 13,103,114 | 100.0% |
Source: 2000 U.S. Census, 2014 American Community Survey; 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
San Joaquin County and California in 2020. Homeownership rates in Stockton decreased from 51.6 percent in 2000 to 45.1 percent in 2014 following the housing market crash and foreclosure crisis. Since then, it rebounded to 49.9 percent in 2020. However, Stockton’s homeownership is lower than countywide (57.7 percent) and statewide (55.3 percent) rates.
U.S. Census Bureau standards define a housing unit as overcrowded when the total number of occupants is greater than one person per room, excluding kitchens, porches, balconies, foyers, halls, half-rooms, or bathrooms. For example, if there were more than five people living in a home with five rooms (three bedrooms, living room, and dining room), it would be considered overcrowded. Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded and should be recognized as a significant housing problem.
Table HE-15 compares housing overcrowding data for Stockton with data for San Joaquin County and California. In 2020, 90.7 percent of Stockton’s households had 1.0 or fewer persons per room with only 9.2 percent considered overcrowded or severely overcrowded. Of all units in Stockton, 6.6 percent had between 1.01 and 1.5 persons per room, and 2.6 percent were severely overcrowded with more than 1.51 persons per room. Overcrowding was slightly more of a problem in Stockton in 2020 than countywide, where 5.6 percent of all households had more than 1.0 persons per room, and in California, where 8.2 percent of households were considered overcrowded.
Overcrowding is typically more of a problem in rental units than owner-occupied units. Only 6.0 percent of Stockton’s owner households were overcrowded, while 12.4 percent of renter households were overcrowded in 2020. Countywide, 2.9 percent of owner households and 12.0 percent of renter households were overcrowded. Statewide, overcrowding was also greater among renter households (13.2 percent) compared to owner households (4.2 percent).
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
| STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | |
| Owner-Occupied (persons per room) | ||||||
| 1.0 or less | 44,601 | 93.9% | 219,709 | 97.1% | 6,938,861 | 95.8% |
| Overcrowded 1.01 to 1.5 | 2,058 | 4.3% | 4,980 | 2.2% | 223,040 | 3.1% |
| Severely Overcrowded 1.51 or more | 822 | 1.7% | 1,586 | 0.7% | 79,417 | 1.1% |
| Total | 47,481 | 100.0% | 226,275 | 100.0% | 7,241,318 | 100.0% |
| Renter-Occupied (persons per room) | ||||||
| 1.0 or less | 41,814 | 87.6% | 86,044 | 88.1% | 5,088,515 | 86.8% |
| Overcrowded 1.01 to 1.5 | 4,270 | 8.9% | 8,098 | 8.3% | 457,713 | 7.8% |
| Severely Overcrowded 1.51 or more | 1,671 | 3.5% | 3,569 | 3.7% | 315,568 | 5.4% |
| Total | 47,755 | 100.0% | 97,711 | 100.0% | 5,861,796 | 100.0% |
| Total Occupied Housing Units (persons per room) | ||||||
| 1.0 or less | 86,415 | 90.7% | 305,753 | 94.4% | 12,027,376 | 91.8% |
| Overcrowded 1.01 to 1.5 | 6,328 | 6.6% | 13,078 | 4.0% | 680,753 | 5.2% |
| Severely Overcrowded 1.51 or more | 2,493 | 2.6% | 5,155 | 1.6% | 394,985 | 3.0% |
| Total | 95,236 | 100.0% | 323,986 | 100.0% | 13,103,114 | 100.0% |
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)
Table HE-16 shows average household size by tenure for Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California in 2020. Stockton had a greater percentage (21.2 percent) of large households (five or more members) than countywide (19.6 percent) and in California (13.8 percent). Relative to the state, Stockton and San Joaquin County had a much greater percentage of large, renter-occupied households (21.8 percent and 21.0 percent compared to 13.8).
Table HE-17 shows the number of bedrooms per housing unit by tenure in Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California in 2020. As shown in the table, 63.8 percent of all housing units in Stockton contained three or more bedrooms in 2020. This is slightly lower than the percentage of units with three or more bedrooms countywide (68.5 percent) and higher than California (56.0 percent).
Renter-occupied units typically have a smaller number of bedrooms than owner-occupied units. This was the case in Stockton in 2020, where 85.2 percent of owner-occupied units had three or more bedrooms, compared to only 42.5 percent of renter-occupied units. The percentage of renter-occupied units in Stockton with three of more bedrooms was lower than the percentage countywide (44.6 percent) but higher than California (27.8 percent).
Table HE-16: Household Size by Tenure Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
| STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | |
| Owner Occupied | ||||||
| 1 Person | 9,617 | 20.3% | 24,428 | 18.3% | 1,416,913 | 19.6% |
| 2-4 Persons | 28,151 | 59.3% | 84,113 | 63.1% | 4,822,685 | 66.6% |
| 5 Persons or more | 9,713 | 20.5% | 24,840 | 18.6% | 1,001,720 | 13.8% |
| Total | 47,481 | 100.0% | 133,381 | 100.0% | 7,241,318 | 100.0% |
| Renter Occupied | ||||||
| 1 Persons | 11,557 | 24.2% | 22,175 | 22.7% | 1,697,906 | 29.0% |
| 2-4 Persons | 25,766 | 54.0% | 55,055 | 56.3% | 3,356,092 | 57.3% |
| 5 Persons or more | 10,432 | 21.8% | 20,481 | 21.0% | 807,798 | 13.8% |
| Total | 47,755 | 100.0% | 97,711 | 100.0% | 5,861,796 | 100.0% |
| All Households | ||||||
| 1 Person | 21,174 | 22.2% | 46,603 | 20.2% | 3,114,819 | 23.8% |
| 2-4 Persons | 53,917 | 56.6% | 139,168 | 60.2% | 8,178,777 | 62.4% |
| 5 Persons or more | 20,145 | 21.2% | 45,321 | 19.6% | 1,809,518 | 13.8% |
| Total | 95,236 | 100.0% | 231,092 | 100.0% | 13,103,114 | 100.0% |
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)
Table HE-17: Number of Bedrooms by Tenure Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
| STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | |
| Owner Occupied | ||||||
| No bedroom | 328 | 0.7% | 699 | 0.5% | 50,963 | 0.7% |
| 1 bedroom | 388 | 0.8% | 1,589 | 1.2% | 173,846 | 2.4% |
| 2 bedrooms | 6,294 | 13.3% | 16,453 | 12.3% | 1,307,148 | 18.1% |
| 3 bedrooms | 22,332 | 47.0% | 62,621 | 46.9% | 3,228,533 | 44.6% |
| 4 bedrooms | 13,829 | 29.1% | 40,609 | 30.4% | 1,964,487 | 27.1% |
| 5 or more bedrooms | 4,310 | 9.1% | 11,410 | 8.6% | 516,341 | 7.1% |
| Total | 47,481 | 100.0% | 133,381 | 100.0% | 7,241,318 | 100.0% |
| Renter Occupied | ||||||
| No bedroom | 2,737 | 5.7% | 4,582 | 4.7% | 496,503 | 8.5% |
| 1 bedroom | 8,255 | 17.3% | 14,839 | 15.2% | 1,512,885 | 25.8% |
| 2 bedrooms | 16,491 | 34.5% | 34,668 | 35.5% | 2,220,822 | 37.9% |
| 3 bedrooms | 14,035 | 29.4% | 30,493 | 31.2% | 1,189,552 | 20.3% |
| 4 bedrooms | 5,501 | 11.5% | 11,472 | 11.7% | 372,132 | 6.3% |
| 5 or more bedrooms | 736 | 1.5% | 1,657 | 1.7% | 69,902 | 1.2% |
| Total | 47,755 | 100.0% | 97,711 | 100.0% | 5,861,796 | 100.0% |
| All Occupied Housing Units | ||||||
| No bedroom | 3,065 | 3.2% | 5,281 | 2.3% | 547,466 | 4.2% |
| 1 bedroom | 8,643 | 9.1% | 16,428 | 7.1% | 1,686,731 | 12.9% |
| 2 bedrooms | 22,785 | 23.9% | 51,121 | 22.1% | 3,527,970 | 26.9% |
| 3 bedrooms | 36,367 | 38.2% | 93,114 | 40.3% | 4,418,085 | 33.7% |
| 4 bedrooms | 19,330 | 20.3% | 52,081 | 22.5% | 2,336,619 | 17.8% |
| 5 or more bedrooms | 5,046 | 5.3% | 13,067 | 5.7% | 586,243 | 4.5% |
| Total | 95,236 | 100.0% | 231,092 | 100.0% | 13,103,114 | 100.0% |
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)
Average household size is a function of household population (group quarters population is not counted) divided by the number of occupied housing units. Table HE-18 shows the average household size for Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California. The average number of persons per household in Stockton increased slightly from 3.02 in 2000 to 3.17 in 2012 to 3.20 in 2020. The average household sizes in Stockton in 2020 were similar to those countywide (3.18) during this time period, and slightly larger than the statewide average (2.94). Both Stockton and San Joaquin County had greater household sizes in 2020 for owner-occupied households (3.23 and 3.18) compared to renter-occupied households (3.16 and 3.17).
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2000, 2012, and 2020
| TENURE | STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 2012 | 2020 | 2000 | 2012 | 2020 | 2000 | 2012 | 2020 | |
| All Households | 3.02 | 3.17 | 3.20 | 3 | 3.14 | 3.18 | 2.87 | 2.94 | 2.94 |
| Owner Occupied | 3.01 | 3.14 | 3.23 | 2.98 | 3.07 | 3.18 | 2.95 | 2.98 | 3.01 |
| Renter Occupied | 3.03 | 3.2 | 3.16 | 3.03 | 3.23 | 3.17 | 2.78 | 2.88 | 2.85 |
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey; 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census; 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Based on the information regarding housing units and household sizes, Stockton has a greater need for large housing units than the county and state. Stockton had a larger average household size, smaller housing units, and higher overcrowding rates than the county and state in 2020.
Table HE-19 compares housing stock data by structure type for Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California in 2014 and 2020. The table shows the total housing stock in each area according to the type of structures in which units are located. Single-family detached housing units accounted for the majority of housing in Stockton in 2020. At 67.1 percent of the total housing stock, single-family detached units in Stockton made up a much larger share of the total than in the state overall, where only 57.7 percent of all units are single-family detached units. From 2014 to 2020, 2,649 single-family detached units were built in Stockton, representing 3.7 percent change for all new single-family residential units constructed. The majority of new home construction occurred prior to the recession from 2000 to 2007. According to the HCD Data Dashboard from January 1, 2016, to April 13, 2021, only 888 residential building permits were issued.
Multifamily housing complexes with five or more units make up the next-largest segment of Stockton’s housing stock, comprising 17.7 percent (18,043 units) of the total in 2020. Between 2014 and 2020, only 61 units were built in multifamily complexes with five or more units. Between 2014 and 2020, the number of mobile homes in the city increased, and the overall share of mobile homes as a percentage of the entire housing stock stayed the same at 1.1 percent for 2014 and 2020.
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2014 and 2020
| YEAR | TOTAL UNITS | SINGLE-FAMILY | MULTIFAMILY | MOBILE HOMES | BOAT, RV, VAN, ETC. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DETACHED | ATTACHED | 2 TO 4 | 5 PLUS | ||||
| Stockton | |||||||
| 2014 # | 100,025 | 64,841 | 7,058 | 9,036 | 17,982 | 1,108 | - |
| 2014 % | 100.0% | 64.8% | 7.1% | 9.0% | 18.0% | 1.1% | - |
| 2020 # | 101,954 | 68,412 | 6,136 | 8,180 | 18,043 | 1,161 | 22 |
| 2020 % | 100.0% | 67.1% | 6.0% | 8.0% | 17.7% | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| San Joaquin County | |||||||
| 2014 # | 236,943 | 179,059 | 12,279 | 14,862 | 29,158 | 8,585 | - |
| 2014 % | 100.0% | 72.6% | 5.2% | 6.3% | 12.3% | 3.6% | - |
| 2020 # | 245,192 | 181,875 | 10,990 | 14,045 | 30,024 | 8,074 | 184 |
| 2020 % | 100.0% | 74.2% | 4.5% | 5.7% | 12.2% | 3.3% | 0.1% |
| California | |||||||
| 2014 # | 13,845,281 | 8,038,217 | 972,976 | 1,119,175 | 3,154,907 | 560,000 | - |
| 2014 % | 100.0% | 58.1% | 7.0% | 8.1% | 22.8% | 4.0% | - |
| 2020 # | 14,210,945 | 8,206,621 | 1,009,488 | 1,113,840 | 3,350,125 | 515,666 | 15,205 |
| 2020 % | 100.0% | 57.7% | 7.1% | 7.8% | 23.6% | 3.6% | 0.1% |
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)
Table HE-20 shows the occupancy and vacancy rates for Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California in 2000, 2010, and 2020. Stockton and San Joaquin County had lower vacancy rates than the state average in 2000 until 2010, when all three jurisdictions increased to the 8 to 9 percent range. In 2020, the vacancy rates resumed the vacancy trends, with the city and county having lower rates than the state average.
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2000, 2010, and 2020
| 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | |
| Stockton | ||||||
| Occupied Units | 78,522 | 95.60% | 90,605 | 90.90% | 99,084 | 95.90% |
| Vacant Units | 3,603 | 4.4% | 9,032 | 9.1% | 4,234 | 4.1% |
| Total Housing Units | 82,125 | 100.0% | 99,637 | 100.0% | 103,318 | 100.0% |
| San Joaquin County | ||||||
| Occupied Units | 181,629 | 96.00% | 215,007 | 92.00% | 247,542 | 95.74% |
| Vacant Units | 7,531 | 4.0% | 18,748 | 8.0% | 11,024 | 4.3% |
| Total Housing Units | 189,160 | 100.0% | 233,755 | 100.0% | 258,566 | 100.0% |
| California | ||||||
| Occupied Units | 11,502,870 | 94.20% | 12,577,498 | 91.90% | 13,612,650 | 93.34% |
| Vacant Units | 711,679 | 5.8% | 1,102,583 | 8.1% | 971,348 | 6.7% |
| Total Housing Units | 12,214,549 | 100.0% | 13,680,081 | 100.0% | 14,583,998 | 100.0% |
Source: Department of Finance, E5, 2021-2022.
Table HE-21 provides details on the vacancy rates of different housing types for Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California in 2020.
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
| VACANCY STATUS | STOCKTON NUMBER | STOCKTON PERCENTAGE | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY NUMBER | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY PERCENTAGE | CALIFORNIA NUMBER | CALIFORNIA PERCENTAGE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| For rent | 2,455 | 2.6% | 3,792 | 1.6% | 227,993 | 1.7% |
| For sale only | 411 | 0.4% | 1,161 | 0.5% | 77,702 | 0.6% |
| Sold, not occupied | 380 | 0.4% | 1,219 | 0.5% | 53,437 | 0.4% |
| Rented or sold; not occupied | 350 | 0.4% | 741 | 0.3% | 54,898 | 0.4% |
| For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use | 455 | 0.5% | 1,535 | 0.7% | 378,023 | 2.9% |
| For migrant workers | 0 | 0.0% | 117 | 0.1% | 3,326 | 0.0% |
| Other vacant | 2,667 | 2.8% | 5,535 | 2.4% | 312,452 | 2.4% |
| Total Vacant | 6,718 | 7.1% | 14,100 | 6.1% | 1,107,831 | 8.5% |
| Total Units | 95,236 | 100.0% | 231,092 | 100.0% | 13,103,114 | 100.0% |
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)
The U.S. Census provides limited data that can be used to infer the condition of Stockton’s housing stock. For example, the Census reports on whether housing units have complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. A very small percentage of all housing units in Stockton lack complete plumbing or kitchen facilities (see Table HE-22), although a greater percentage of renter-occupied housing units lack these facilities compared to owner-occupied housing units.
Since housing stock age and condition are generally correlated, one Census variable that provides an indication of housing conditions is the age of a community’s housing stock. As shown in Table HE-22, approximately two-thirds of Stockton’s homes were built over 30 years ago. As of 2020, about 1.9 percent of Stockton’s housing stock was built after 2010 and another 17.4 percent of the housing stock was built between 2000 and 2009.
Table HE-22 also shows the number and percentage of units lacking complete plumbing facilities and units lacking complete kitchen facilities. These rates were similar in Stockton as compared with San Joaquin County and California. In all three locations, rental units were more likely to lack complete plumbing or kitchen facilities, as compared with ownership units. This trend points to the need for home improvement programs focused on rental properties.
Based on an early 2023 survey of former redevelopment areas and opportunity zones, the City estimates that approximately 2,900 (or 4%) of homes are blighted and in need replacement citywide.
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
| STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | |
| Owner-Occupied Housing Units | ||||||
| Built 2010 or later | 974 | 2.1% | 8,442 | 6.3% | 272,900 | 3.8% |
| Built 2000 to 2009 | 11,499 | 24.2% | 31,320 | 23.5% | 924,495 | 12.8% |
| Built 1990 to 1999 | 7,461 | 15.7% | 21,185 | 15.9% | 811,147 | 11.2% |
| Built 1980 to 1989 | 6,335 | 13.3% | 19,343 | 14.5% | 1,068,601 | 14.8% |
| Built 1970 to 1979 | 7,610 | 16.0% | 17,051 | 12.8% | 1,175,870 | 16.2% |
| Built 1960 to 1969 | 3,520 | 7.4% | 10,408 | 7.8% | 906,490 | 12.5% |
| Built 1950 to 1959 | 3,966 | 8.4% | 11,995 | 9.0% | 1,077,380 | 14.9% |
| Built 1940 to 1949 | 2,743 | 5.8% | 6,315 | 4.7% | 430,809 | 5.9% |
| Built 1939 or earlier | 3,373 | 7.1% | 7,322 | 5.5% | 573,626 | 7.9% |
| Total | 47,481 | 100.0% | 133,381 | 100.0% | 7,241,318 | 100.0% |
| Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities | 74 | 0.2% | 342 | 0.3% | 17,434 | 0.2% |
| Units Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities | 135 | 0.3% | 658 | 0.5% | 36,908 | 0.5% |
| Renter-Occupied Housing Units | ||||||
| Built 2010 or later | 858 | 1.8% | 3,374 | 3.5% | 256,413 | 4.4% |
| Built 2000 to 2009 | 5,082 | 10.6% | 12,571 | 12.9% | 508,460 | 8.7% |
| Built 1990 to 1999 | 5,787 | 12.1% | 12,027 | 12.3% | 637,220 | 10.9% |
| Built 1980 to 1989 | 7,231 | 15.1% | 15,380 | 15.7% | 898,705 | 15.3% |
| Built 1970 to 1979 | 10,368 | 21.7% | 18,071 | 18.5% | 1,114,211 | 19.0% |
| Built 1960 to 1969 | 5,767 | 12.1% | 11,573 | 11.8% | 834,432 | 14.2% |
| Built 1950 to 1959 | 5,008 | 10.5% | 10,681 | 10.9% | 689,973 | 11.8% |
| Built 1940 to 1949 | 3,357 | 7.0% | 5,964 | 6.1% | 332,220 | 5.7% |
| Built 1939 or earlier | 4,297 | 9.0% | 8,070 | 8.3% | 590,162 | 10.1% |
| Total | 47,755 | 100.0% | 97,711 | 100.0% | 5,861,796 | 100.0% |
| Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities | 323 | 0.7% | 467 | 1.0% | 23,476 | 0.4% |
| Units Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities | 1,012 | 2.1% | 1,905 | 4.0% | 128,184 | 2.2% |
| Total Occupied Housing Units | ||||||
| Built 2010 or later | 1,832 | 1.9% | 11,816 | 5.1% | 529,313 | 4.8% |
| Built 2000 to 2009 | 16,581 | 17.4% | 43,891 | 19.0% | 1,432,955 | 12.9% |
| Built 1990 to 1999 | 13,248 | 13.9% | 33,212 | 14.4% | 1,448,367 | 13.1% |
| Built 1980 to 1989 | 13,566 | 14.2% | 34,723 | 15.0% | 1,068,601 | 9.6% |
| Built 1970 to 1979 | 17,978 | 18.9% | 35,122 | 15.2% | 1,175,870 | 10.6% |
| Built 1960 to 1969 | 9,287 | 9.8% | 21,981 | 9.5% | 1,740,922 | 15.7% |
| Built 1950 to 1959 | 8,974 | 9.4% | 22,676 | 9.8% | 1,767,353 | 15.9% |
| Built 1940 to 1949 | 6,100 | 6.4% | 12,279 | 5.3% | 763,029 | 6.9% |
| Built 1939 or earlier | 7,670 | 8.1% | 15,392 | 6.7% | 1,163,788 | 10.5% |
| Total | 95,236 | 100.0% | 231,092 | 100.0% | 11,090,198 | 100.0% |
| Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities | 397 | 0.4% | 809 | 0.4% | 40,910 | 0.4% |
| Units Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities | 1,147 | 1.2% | 2,563 | 1.1% | 165,092 | 1.5% |
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)
The Neighborhood Services Section of the Police Department enforces codes, laws, and regulations for the abatement of substandard housing conditions and blight issues. Code enforcement statistics from the Neighborhood Services Section provide a sense of the number of units that may need renovation, rehabilitation, or replacement in the city. As shown in Table HE-23, the Neighborhood Services Division processed 234,924 housing code enforcement cases over the past 17 years at an average of about 14,683 cases each year. The most common housing violations are deferred maintenance issues like plumbing leaks, worn/deteriorated materials, and lack of weather protection. Others include structural problems, raw sewage, exposed wiring, and other exterior housing problems. The majority of housing cases usually take a minimum of 45 days to resolve depending on the amount and severity of the violations.
Stockton, Fiscal Year 2005/06-2021/22
| FISCAL YEAR | NUMBER OF CASES* |
|---|---|
| 2005/06 | 13,866 |
| 2006/07 | 17,291 |
| 2007/08 | 19,522 |
| 2008/09 | 13,841 |
| 2009/10 | 12,703 |
| 2010/11 | 10,502 |
| 2011/12 | 10,102 |
| 2012/13 | 11,664 |
| 2013/14 | 14,190 |
| 2014/15 | 11,775 |
| 2015/16 | 13,138 |
| 2016/17 | 13,508 |
| 2017/18 | 16,285 |
| 2018/19 | 19,646 |
| 2019/20 | 12,320 |
| 2020/21 | 10,990 |
| 2021/22 | 13,581 |
| Total | 234,924 |
Note: *Includes addresses with graffiti consent forms on file Source: Police Department, Neighborhood Services Division, November 2022.
Housing is classified as “affordable” if households do not pay more than 30 percent of income for payment of rent (including a monthly allowance for water, gas, and electricity) or monthly homeownership costs (including mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance). State law (California Government Code Section 65583(a)(2)) requires “an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition.” Identifying and evaluating existing housing needs are a critical component of the housing element. This requires comparison of resident incomes with the local cost of housing. The analysis helps local governments identify existing housing conditions that require addressing and households with housing cost burdens or unmet housing needs. This section includes an analysis of housing cost burden, ability to pay for housing, and the cost of housing.
The data in this section uses HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) database. Income groups are shown in the CHAS tabulation based on the HUD-adjusted area median family income (AMI).
This section provides an analysis of the proportion of households “overpaying for housing.” An “excessive cost burden” is defined by HUD as gross housing costs exceeding 30 percent of gross monthly income. A “severe cost burden” is defined as gross housing costs exceeding 50 percent of gross monthly income.
Income groups are based on the HUD-adjusted AMI. The AMI is based on the Stockton Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), encompassing all of San Joaquin County. In 1974, Congress defined “low income” and “very low income” for HUD rental programs as incomes not exceeding 80 and 50 percent, respectively, of the AMI, as adjusted by HUD.1
Table HE-24 shows the CHAS special tabulation data from the 2014-2018 ACS regarding the percentage of households with an excessive cost burden
Statutory adjustments now include upper and lower caps for areas with low or high ratios of housing costs to income and, for each non-metropolitan county, a lower cap equal to its state’s non-metropolitan average. Estimates of the median family income and the official income cutoffs for each metropolitan area and non-metropolitan county are based on the most recent Decennial Census results and updated each year by HUD. Each base income cutoff is assumed to apply to a household of four, and official cutoffs are further adjusted by household size. ↩
(greater than 30 percent) and severe cost burden (greater than 50 percent) by income group and tenure for Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California.
As shown in Table HE-24, 41.8 percent of all households in Stockton had an excessive housing cost burden in 2018. This rate is slightly higher than countywide (37.2 percent) and in California (39.5 percent). In Stockton, 21.0 percent of households had a severe housing cost burden in 2018 compared to 17.5 percent and 19.0 percent for San Joaquin County and California, respectively. As would be expected, housing cost burdens were more severe for households with lower incomes. Among lower-income households in Stockton (incomes less than or equal to 80 percent of the AMI), 75.0 percent of households had an excessive housing cost burden in 2018 compared to 15.8 percent of non-lower-income households. This rate of housing cost burden for lower-income households is slightly higher in Stockton than in San Joaquin County (72.0 percent) and California (70.0
percent). This data points to the need for more affordable housing units in Stockton to meet the needs of lower-income households.
Rates of housing cost burden were greater among low-income renter households than among low-income owner households for Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California. However, for non-lower-income renter households, rates of housing cost burden were lower than those of non-lower-income owner-occupied households. This trend was common across the city, county, and state. In Stockton, 79.4 percent of low-income renter households paid 30 percent or more of their monthly incomes for housing costs in 2018, compared to 63.5 percent of low-income owner households. Among moderate- and above moderate-income households, the percentage of owner households with excessive housing cost burdens was slightly higher than renter households (15.8 percent compared to 15.7 percent).
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2014-2018
| STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OWNERS | RENTERS | TOTAL | OWNERS | RENTERS | TOTAL | OWNERS | RENTERS | TOTAL | ||
| Household Income <= 80% MFI (Low-Income Households) | ||||||||||
| Total Households | 11,510 | 30,315 | 41,825 | 28,970 | 54,595 | 83,565 | 2,008,045 | 3,387,335 | 5,395,380 | |
| Cost Burdened >30% | Number | 7,305 | 24,080 | 31,385 | 17,935 | 42,250 | 60,185 | 1,222,400 | 2,556,085 | 3,778,485 |
| Percent | 63.5% | 79.4% | 75.0% | 61.9% | 77.4% | 72.0% | 60.9% | 75.5% | 70.0% | |
| Severely Cost Burdened >50% | Number | 4,705 | 14,105 | 18,810 | 11,395 | 24,815 | 36,210 | 761,685 | 1,510,795 | 2,272,480 |
| Percent | 40.9% | 46.5% | 45.0% | 39.3% | 45.5% | 43.3% | 37.9% | 44.6% | 42.1% | |
| Household Income > 80% MFI (Moderate- and Above Moderate-Income Households) | ||||||||||
| Total Households | 33,720 | 19,645 | 53,365 | 97,130 | 46,035 | 143,165 | 5,077,390 | 2,492,665 | 7,570,055 | |
| Cost Burdened >30% | Number | 5,325 | 3,090 | 8,415 | 15,995 | 8,195 | 24,190 | 916,480 | 419,965 | 1,336,445 |
| Percent | 15.8% | 15.7% | 15.8% | 16.5% | 17.8% | 16.9% | 18.1% | 16.8% | 17.65% | |
| Severely Cost Burdened >50% | Number | 920 | 265 | 1,185 | 2,615 | 835 | 3,450 | 161,640 | 34,230 | 195,870 |
| Percent | 2.7% | 1.3% | 2.2% | 2.7% | 1.8% | 2.4% | 3.2% | 1.4% | 2.6% | |
| Total Households | ||||||||||
| Total Households | 45,230 | 49,960 | 95,190 | 126,100 | 100,630 | 226,730 | 7,085,435 | 5,880,000 | 12,965,435 | |
| Cost Burdened >30% | Number | 12,630 | 27,170 | 39,800 | 33,930 | 50,445 | 84,375 | 2,138,880 | 2,976,050 | 5,114,930 |
| Percent | 27.9% | 54.4% | 41.8% | 26.9% | 50.1% | 37.2% | 30.2% | 50.6% | 39.5% | |
| Severely Cost Burdened >50% | Number | 5,625 | 14,370 | 19,995 | 14,010 | 25,650 | 39,660 | 923,325 | 1,545,025 | 2,468,350 |
| Percent | 12.4% | 28.8% | 21.0% | 11.1% | 25.5% | 17.5% | 13.0% | 26.3% | 19.0% |
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- CHAS (2014-2018).
Housing Cost and Affordability Housing affordability can be inferred by comparing the cost of renting or owning a home in Stockton with the presumed maximum affordable housing costs for households at different income levels. This information can provide a picture of who can afford what size and type of housing. It can also indicate the type of households that would likely experience overcrowding or overpayment.
Housing affordability is based on AMI. According to HCD, the AMI for a four-person household in the San Joaquin County was $85,000 in 2022. Income limits for larger or smaller households were higher or lower, respectively, and are calculated using a formula developed by HCD (see Table HE-25).
The following section compares the cost limits for affordable owner and rental housing by income limit as defined by the California Health and Safety Code.1 The State income limits are used in affordable housing programs and projects. Because above moderate-income households do not generally have problems locating affordable units, affordable housing is usually defined as units that are reasonably priced for low- and moderate-income households. The following list shows the definition of housing income limits.
San Joaquin County, 2022
| INCOME CATEGORIES | PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| Acutely Low (>30%) | $8,950 | $10,200 | $11,500 | $12,750 | $13,750 |
| Extremely Low-Income (30%) | $17,400 | $19,900 | $23,030 | $27,750 | $32,470 |
| Very Low-Income (50%) | $29,000 | $33,150 | $37,300 | $41,400 | $44,750 |
| Low-Income (80%) | $46,350 | $53,000 | $59,600 | $66,200 | $71,500 |
| Median-Income (100%) | $59,500 | $68,000 | $76,500 | $85,000 | $91,800 |
| Moderate-Income (120%) | $71,400 | $81,600 | $91,800 | $102,000 | $110,150 |
Source: HCD Memorandum: May 13, 2022, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/grants-and-funding/inc2k22.pdf
Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5 establishes affordable housing cost, and Section 50053 establishes affordable rents. ↩
Table HE-26 shows the 2022 HCD-defined household income limits for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households in the Stockton MSA by the number of persons in the household. It also shows maximum affordable monthly rents and maximum affordable purchase prices for homes. For example, a three-person household was classified as low-income (80 percent of median) with an annual income of up to $59,600 in 2022. A household with this income could afford to pay a monthly gross rent (not including utilities) of up to $1,490 or could afford to purchase a house priced at or below $243,455.
San Joaquin County, 2022
| NUMBER OF PERSONS | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extremely Low-Income Households at 30% of 2022 Area Median Income | |||||
| Income Level | $17,400 | $19,900 | $23,030 | $27,750 | $32,470 |
| Max. Monthly Gross Rent ² | $435 | $498 | $576 | $694 | $812 |
| Max. Purchase Price ³ | $71,076 | $81,288 | $94,073 | $113,354 | $132,634 |
| Very Low-Income Households at 50% of 2022 Area Median Income | |||||
| Income Level | $29,000 | $33,150 | $37,300 | $41,400 | $44,750 |
| Max. Monthly Gross Rent ² | $725 | $829 | $933 | $1,035 | $1,119 |
| Max. Purchase Price ³ | $118,460 | $135,412 | $152,364 | $169,111 | $182,795 |
| Low-Income Households at 80% of 2022 Area Median Income | |||||
| Income Level | $46,350 | $53,000 | $59,600 | $66,200 | $71,500 |
| Max. Monthly Gross Rent ² | $1,159 | $1,325 | $1,490 | $1,655 | $1,788 |
| Max. Purchase Price ³ | $189,331 | $216,495 | $243,455 | $270,415 | $292,064 |
| Median-Income Households at 100% of 2022 Area Median Income | |||||
| Income Level | $59,500 | $68,000 | $76,500 | $85,000 | $91,800 |
| Max. Monthly Gross Rent ² | $1,488 | $1,700 | $1,913 | $2,125 | $2,295 |
| Max. Purchase Price ³ | $243,046 | $277,767 | $312,488 | $347,209 | $374,986 |
| Moderate-Income Households at 120% of 2022 Area Median Income | |||||
| Income Level | $71,400 | $81,600 | $91,800 | $102,000 | $110,150 |
| Max. Monthly Gross Rent ² | $1,785 | $2,040 | $2,295 | $2,550 | $2,754 |
| Max. Purchase Price ³ | $291,656 | $333,321 | $374,986 | $416,651 | $449,942 |
Table HE-27 shows HUD-defined fair market rent levels (FMR) for the Stockton MSA for 2022. In general, the FMR for an area is the amount that would be needed to pay the gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of privately owned, decent, safe, and sanitary rental housing of a modest (non-luxury) nature with suitable amenities. FMRs are housing market-wide estimates of rents that provide opportunities to rent standard quality housing throughout the geographic area in which rental housing units are in competition. The rents are drawn from the distribution of rents of all units that are occupied by recent movers. Adjustments are made to exclude public housing units, newly built units, and substandard units.
HUD uses FMRs for a variety of purposes: FMRs determine the eligibility of rental housing units for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments program; Section 8 Rental Certificate program participants cannot rent
Incomes based on HCD’s 2022 San Joaquin County Median Family Income for four persons: $85,000. ↩
units whose rents exceed the FMRs; and FMRs also serve as the payment standard used to calculate subsidies under the Rental Voucher program.
Comparing the current FMR levels to Table HE-27, a three-person household classified as low-income (between 51 and 80 percent of median) with an annual income of up to $59,600 could afford to pay $1,490 monthly gross rent (not including utilities). The 2022 FMR for a two-bedroom unit is $1,137 which is affordable to the household, assuming such a unit was available in Stockton. However, a three-person very low-income household ($37,300) could afford to pay only $933, which is below the 2022 FMR amount.
Since the FMR levels apply to the entire Stockton MSA (i.e., San Joaquin County) residents of communities with higher rental rates are likely to find that there is a limited supply of rental units at the regional FMR levels. The lack of affordability would be even worse for the very low-income household mentioned previously if the household has to spend more than the FMR amount to rent a unit in Stockton.
Stockton MSA, 2022
| BEDROOMS IN UNIT | 2020 FMR |
|---|---|
| Studio | $899 |
| 1 Bedroom | $904 |
| 2 Bedrooms | $1,137 |
| 3 Bedrooms | $1,607 |
| 4 Bedrooms | $1,847 |
Source: U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) User Data: 2022 FY FMR Geography Summary for San Joaquin County, California, 2022
Table HE-28 shows the median home values according to 2016-2020 ACS, adjusted for inflation. The median home value in Stockton was lower than the county and state. The median home value in Stockton was 81.1 percent of the San Joaquin County median home value, and 55.4 percent of the state median home value.
Table HE-29 shows the median home value in Stockton in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020. The median home value in Stockton increased most dramatically between 1980 and 1990 (92.3 percent and between 2000 and 2010 (135.4 percent). In contrast, median home value grew more slowly between 1990 and 2000 (10.1 percent) and between 2010 and 2020 (7.8 percent).
According to Redfin, as of November 2022, the median sales price in Stockton was $420,000 for all home types.
Table HE-30 contains data on an apartment rental survey conducted in October 2022 provided by Zillow. The average rent for a three-bedroom, the most common unit size in Stockton according to the rent survey, requires an annual household income of approximately $102,000 to cover the $2,357 monthly rent. Based on the HCD income limits, the average apartment is affordable to a moderate-income household of four or five persons (120 percent of the AMI).
| CITY OF STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CITY % OF COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | CITY % OF STATE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median Value (Dollars) | $298,200 | $367,900 | 81.1% | $538,500 | 55.4% |
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2016-2020 (5-year Estimates), Table B25077
| 1980 | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median Value (Dollars) of Owner Occupied Homes | $55,500 | $106,700 | $117,500 | $276,600 | $298,200 |
| Percentage Change | 92.3% | 10.1% | 135.4% | 7.8% |
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1980(ORG STF1), 1990(STF3), 2000(SF3); ACS 2006-2010, 2016-2020 (5-year Estimates), Table B25077
Additionally, Zillow provides data on average median rent for all home types. According to Zillow, the median rent for apartments and condos in the rental market in Stockton is $1,483 with 97 available rentals as of October 12, 2022. The price range for apartments is between $1, 850 and $2,437. Stockton’s median rent was 26.0 percent lower than the median rent in the neighboring city of Lodi. The data demonstrates that Stockton may have units affordable to lower-income households; however, may need more rental housing, particularly housing affordable to extremely low-income and very low-income households.
Stockton, October 2022
| UNIT SIZE | 2022 |
|---|---|
| Studio | $1,183 |
| 1-Bedroom | $1,338 |
| 2-Bedroom | $1,615 |
| 3-Bedroom | $2,357 |
| 4- Bedroom | $2,624 |
| Average | $1,823 |
Source: Zillow, October 2022.
Within the general population of Stockton, there are several groups of people who have special housing needs. These needs can make it difficult for members of these groups to locate suitable housing. The following subsections discuss the special housing needs of six groups identified in State housing element law: the elderly; persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. In addition to these six groups, the section also discusses the housing needs of extremely low-income households and persons living with AIDS and related diseases. Where possible, estimates of the population or number of households in Stockton belonging to each group are shown.
Seniors are defined as persons 65 years and older, while senior households are those households headed by a person 65 years and older. Seniors often face unique housing problems. While many may own their homes
outright, fixed retirement incomes may not always be adequate to cover rising utility rates and insurance. Also, many elderly homeowners do not have sufficient savings to finance the necessary repair costs. This is a situation commonly described as "house-rich and cash-poor."
Table HE-31 shows information on the number of seniors, the number of senior households, and senior households by housing tenure in Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California in 2020. Seniors represented 6.6 percent of the population in Stockton in 2020, compared to 6.9 percent of the population countywide, and 8.1 percent of the population in California. Because of smaller household sizes, senior households as a percentage of all households, is higher. Senior households represented 21.6 percent of all households in Stockton, 22.5 percent countywide, and 24.4 percent in California. Senior households have a high homeownership rate; 68.0 percent of senior households in Stockton, 74.4 percent of senior households in San Joaquin County, and 73.2 percent of senior households in California were owner-occupied in 2020. Senior households represented 29.5 percent of all owner-occupied households in Stockton and 13.8 percent of all renter households.
While some seniors may prefer to live in single-family detached homes, others desire a smaller, more affordable home with less upkeep, such as condos, townhouses, apartments, or mobile homes. In general, most senior households consist of a single elderly person living alone, or a couple. Housing developments for senior households should contain greater proportions of smaller housing units than projects intended for the general population.
Some seniors have the physical and financial ability to continue driving well into their retirement; however, those who cannot or choose not to drive must rely on alternative forms of transportation. This includes not only bus routes, rail lines, and ride-sharing programs, but also safe, walkable neighborhoods. To accommodate transit access in senior housing, it must be located near transit centers, and in neighborhoods that cater to pedestrians by providing well-lit, wide, shaded sidewalks, clearly marked crosswalks, and longer walk signals at intersections.
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
| STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | |
| Population | ||||||
| TOTAL POPULATION | 311,103 | - | 751,615 | - | 39,346,023 | - |
| Total Persons 65 years and older | 20,606 | 6.6% | 51,927 | 6.9% | 3,198,850 | 8.1% |
| Households | ||||||
| TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS | 95,236 | 100.0% | 231,092 | 100.0% | 13,103,114 | 100.0% |
| Owner | 47,481 | 49.9% | 133,381 | 57.7% | 7,241,318 | 55.3% |
| Renter | 47,755 | 50.1% | 97,711 | 42.3% | 5,861,796 | 44.7% |
| Senior-Headed Households | 20,606 | 100.0% | 51,927 | 100.0% | 3,198,850 | 100.0% |
| Owner | 14,012 | 68.0% | 38,627 | 74.4% | 2,340,689 | 73.2% |
| Renter | 6,594 | 32.0% | 13,300 | 25.6% | 858,161 | 26.8% |
| Seniors as % of all Households | - | 21.6% | - | 22.5% | - | 24.4% |
| % of Owner households | - | 29.5% | - | 29.0% | - | 32.3% |
| headed by a senior | ||||||
| % of Renter households | - | 13.8% | - | 13.6% | - | 14.6% |
| headed by a senior |
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)
As shown in Table HE-32, senior households tend to have lower incomes, as compared with all households throughout California, including in San Joaquin County and Stockton. Senior households earning less than $25,000 comprise 29.6 percent of all households in Stockton, 26.3 percent of all households countywide, and 24.0 percent of all households statewide.
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
| INCOME | STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS | ALL HOUSEHOLDS | SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS | ALL HOUSEHOLDS | SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS | ALL HOUSEHOLDS | |||||||
| NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | |
| Less than $25,000 | 6,102 | 29.6% | 19,539 | 20.5% | 13,667 | 26.3% | 38,609 | 16.7% | 767,317 | 24.0% | 2,031,760 | 15.5% |
| $25,000- $39,999 | 3,259 | 15.8% | 13,928 | 14.6% | 7,516 | 14.5% | 28,083 | 12.2% | 436,153 | 13.6% | 1,369,810 | 10.5% |
| $40,000- $59,999 | 3,133 | 15.2% | 15,467 | 16.2% | 8,868 | 17.1% | 34,620 | 15.0% | 456,669 | 14.3% | 1,720,812 | 13.1% |
| $60,000- $99,999 | 3,947 | 19.2% | 21,835 | 22.9% | 10,525 | 20.3% | 53,415 | 23.1% | 635,254 | 19.9% | 2,779,019 | 21.2% |
| $100,000 or more | 4,165 | 20.2% | 24,467 | 25.7% | 11,351 | 21.9% | 76,365 | 33.0% | 903,457 | 28.2% | 5,201,713 | 39.7% |
| Total | 20,606 | 100.0% | 95,236 | 100% | 51,927 | 100.0% | 231,092 | 100% | 3,198,850 | 100.0% | 13,103,114 | 100% |
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS16-20 (5-year Estimates), Table B19037
Table HE-33 shows information from the 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020) on the disability status and types of disabilities by age group for persons five years and older in Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California. As shown in the table, 14.6 percent of the total population in Stockton five years and older had one or more disabilities in 2020, compared 13.3 percent countywide, and 8.0 percent in California. In terms of the three age groups shown in the table, 5.3 percent of the city's population 5 to 17 years of age, 12.5 percent of the population 18 to 64 years of age, and 40.7 percent of seniors (65 years and older) had one or more disabilities in 2020. The percentage of individuals with a disability is higher for all three age groups in Stockton compared to San Joaquin County and California.
Table HE-33 also provides information on the nature of these disabilities. The total number of disabilities shown for all age groups in Stockton (85,544) exceeds the number of persons with disabilities (41,707) because a person can have more than one disability. Among school-age children, the most frequent disability was cognitive (48.6 percent). For persons ages 18 to 64 years, the most frequent disabilities were ambulatory (27.4 percent), cognitive (23.2 percent), and independent living (20.8 percent). Finally, for seniors, ambulatory and independent living disabilities were the most frequent (29.2 and 21.6 percent, respectively).
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
| STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | |
| Population 5 to 17 years | ||||||
| Persons age 5 to 17 years | 63,462 | - | 150,947 | - | 6,534,036 | - |
| Persons age 5 to 17 years with a disability | 3,377 | 5.3% | 6,768 | 4.5% | 289,883 | 4.4% |
| Total disabilities tallied | 4,628 | 100.00% | 9,008 | 100.0% | 407,003 | 100.0% |
| Hearing | 343 | 7.4% | 582 | 6.5% | 33,872 | 8.3% |
| Vision | 555 | 12.0% | 925 | 10.3% | 51,363 | 12.6% |
| Cognitive | 2,250 | 48.6% | 4,823 | 53.5% | 215,338 | 52.9% |
| Ambulatory | 597 | 12.9% | 1,024 | 11.4% | 35,249 | 8.7% |
| Self-Care | 883 | 19.1% | 1,654 | 18.4% | 71,181 | 17.5% |
| Population 18 to 64 years | ||||||
| Persons age 18 to 64 years | 185,547 | - | 444,781 | - | 27,586,271 | - |
| Persons age 18 to 64 years with a disability | 23,155 | 12.5% | 48,181 | 10.8% | 1,944,580 | 7.0% |
| Total disabilities tallied | 44,809 | 100.0% | 90,284 | 100.0% | 3,525,445 | 100.0% |
| Hearing | 3,348 | 7.5% | 8,351 | 9.2% | 356,388 | 10.1% |
| Vision | 4,879 | 10.9% | 9,751 | 10.8% | 374,002 | 10.6% |
| Cognitive | 10,398 | 23.2% | 20,549 | 22.8% | 844,846 | 24.0% |
| Ambulatory | 12,287 | 27.4% | 23,972 | 26.6% | 855,712 | 24.3% |
| Self-Care | 4,581 | 10.2% | 8,956 | 9.9% | 360,887 | 10.2% |
| Independent Living | 9,316 | 20.8% | 18,705 | 20.7% | 733,610 | 20.8% |
| STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | |
| Population 65 years and over | ||||||
| Persons 65 years and over | 37,277 | - | 92,839 | - | 5,548,424 | - |
| Persons 65 years and over with a disability | 15,175 | 40.7% | 36,490 | 39.3% | 920,600 | 16.6% |
| Total disabilities tallied | 36,107 | 100.0% | 82,261 | 100.0% | 4,294,971 | 100.0% |
| Hearing | 5,663 | 15.7% | 14,391 | 17.5% | 744,976 | 17.3% |
| Vision | 3,235 | 9.0% | 6,628 | 8.1% | 343,295 | 8.0% |
| Cognitive | 4,899 | 13.6% | 9,967 | 12.1% | 525,785 | 12.2% |
| Ambulatory | 10,558 | 29.2% | 25,007 | 30.4% | 1,227,804 | 28.6% |
| Self-Care | 3,943 | 10.9% | 9,289 | 11.3% | 532,511 | 12.4% |
| Independent Living | 7,809 | 21.6% | 16,979 | 20.6% | 920,600 | 21.4% |
| Total Population 5 years and over | ||||||
| Persons 5 years and over | 286,286 | - | 688,567 | - | 39,668,731 | - |
| Persons 5 years and over with a disability | 41,707 | 14.6% | 91,439 | 13.3% | 3,155,063 | 8.0% |
| Total disabilities tallied | 85,544 | 100.0% | 181,553 | 100.9% | 8,298,600 | 100.0% |
| Hearing | 9,354 | 10.9% | 23,324 | 12.8% | 1,135,236 | 13.7% |
| Vision | 8,669 | 10.1% | 17,304 | 9.5% | 768,660 | 9.3% |
| Cognitive | 17,547 | 20.5% | 35,339 | 19.5% | 1,585,969 | 19.1% |
| Ambulatory | 23,442 | 27.4% | 50,003 | 27.5% | 2,118,765 | 25.5% |
| Self-Care | 9,407 | 11.0% | 19,899 | 11.0% | 964,579 | 11.6% |
| Independent Living | 17,125 | 20.0% | 37,338 | 20.6% | 1,725,391 | 20.8% |
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020).
Persons with disabilities in Stockton have different housing needs depending on the nature and severity of the disability. Physically disabled persons generally require modifications to their homes such as wheelchair ramps, elevators, wide doorways, and modified fixtures and appliances. If a disability prevents a person from driving, then access to public transportation is particularly important. If a disability prevents an individual from working or limits income, then the cost of housing and the costs of modifications are likely to be even more challenging. Those individuals with severe physical or mental disabilities may also require supportive housing, nursing facilities, or care facilities. In addition, many persons with disabilities rely solely on Social Security Income, which is insufficient for market-rate housing.
The City of Stockton has adopted the 2022 California Existing Building Code, including Title 24 regulations dealing with accessibility for persons with disabilities.
Newer housing shall meet minimum standards for access for persons with disabilities. One of the key needs for persons with disabilities is assistance in retrofitting older homes.
According to Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, “developmental disability” means a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. It includes intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term also includes disabling conditions found to be closely related to intellectual disability or to require treatment similar to that required for individuals with intellectual disabilities but does not include other conditions that are solely physical in nature. Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing
environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult. As described above, people living with a developmental disability can live in various types of housing, and often face a lack of truly integrated, community-based options. Such options include:
Overall, individuals with developmental disabilities should have choice to live in the most integrated, non-segregated settings possible. While substantially less preferable, the following may also be appropriate: Licensed and unlicensed modified single Family homes or housing specially modified for the medically fragile (SB 962 Homes).
According to the California Department of Developmental Services, as of April 2022, the Valley Mountain Regional Center served 16,443 residents with developmental disabilities in the region and 5,387 residents in Stockton. Of the total in the region, 54.7 percent of disabled persons are under the age of 18, and 45.3 percent are 18 or older (Table HE-34). A significant number of developmentally disabled Stockton residents receiving services from the Valley Mountain Regional Center lived in group home facilities (10.2 percent of adults). Most developmentally disabled individuals lived at home (76.8 percent). Many developmentally disabled persons are able to live and work independently. However, more severely disabled individuals require a group living environment with supervision, or an institutional environment with medical attention and physical therapy. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first housing issue for the
developmentally disabled is the transition from living with a parent/guardian as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.
Stockton¹: April 2022
| AGE GROUP | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE |
|---|---|---|
| 00-17 years | 2,946 | 54.7% |
| 18 years | 2441 | 45.3% |
| Total | 5,387 | 100.00% |
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, April 2022.
HUD defines a large household or family as consisting of five or more members. The most critical housing need of large families is access to larger housing units with more bedrooms than a standard two- or three-bedroom dwelling. Multifamily rental housing units typically provide one or two bedrooms and not the three or more bedrooms that are required by large families. As a result, the large families that are unable to rent single-family homes may be overcrowded in smaller units. In general, housing for families should provide safe outdoor play areas for children and should be located to provide convenient access to schools and childcare facilities.
Table HE-35 shows the number and share of large households in Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California in 2020. As shown in the table, 20.5 percent of all households in Stockton had five or more persons. Large households made up 20.5 percent of all owner-occupied households and 21.8 percent of all renter households in Stockton in 2020. The percentage of large households among all households in Stockton was larger than the percentages countywide (19.6 percent) and in California (13.8 percent).
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
| STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUMBER | PERCENT | NUMBER | PERCENT | NUMBER | PERCENT | |
| Owner-Occupied | ||||||
| Less than 5 Persons | 37,768 | 79.5% | 108,541 | 81.4% | 6,239,598 | 86.2% |
| 5+ Persons | 9,713 | 20.5% | 24,840 | 18.6% | 1,001,720 | 13.8% |
| TOTAL | 47,481 | 100.0% | 133,381 | 100.0% | 7,241,318 | 100.0% |
| Renter-Occupied | ||||||
| Less than 5 Persons | 37,323 | 78.2% | 77,230 | 79.0% | 5,053,998 | 86.2% |
| 5+ Persons | 10,432 | 21.8% | 20,481 | 21.0% | 807,798 | 13.8% |
| TOTAL | 47,755 | 100.0% | 97,711 | 100.0% | 5,861,796 | 100.0% |
| All Households | ||||||
| Less than 5 Persons | 75,091 | 78.8% | 185,771 | 80.4% | 100.0% | 86.2% |
| 5+ Persons | 20,145 | 21.2% | 45,321 | 19.6% | 1,809,518 | 13.8% |
| TOTAL | 95,236 | 100.0% | 231,092 | 100.0% | 13,103,114 |
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)
Table HE-36 compares the number of female-headed households with children and poverty rates in Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California in 2020. Stockton has a greater proportion of single female-headed households with children under the age of 18 (8.1 percent of all households) compared to countywide (5.8 percent) and statewide (4.7 percent). Among all households below the poverty level, female-headed households account for a greater proportion in Stockton (28.9 percent) in comparison to San Joaquin County as a whole (25.6 percent) and California (21.5 percent).
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2020
| STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | |
| Householder Type | ||||||
| Total Households | 95,236 | 100.00% | 231,092 | 100.00% | 13,103,114 | 100.00% |
| Female-Headed Households | 28,814 | 30.3% | 58,087 | 25.14% | 3,430,426 | 26.2% |
| Female-Headed Households with Children <18 Years | 7,715 | 8.1% | 13,427 | 5.8% | 615,734 | 4.7% |
| Poverty Status | ||||||
| Total Households Below Poverty Level | 9,432 | 13.7% | 18,652 | 10.8% | 806,599 | 9.0% |
| Female-Headed Households Below Poverty Level | 5,239 | 28.9% | 8,916 | 25.6% | 364,236 | 21.5% |
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -- U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2016-2020)
Female-headed households generally have lower incomes because there is only one potential wage earner. Individuals in this special-needs group often have more difficulties finding adequate, affordable housing than families with two adults. Female-headed households with small children may need to pay for childcare, which further reduces disposable income. This special-needs group will benefit generally from expanded affordable housing opportunities. More specifically, the need for dependent care also makes it important that housing for single-headed families be located near childcare facilities, schools, youth services, and medical facilities.
Farmworkers are an essential component of Stockton’s economy. Determining the number of farmworkers in a region is difficult due to the variability of the definitions used by government agencies and other characteristics of the farming industry, such as seasonal workers who migrate from place to place. The 2016-2020 ACS estimates that 5,010 residents within the City of Stockton work in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, or mining. A source of information on the number of families with school-age children is the San Joaquin County Office of Education (SJOE). According to the SJOE Department of Migrant Education, as of 2023, there are 885 migrant students in Stockton. However, not all farmworkers in Stockton have school-age children, and not all school-age children from migrant farmworker families are enrolled in the migrant education program.
Another source is the U.S. Census of Agriculture, which is conducted every five years and gives the most recent estimate on the number and type of farmworkers in San Joaquin County. The most recent U.S. Census of Agriculture data is from 2017. The Census has shown changes in the farmworker population over time. In 2012, 24,872 farmworkers were employed in the county. In 2017, 19,741 farmworkers worked in San Joaquin County, which is a significant decrease from 2012. The Agriculture census counted 1,707 farms countywide. Countywide, as of 2017 the majority of farmworkers were seasonal, with 59.5 percent of farmworkers working less than 150 days per year. The remaining 40.5 percent were permanent farmworkers that worked 150 or more days each year. Housing conditions for migrant farmworkers are substantially different from the housing conditions of permanent residents employed full-time or
part-time in agriculture. Since migrant farmworkers frequently move locations, they are typically renters. The Community and Labor Center at UC Merced published a report in 2022 titled “Farmworker Health in California” (FWHS). Several farmworker affiliated organizations across Central California participated in this survey. According to the report, 92 percent of the participants rented and resided in single-family homes (55 percent) and about one third of participants lived in apartments (31 percent).
Additionally, migrant farmworkers earn a low income. This forces the farmworking community to compete for the lowest-cost housing, which is typically substandard. According to the FWHS report, farmworkers generally experience substandard housing that often require repairs or suffer from poor ventilation in older homes, apartments, mobile homes, motels, garages and other similar spaces, that put farmworkers at higher risk for respiratory illnesses. The report also discusses that 24 percent of surveyed farmworkers reported very bad “poor taste of water” and 13 percent reported “bad” taste of water. Additionally, 1 out of three farmworkers experienced difficulty keeping their home cool or warm. Lastly, more than 10 percent of surveyed farmworkers encountered mold, water damage and water leaks. Most rental units available to migrant farmworkers are small; however, most farmworking families are above average in size. To afford the high rents that result from low vacancy rates, particularly at the height of the migrant worker season in the county, migrant workers often share rooms and housing units. Surveyed farmworkers reported living in overcrowded households with one fourth of respondents (29 percent) reporting six or more persons per unit and more than half (55 percent) reporting two persons (including themselves) slept in their room. As a result, substandard housing, affordability and overcrowding are critical issues among this special-needs group. The San Joaquin County Housing Element contains numerous policies and programs to address the needs of farmworkers. A major policy approach in San Joaquin County is to encourage farmworker housing in the unincorporated county’s agricultural zones. This reduces farmworkers' commute times, decreases transportation expenses, and provides more affordable housing options. While the City supports the efforts to provide farmworker housing, it is primarily the County’s role to provide this housing. The City has included
Program 28 to continue to work with the County and via Program 17 will ensure the Development Code is up to date to allow employee housing including housing for farmworkers consistent with State law. In addition, Programs 11, 12, 16, 22, 23, and 30 commit to other actions to support developing new homes and rehabilitating existing homes for farmworkers, along with prioritizing outreach and programs for farmworkers.
The decline in grower-provided worker shelter resulted in the State government directing resources to farmworker housing through State-owned and local government-operated migrant labor camps. The Housing Authority of San Joaquin County operates three of these State-owned migrant camps totaling 220 units. This housing is available annually from May through the end of October. Day care centers are provided for farmworkers, as well as services from the Employment Development Department, the Social Security Administration, and education and health care services. During the off-season, one of the migrant camps in French Camp is also used as a cold weather overflow homeless shelter for families (from mid-December through mid-March).
Homelessness is a continuing concern in California. Most families become homeless because they are unable to afford housing in a particular community. Nationwide, about half of those experiencing homelessness over the course of a year are single adults. Most enter and exit the system fairly quickly. The remainder essentially lives in the homeless assistance system, or in a combination of shelters, hospitals, on the streets, or in jails and prisons. There are also single homeless people who are not adults, including runaway and "throwaway" youth (children whose parents will not allow them to live at home).
The housing needs of homeless persons are more difficult to measure and assess than those of other population subgroups. Since these individuals have no permanent address, they are not likely to be counted in the Census.
The most recent information available on homeless individuals is a "point-in-time" (PIT) count that was conducted by the San Joaquin County Community
Development Department and the Central Valley Low Income Housing Corporation in late January 2022 (Table HE-37). The PIT count was conducted in the cities of Stockton, Tracy, Lodi, and Manteca because the majority of homeless services are provided in these larger cities.
The 2022 PIT count reports a total of 2,319 individuals experiencing homelessness in San Joaquin County — about an 18.0 percent increase from the 2015 PIT count. While the results suggest there has been an increase in the number of unsheltered homeless, the increase may also be a result of a more complete and rigorous unsheltered count. Of the total 2,319 individuals, 41.6 percent were sheltered, while 58.4 percent (1,355 persons) were unsheltered. Data collected for City of Stockton was more limited (only unsheltered persons were surveyed) but did include the figure for unsheltered individuals of 893 persons. In Stockton, a majority of the unsheltered persons were Caucasian (63%) with the second largest ethnic group of Black or African-American (25.5%). Most people had been homeless for one year or more (83%) and Stockton was the location they were first homeless (82%). Countywide, among the total homeless persons counted, 38.4 percent were unsheltered males and 19.8 percent were unsheltered females. The majority of persons counted were Caucasian (63.1 percent) and 24 years or older (81.7 percent). A total of 329 persons ages 18 years or younger were counted (14.2 percent). Adults with serious mental illness accounted for 24.5 percent of the total homeless persons counted. Chronically homeless persons made up 34.9 percent of the total. These figures demonstrate the typical demographics of a homeless individual in San Joaquin County is a single, Caucasian male age 24 years or older. The City relied on the Stockton Local Homelessness Action Plan (LHAP) and the region’s San Joaquin Continuum of Care (CoC) for data which rely on the Point in Time (PIT) metric based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) criteria for funding. Staff also contacted the following local homeless experts for what metric they use to calculate the homeless population in Stockton and the region.
While each representative indicated the 2022 PIT metric has some faults and that there are lots of different ways to calculate homeless populations (sheltered/unsheltered and city/county), they agreed that the 2022 PIT number represented in the Housing Element was accurate with what their data shows for unsheltered homeless population in Stockton in a day. They both indicated there are lots of data sources and metrics in the area so it would not be difficult to select a different metric that would conflict with another.
| SHELTERED | UNSHELTERED | TOTAL | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | |
| City of Stockton | ||||||
| Total Persons | Data not collected | 893 | - | 893 | - | |
| Gender | ||||||
| Female | Data not collected | - | 35% | - | 35% | |
| Male | Data not collected | - | 65% | - | 65% | |
| Gender Non-Conforming (i.e., not exclusively male or female) | Data not collected | - | 0% | - | 0% | |
| Ethnicity | ||||||
| Hispanic/Latino | Data not collected | - | 31% | - | 31% | |
| Non-Hispanic/Latino | Data not collected | - | 69% | - | 69% | |
| Race | ||||||
| Caucasian | Data not collected | - | 63% | - | 63% | |
| Black or African-American | Data not collected | - | 25.5% | - | 25.5% | |
| Asian | Data not collected | - | 3% | - | 3% | |
| American Indian or Alaska Native | Data not collected | - | 2% | - | 2% | |
| Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | Data not collected | - | 0.5% | - | 0.5% | |
| Multiple Races | Data not collected | - | 6% | - | 6% | |
| Specified Age Groups | ||||||
| 18 to 24 years | Data not collected | - | 2% | - | 2% | |
| Age 62 or older | Data not collected | - | 10% | - | 10% | |
| Family Type/Other | ||||||
| Substance Use Issue | Data not collected | - | 33% | - | 33% | |
| Mental Health Issue | Data not collected | - | 36% | - | 36% | |
| Veteran | Data not collected | - | 6% | - | 6% | |
| Pet Owner | Data not collected | - | 44% | - | 44% | |
| Medical Insurance | Data not collected | - | 73% | - | 73% | |
| Income | ||||||
| Cash Income | Data not collected | - | 39% | - | 39% | |
| Non-Cash Benefits | Data not collected | - | 53% | - | 53% | |
| Length of Time Homeless | ||||||
| Less than 3 months | Data not collected | - | 6% | - | 6% | |
| Less than 6 months | Data not collected | - | 4% | - | 4% | |
| Less than a year | Data not collected | - | 6% | - | 6% |
| SHELTERED | UNSHELTERED | TOTAL | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | NUMBER | PERCENTAGE | |
| One year or more | Data not collected | - | 83% | - | 83% | |
| Chronically Homeless | Data not collected | - | 49% | - | 49% | |
| Location First Homeless | ||||||
| This community | Data not collected | - | 82% | - | 82% | |
| Other in San Joaquin County | Data not collected | - | 5% | - | 5% | |
| Outside San Joaquin County | Data not collected | - | 13% | - | 13% | |
| San Joaquin County | ||||||
| Total Households and Persons | ||||||
| Total Households | 637 | 32.0% | 1,355 | 68.0% | 1,992 | 100.0% |
| TOTAL PERSONS | 964 | 41.6% | 1,355 | 58.4% | 2,319 | 100.0% |
| Gender | ||||||
| Female | 432 | 18.6% | 459 | 19.8% | 891 | 38.4% |
| Male | 530 | 22.9% | 891 | 38.4% | 1,421 | 61.3% |
| Gender Non-Conforming (i.e., not exclusively male or female) | 1 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.1% |
| Ethnicity | ||||||
| Hispanic/Latino | 315 | 13.6% | 411 | 17.7% | 726 | 31.3% |
| Non- Hispanic/Latino | 649 | 28.0% | 944 | 40.7% | 1,593 | 68.7% |
| Race | ||||||
| Caucasian | 533 | 23.0% | 930 | 40.1% | 1,463 | 63.1% |
| Black or African-American | 248 | 10.7% | 271 | 11.7% | 519 | 22.4% |
| Asian | 31 | 1.3% | 35 | 1.5% | 66 | 2.8% |
| American Indian or Alaska Native | 26 | 1.1% | 23 | 1.0% | 49 | 2.1% |
| Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 19 | 0.8% | 7 | 0.3% | 26 | 1.1% |
| Multiple Races | 107 | 4.6% | 89 | 3.8% | 196 | 8.5% |
| Age | ||||||
| 18 years or younger | 328 | 14.1% | 1 | 0.0% | 329 | 14.2% |
| 18 to 24 years | 64 | 2.8% | 32 | 1.4% | 96 | 4.1% |
| 24 years and older | 572 | 24.7% | 1,322 | 57.0% | 1,894 | 81.7% |
| Family Type | ||||||
| Persons in households with at least one adult and one child | 487 | 21.0% | 0 | 0.00% | 487 | 21.0% |
| Persons in households with only children | 2 | 0.1% | 1 | 0.04% | 3 | 0.1% |
| Persons in households without children | 475 | 20.5% | 1,354 | 58.4% | 1,829 | 78.9% |
| Adults with Serious Mental Illness | 118 | 5.1% | 449 | 19.4% | 567 | 24.5% |
| Substance Use Disorder | 162 | 7.0% | 440 | 19.0% | 602 | 26.0% |
| Victims of Domestic Violence | 22 | 0.9% | 10 | 0.4% | 32 | 1.4% |
| Persons with HIV/AIDS | 1 | 0.0% | 9 | 0.4% | 10 | 0.4% |
| Veterans | 1 | 0.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 0.0% |
| Chronically Homeless | 153 | 6.6% | 656 | 28.3% | 809 | 34.9% |
The City of Stockton participates in the Continuum of Care (CoC), which is a comprehensive, three-fold approach, to meets the needs of the City's homeless. The first tier is emergency shelter and short-term housing, the second tier is transitional housing, and the third tier is permanent affordable housing. To address the problem of homelessness effectively, the City uses a comprehensive approach that combines these shelter and housing facilities with support services to address the needs of each of the sub-populations within the homeless population. Treatment of mental illness and substance abuse, counseling and protection for domestic violence victims, the provision of job training, and intensive case management are critical to reducing homelessness. The goal of a comprehensive homeless service system is to ensure that homeless individuals and families move from homelessness to self-sufficiency, permanent housing, and independent living.
In addition, the City works with San Joaquin County in administering the Shelter Plus Care Program to provide special supportive housing for persons with disabilities and for homeless individuals. City staff meets on a regular basis with staff of other local agencies to identify local issues and discuss appropriate programming of services for homeless persons and those individuals with special needs. The Shelter Plus Care Program is designed to provide housing and supportive services on a long-term basis for homeless persons with disabilities, primarily those with serious mental illnesses, chronic problems with alcohol and/or drugs, AIDS, or related diseases who are living in places not intended for human habitation or in emergency shelters.
Table HE-38 summarizes overnight and emergency shelter facilities available in San Joaquin County, including Stockton, the bed capacity, and the characteristics of clients they serve. The majority of facilities serve unaccompanied males and females, adult couples without children, and single-parent and two-parent families. The Women’s Center – Youth and Family Services (YFS) Safe House is the only shelter that specifically serves unaccompanied youth under 18. Stockton Shelter for the Homeless (SSH) and Gospel Center Rescue Mission (GCRM) have the greatest capacity at 357 and 240 beds, while the remaining shelters have an average capacity of 30 beds.
San Joaquin County, 2022
| FACILITY/PROVIDER | LOCATION | DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|---|
| Gospel Center Rescue Mission (GCRM) | Stockton | GCRM operates an emergency shelter for up to 100 homeless men, women, and children. GCRM also operates a Recuperative Care Program (RCP) that provides 24-hour shelter beds for people who are too well to be in the hospital, but too sick to recuperate on the streets. The RCP has up to 50 beds. |
| Stockton Shelter for the Homeless (SSH) | Stockton | SSH provides temporary shelter for single adults and families. The shelter can house up to 357 people in its two facilities and HOPW (Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids) homes. The shelter assists clients in obtaining permanent housing. |
| Women’s Center - Youth and Family Services, Safe House | Stockton | Safe House offers up to 21 days of shelter and supportive services for runaway, throwaway, and homeless youth ages 12-17. This facility can assist up to 10 youth at a given time plus their children. |
| Haven of Peace | French Camp | The Haven of Peace is a two-week shelter for women and their children with the capacity to house 35 individuals, including both adults and children. The shelter offers management, a variety of classes to residents such as life skills, parenting, budgeting, and computer classes. Residents are referred to other agencies for assistance with domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health, and other issues. There is a possibility of extending the stay for up to six months if residents work with their case manager and are reaching goals toward achieving self-sufficiency. |
| Hope Family Shelter | Manteca | The Hope Family Shelter can house 8 families. Food, clothing, utilities, and counseling are provided. |
| Raymus House (Hope Family Shelter) | Manteca | An emergency shelter that services up to 10 families consisting of women and children who have been displaced for up to 60-90 days. Women may bring their children, girls ages 0-18 and boys 0-12. |
| Hope Harbor Shelter | Lodi | Hope Harbor is the largest shelter in Lodi, which can accommodate women with children, men, and single-family units. It is also the only shelter in the area that can house single fathers with children. Clients may stay 56 nights per calendar year with an option for a 28-day extension should they enter into case management. |
| FACILITY/PROVIDER | LOCATION | DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|---|
| Lodi House | Lodi | Lodi House is a shelter for women and their children. The facility houses approximately seven adults and their children. |
| McHenry House | Tracy | The McHenry House provides shelter and meals for single women, women with children, and couples, up to 18 people for a maximum stay of 15 days. The shelter typically serves seven families at a time. |
| Women’s Center - Family and Youth Services, Serenity House | Tracy | Serenity House is an emergency shelter for battered women and their children. Serenity House offers a comprehensive 60-day program with the capacity to serve up to 12 women and their children at a given time. |
Source: PlaceWorks; contacted agency or facility, October 2022.
For many, transitional housing, long-term rental assistance, and/or greater availability of low-income rental units are also needed. Transitional housing is usually in buildings configured as rental housing developments but operate with State programs that require the unit to be cycled to other eligible program recipients after some predetermined amount of time. Supportive housing has no limit on length of stay and is linked to on-site or off-site services that assist the resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live well and work in the community.
Transitional housing programs provide extended shelter and supportive services for homeless individuals and/or families with the goal of helping them live independently and transition into permanent housing. Some programs require that the individual/family transition from a short-term emergency shelter. The length of stay varies considerably by program but is generally longer than two weeks and can last up to 60 days or more. In many cases, transitional housing programs will provide services for up to two years or more. The supportive services may be provided directly by the organization managing the housing or by other public or private agencies in a coordinated effort with the housing provider. Transitional housing/shelter is generally provided in apartment-style facilities with a higher degree of privacy than short-term homeless shelters, may be provided at no cost to the resident, and may be configured for specialized groups within the homeless population, such as people with substance abuse problems, mental illness, victims of domestic violence, veterans, or those with AIDS/HIV.
There are several transitional or supportive housing programs offered in San Joaquin County, mostly in the city of Stockton. As shown in Table HE-39, transitional and permanent supportive housing programs are being provided by Central Valley Low Income Housing Corporation (CVLIHC), New Directions, Women’s Center – Youth and Family Services, Gospel Center Rescue Mission, Dignity’s Alcove, Stockton Shelter for the Homeless, Lutheran Social Services, and HOPE Family Shelter.
Table HE-39: Transitional and Permanent Supportive Housing San Joaquin County, 2022
| FACILITY/PROVIDER | LOCATION | DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|---|
| Central Valley Low Income Housing Corporation (CVLIHC) | Stockton and various locations throughout the county | CVLIHC provides transitional housing for homeless families with children. CVLIHC operates a scattered site program throughout San Joaquin County with participants having the primary responsibility for the units where they live. The program provides 196 units. CVLIHC also provides permanent supportive housing to homeless individuals with a disability, and preference is given to those who are chronically homeless. Two of the sites can serve both individuals and households with children, and the other two can only serve single adults. Housing sites are scattered throughout San Joaquin County and provide a total of 356 units. |
| Dignity's Alcove | Stockton | Dignity's Alcove provides 24-month transitional and recovery housing for up to 47 homeless veterans at one time. The comprehensive program includes client assessment, case management, drug and alcohol education, communications training, and more. |
| Lodi House | Lodi | Lodi House has a transitional housing program for women and their children. The facility houses approximately seven adults and their children. |
| Gospel Center Rescue Mission (GCRM) | Stockton | GCRM provides the New Life Program (NLP), a residential addiction treatment program for men, women, and families at the Gospel Center Rescue Mission. There is a max capacity of 40 men and 200 women and children. |
| Lutheran Social Services' Project HOPE | Stockton | Lutheran Social Services' Project HOPE program provides permanent housing and supportive services to homeless emancipated foster youth. The program has capacity for 34 individuals and their children. |
| New Directions | Stockton | New Directions provides housing and supportive services for homeless adults who have an active substance abuse problem. New Directions has separate programs and facilities for men and women on the same campus. The total capacity is approximately 75 participants. New Directions provides 24 beds. |
| Stockton Shelter for the Homeless, Holman House | Stockton | Operated by the Stockton Homeless Shelter, the Holman House provides emergency shelter, transitional housing assistance, and supportive services for persons living with HIV/AIDS. Holman House has a max capacity of 10 beds. |
| Women's Center - Youth and Family Services, DAWN House | Stockton | DAWN House is a shelter for abused women and their children. This facility houses approximately 42 adults and children. The length of stay is normally 30 to 60 days. |
| Women's Center - Youth and Family Services, Opportunity House Transitional Living Program | Stockton | Opportunity House Transitional Living Program provides up to 21 months of shelter and supportive services to prepare runaway, throwaway, and homeless youth for independent living. The program serves youth ages 18-21 and emancipated youth ages 16-17 years old. The program can assist 8 people at a time. |
| HOPE Family Shelter | Manteca | Building HOPE provides transitional housing and services to homeless families. The project serves 8 families at a time. The families can live in the facility for up to 2 years while paying a fixed rent at 30 percent of family income and receiving employment assistance. |
| Town Center Studios | Stockton | Town Center Studios is 40 units of housing for persons who are chronically homeless. |
Source: PlaceWorks; contacted agency or facility, October 2022
Table HE-40 summarizes homeless facilities in Stockton including bed capacity and the characteristics of clients they serve. The majority of facilities serve unaccompanied males and females, adult couples without children, and single-parent and two-parent families. Overall, the Stockton facilities listed in Table HE-40 have the capacity for 1,172 persons at a given time.
Table HE-40: Emergency and Transitional/Permanent Supportive Shelter Provider Capacities Stockton, 2022
| FACILITY NAME | HOMELESS BENEFICIARIES | BED CAPACITY |
|---|---|---|
| Adult Couples with Children | ||
| Berkley Food and Housing Project | Unaccompanied Females | 21 |
| Unaccompanied Males | ||
| Single Parent Families | ||
| Catholic Charities | - | 1 |
| Children's Home | Unaccompanied Male Youth Under 18 | 12 |
| Unaccompanied Female Youth Under 18 | ||
| Adult Couples without Children | ||
| Central Valley Low Income Housing Corporation | Single-Parent Families | 5521 |
| Two-Parent Families | ||
| Unaccompanied Females | ||
| Unaccompanied Males | ||
| Dignity's Alcove | Unaccompanied Males | 22 |
| Unaccompanied Females | ||
| Gospel Center Rescue Mission | Unaccompanied Males | 272 |
| Unaccompanied Females | ||
| Single-Parent Families | ||
| Haven of Peace | Unaccompanied Females (with children) | 35 |
| Hope Ministries | Unaccompanied Females (with children) | 126 |
| Adult Couples without Children | ||
| Lodi House | Unaccompanied Females (with children) | 36 |
| Single-Parent Youth | 34 | |
| Lutheran Social Services' Project HOPE | Unaccompanied Female Youth Under 18 | (plus their children) |
| Unaccompanied Male Youth Under 18 | ||
| New Directions | Unaccompanied Females | 24 |
| Unaccompanied Males | ||
| Manteca | - | 50 |
| Single-Parent Families | ||
| Mary Magdalene | Adult Couples with Children | 11 |
| Unaccompanied Females | ||
| McHenry House | Single-Parent Families | 30 |
| Adult Couples with Children | ||
| Ready to Work | Unaccompanied Females | 48 |
| Unaccompanied Males | ||
| Salvation Army-Lodi | Single-Parent Families | 115 |
| Single-Parent Families | ||
| Adult Couples with Children |
| FACILITY NAME | HOMELESS BENEFICIARIES | BED CAPACITY |
|---|---|---|
| Unaccompanied Females | ||
| Unaccompanied Males | ||
| Stockton Shelter for the Homeless | Single-Parent Families | 320 |
| Two-Parent Families | ||
| Adult Couples without Children | ||
| Stockton Shelter for the Homeless, Holman House | Unaccompanied Females | 10 |
| Unaccompanied Males | ||
| Town Center Studios | Stockton | Town Center Studios is 40 units of housing for persons who are chronically homeless. |
| Tracy Community Connection Center | Unaccompanied Females | 12 |
| Women’s Center - Youth and Family Services, DAWN House, and Serenity House | Single-Parent Families | 35 |
| Unaccompanied Females | ||
| Women’s Center - Youth and Family Services, Safe House | Unaccompanied Female Youth Under 18 | 8 (plus their children) |
| Unaccompanied Male Youth Under 18 | ||
| Single-Parent Youth | ||
| WestCare California | Unaccompanied Females | 16 |
| Unaccompanied Males | ||
| Women’s Center – Youth and Family Services, Opportunity House Transitional Living Program | Unaccompanied Females | 16 |
| Unaccompanied Males | ||
| Unaccompanied Female Youth Under 18 | ||
| Unaccompanied Male Youth Under 18 |
Note: 1 Total bed capacity in Stockton is estimated based on roughly 60 percent of CVLIHC’s transitional housing units are located at an address with a Stockton zip code. Regarding CVLIHC’s permanent supportive housing units, roughly 90 percent of the units have a Stockton zip code. “(-)” data not available Source: PlaceWorks; contacted agency or facility, October 2022.
According to the California Department of Public Health, as of April 21, 2022, there have been 1,471 reported cases of AIDS since the onset of the disease in the county in the 1980s. Through the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program, federal funds are allocated to the State and the County for the purpose of assisting people with the disease in securing permanent and affordable housing. Through San Joaquin County Public Health Services, Stockton Shelter uses HOPWA funds to purchase and run transitional houses for AIDS-infected persons who are homeless or having financial difficulties. Residents can stay in transitional housing for up to 18 months while they secure a job, home, or SSI benefits. Within the city, Stockton Shelter administers one transitional house, with capacity for 10 individuals, and five condominiums for families of three to four people. In addition to transitional housing, Stockton Shelter also provides emergency assistance for people who cannot afford their housing payments due to a health emergency or high health-care costs.
According to area health care providers, additional housing needs for people with AIDS and HIV include more emergency housing assistance, funding to cover first- and last-month’s rent, low-cost housing for individuals such as residential hotels, and assisted living for persons in the middle- to late-stages of the disease.
Extremely low-income (ELI) households are defined as those households with incomes under 30 percent of the AMI. Extremely low-income households typically consist of minimum-wage workers, seniors on fixed incomes, disabled individuals, and farmworkers. This income group is likely to live in overcrowded and substandard housing conditions. This group of households has specific housing needs that require greater government subsidies and assistance, housing with supportive services, single-room occupancy (SRO), shared housing, and/or rental subsidies or vouchers. In recent years, rising rents, higher income and credit standards imposed by landlords, and insufficient government assistance has exacerbated the problem. Without adequate assistance, this group has a high risk of homelessness.
In Stockton, a household of three persons with an income of $23,030 in 2022 would qualify as an extremely low-income household. Table HE-41 shows the number of extremely low-income households and their housing cost burden in Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California in 2018. As shown in the table, Stockton had a higher percentage (14.0 percent) of extremely low-income households than countywide (10.3 percent), although slightly less than the state (14.1 percent). Following the statewide and countywide trends, the city had a larger proportion of extremely low-income renter households (21.4 percent) than countywide (16.8 percent) and a slightly smaller proportion than the state (22.5 percent). Stockton had a similar proportion of extremely low-income owner households (5.9 percent) than countywide (5.1 percent) and less than California (7.2 percent). Generally, households that pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs are considered to be overpaying for housing or cost burdened, while households that pay 50 percent or more are considered to be severely overpaying or severely cost burdened.
In Stockton, 82.5 percent of extremely low-income households had a moderate housing cost burden (> 30 percent or more) and 73.1 percent had a severe (>50 percent or more) housing cost burden. This was slightly higher than the cost burdens of extremely low-income households in the county and state. Extremely low-income renters in Stockton had a much higher incidence (84.2 percent) of a moderate housing cost burden than owners (75.7 percent) and 74.8 percent of renters had a severe cost burden compared to 66.4 percent of owners. This information suggests that there is a need for affordable rental units for extremely low-income residents in Stockton.
Stockton, San Joaquin County, and California, 2018
| STOCKTON | SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | CALIFORNIA | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OWNERS | RENTERS | TOTAL | OWNERS | RENTERS | TOTAL | OWNERS | RENTERS | TOTAL | |
| Number of ELI households | 2,650 | 10,695 | 13,345 | 6,455 | 16,950 | 23,405 | 509,410 | 1,324,385 | 1,833,795 |
| Number of total households | 45,230 | 49,960 | 95,190 | 126,095 | 100,630 | 226,725 | 7,085,435 | 5,880,000 | 12,965,435 |
| % of total households | 5.9% | 21.4% | 14.0% | 5.1% | 16.8% | 10.3% | 7.2% | 22.5% | 14.1% |
| Number w/ cost burden > 30% | 2,005 | 9,000 | 11,005 | 4,950 | 13,810 | 18,760 | 380,295 | 1,060,070 | 1,440,365 |
| % w/ cost burden > 30% | 75.7% | 84.2% | 82.5% | 76.7% | 81.5% | 80.2% | 74.7% | 80.0% | 78.5% |
| Number w/ severely cost burden > 50% | 1,760 | 8,000 | 9,760 | 4,295 | 12,480 | 16,775 | 316,175 | 913,810 | 1,229,985 |
| % w/ severely Cost Burden > 50% | 66.4% | 74.8% | 73.1% | 66.5% | 73.6% | 71.7% | 62.1% | 69.0% | 67.1% |
Source: Stockton Data Packet, 2022 -CHAS (2014-2018).
Over the past several decades, hundreds of thousands of affordable rental housing units have been constructed in California with the assistance of federal, state, and local funding (loans or grants) that restricted rents and occupancy of units to low-income households for specified periods of time. Once these restrictions expire, a property owner may charge market rents. Low-income occupants are often displaced when rents rise to market levels.
State law requires that housing elements include an inventory of all publicly assisted multifamily rental housing facilities within the local jurisdiction and note those that are at risk of conversion to uses other than lower-income residential within 10 years of the beginning of the housing element planning period, which is December 31, 2023, so before December 31, 2033.
California Government Code requires that owners of federally assisted properties provide notice of intent to convert their properties to market rate and provide information and options to tenants. The details about the requirements are included in Program 21.
Table HE-42 shows the assisted housing facilities in Stockton, including those that are considered “at risk.” There are four affordable housing facilities with a total of 392 units at risk of conversion before December 31, 2033: Steamboat Landing Apartments, Filipino Center, Villa de San Joaquin, and Inglewood Gardens (Table HE-42).
Stockton, 2023-2031
| FACILITY NAME | ADDRESS | AFFORDABLE UNITS | TOTAL UNITS | TARGET GROUP | FUNDING SOURCE | EXPIRATION OF AFFORDABILITY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delta Plaza Apts. | 702 N. San Joaquin Street | 29 | 30 | Seniors | LIHTC; HCD; Local | 2047 |
| Kentfield Apartments | 4545 Kentfield Rd. | 89 | 90 | Large Family | LIHTC; Local | 2064 |
| Town Center Studios | 1604 N. Wilson Way | 39 | Homeless and At-Risk of Homelessness | HCD | 2075 | |
| Sierra Vista I Apartments | Viva Plaza | 114 | 115 | Large Family | LIHTC | 2071 |
| Sierra Vista II Apartments | 1520 Eleventh Street | 99 | 100 | Large Family | LIHTC | 2072 |
| Gleason Park | 411 South Stanislaus Street | 92 | 93 | Large Family | LIHTC | 2065 |
| Plymouth Place | 1320 N. Monroe St | 65 | 65 | Senior | LIHTC; HUD | 2075 |
| Casa de Esperanza | 2260 S. Netherton Ave. | 69 | 70 | Large Family | LIHTC; USDA | 2068 |
| Westgate Townhomes | 6119 Danny Drive | 39 | 40 | Large Family | LIHTC | 2068 |
| Bradford Apartments | 1020 Rosemarie Lane | 29 | 30 | Large Family | LIHTC | 2069 |
| Liberty Square | 804 N. Hunter Street | 72 | 74 | Large Family | LIHTC; HCD | 2073 |
| Santa Fe Townhomes | 639 West Worth Street | 30 | 31 | Large Family | LIHTC; HCD | 2072 |
| Grand View Village | 228 N. Hunter Street | 74 | 75 | Large Family | LIHTC | 2074 |
| Main Street Manor/Almond View | 648 East Main Street | 71 | 72 | SRO | LIHTC; Local | 2048 |
| Cambridge Court | 6507 Danny Drive | 130 | 132 | Large Family | LIHTC; Local | 2050 |
| Pacific Pointe Apartments (fka Stockton Gardens Apartments) | 1025 Rose Marie Lane | 79 | 80 | Non Targeted | LIHTC | 2052 |
| FACILITY NAME | ADDRESS | AFFORDABLE UNITS | TOTAL UNITS | TARGET GROUP | FUNDING SOURCE | EXPIRATION OF AFFORDABILITY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Granite Ridge Apartments (fka Stockton Terrace Apartments) | 246 Iris Avenue | 79 | 80 | Non Targeted | LIHTC | 2052 |
| Quan Ying Senior Apartments | 301 South San Joaquin Street | 20 | 20 | Seniors | LIHTC; Local | 2052 |
| Delta Village Apartments | 1625 Rosemarie Lane | 79 | 80 | Non Targeted | LIHTC | 2053 |
| Emerald Pointe Townhomes | 9537 Kelley Dr | 18 | 19 | Large Family | LIHTC; Local | 2053 |
| Ladan Apartments (Site A) | 402 S. San Joaquin St. | 10 | 10 | Large Family | LIHTC | 2057 |
| Diamond Cove II Apartments | 5506 Tam O Shanter Dr | 39 | 40 | Large Family | LIHTC | 2058 |
| Valle Del Sol Townhomes | 4701 East Farmington Road | 74 | 76 | Large Family | LIHTC; USDA; HCD | 2059 |
| Church Street Triplex | 418 E Church St | 3 | 3 | Working families | Local | 2062 |
| Marquis Place Apartments | 5315 Carrington Circle | 20 | 21 | Large Family | LIHTC; Local | 2062 |
| Wysteria | 1921 Pock Lane | 64 | 65 | Large Family | LIHTC | 2063 |
| Hotel Stockton | 133 E. Weber Avenue | 155 | 156 | SRO | LIHTC; Local | 2064 |
| Villas de Amistad | 601 E. Main Street | 89 | 91 | SRO | LIHTC; HCD; Local | 2065 |
| Vintage Plaza (Site A) | 336 California St. | 17 | 18 | Large Family | LIHTC | 2065 |
| Community of All Nations | 2172 Dockery Court | 73 | 75 | Large Family | LIHTC; HUD; CalHFA; Local | 2066 |
| Cal Weber 40 Apartments | 512 E. Weber Ave | 39 | 40 | Large Family | LIHTC | 2068 |
| Zettie Miller's Haven | 1545 Rosemarie Lane | 81 | 82 | Developmentally Disabled, Mental Illness, Chronic illness | LIHTC; CalHFA | 2069 |
| Franco Center Apartments | 144 Mun Kwok Ln | 111 | 112 | Senior | LIHTC; HUD | 2069 |
| Diamond Cove Townhomes | 5358 Carrington Circle | 59 | 60 | Large Family | LIHTC; Local | 2069 |
| Village East Apartments | 2501 E. Lafayette Street | 187 | 189 | Non-Targeted | LIHTC; HUD | 2070 |
| Polo Run Family Apartments | 8165 Palisades Drive | 315 | 318 | Large Family | LIHTC | 2070 |
| Hampton Square Apartments | 819 E. Hammer Lane | 184 | 186 | Large Family | LIHTC; Local | 2070 |
| Medici Artist Lofts | 242 North Sutter Street | 27 | 34 | Large Family | LIHTC | 2071 |
| Casa Manana | 3700 North Sutter Street | 161 | 163 | Senior | LIHTC; HUD | 2074 |
| Sonora Square | 2 E. Sonora Street | 37 | 38 | Special Needs | LIHTC | 2075 |
| Steamboat Landing Apartments | 25 S Commerce St | 150 | 151 | Senior | HUD | 2022 |
| Filipino Center | 6 W. Main St | 128 | 128 | Family | HUD | 2025 |
| Villa de San Joaquin | 324 East Jackson Street | 30 | 30 | Family | USDA | 2026 |
| Inglewood Gardens | 6433 Inglewood Ave | 84 | 84 | Senior | HUD | 2033 |
| Stockton Silvercrest | 123 N. Stanislaus St | 82 | 83 | Senior | HUD | 2036 |
| FACILITY NAME | ADDRESS | AFFORDABLE UNITS | TOTAL UNITS | TARGET GROUP | FUNDING SOURCE | EXPIRATION OF AFFORDABILITY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Park Village Apartments | 3830 Alvarado Ave | 207 | 208 | Family | HUD; Local | 2037 |
| Hammer Lane Village | 210 E Iris Ave. | 130 | 130 | Senior | HUD | 2038 |
| Filipino Community Building of Stockton | 443 East Sonora St | 68 | 69 | SRO | LIHTC; Local | 2050 |
| Dewey Apartments | 507 N. Pilgrim St | 10 | 10 | Family | HUD; Local | 2051 |
| Charleston Place Apartments | 1515 E. Bianchi Road | 80 | 82 | Large Family | LIHTC; Local | 2052 |
| Grant Village Townhomes | 2040 Grant Street | 39 | 40 | Large Family | LIHTC; Local | 2059 |
| Montecito Townhomes | 1339 Kingsley Avenue | 69 | 70 | Large Family | LIHTC; Local | 2062 |
| Villa Monterey Apartments | 4707 Kentfield Road | 44 | 45 | Large Family | LIHTC; Local | 2064 |
| Winslow Village Apartments | 5926 Village Green Drive | 39 | 40 | Special Needs | LIHTC; HCD; Local | 2064 |
| Inglewood Oaks Apartments | 7007 Inglewood Ave | 64 | 64 | Family/Individual | CalHFA | 2072 |
| Anchor Village | 601 N. Hunter Street | 50 | 51 | Veterans at risk of homeless, mentally ill individuals, families/individuals | LIHTC; CalHFA; HCD | 2074 |
| Total Units At-Risk | 392 |
Source: California Housing Partnership Corporation, 2022.
Affordable housing options for most lower-income households are limited primarily to rental housing. Therefore, preserving the existing affordable rental housing stock is an important goal for Stockton. Most affordable rental housing units in the city were achieved through subsidy contracts and deed restrictions/affordability covenants in exchange for construction and mortgage assistance. From time to time, restricted units lose their affordability controls and revert to market-rate units. For instance, development facilities are typically considered at-risk due to: (1) the prepayment provisions of HUD-insured mortgage loans; (2) expiration of Section 8 and Section 236 contracts; and (3) expiration of restrictions on mortgage revenue bonds. The following describes these conditions in detail.
with rent payments never to exceed the market rents. Units were restricted to households that met the low- and moderate-income limits established for the program. The subsidized housing moratorium imposed by President Nixon in January 1973 brought an end to additional Section 236 construction.
State law also requires that housing elements include a comparison of the costs to replace the at-risk units through new construction or to preserve the at-risk units. Preserving at-risk units can be accomplished by facilitating a transfer of ownership to a qualified affordable housing organization, purchasing the affordability covenants, and/or providing rental assistance to tenants.
One method of ensuring long-term affordability of low-income units is to transfer ownership to a qualified nonprofit or for-profit affordable housing organization. This transfer would make the project eligible for refinancing using affordable housing financing programs, such as low-income housing tax credits and tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds. These financing programs would ensure affordability for at least 55 years. Generally, rehabilitation often accompanies a transfer of ownership.
Table HE-43 shows the estimated costs to acquire and rehabilitate the at-risk units. Acquisition costs are based on the 2023 assessed value of each property, and a per-unit rehabilitation cost of $50,000 is assumed. The total estimated cost to acquire and rehabilitate all of the at-risk affordable housing facilities in Stockton (Steamboat Landing, Filipino Center, Inglewood Gardens, and Villa de San Joaquin) is an estimated $42.2 million. This is very likely an underestimate of the actual costs of acquisition and rehabilitation since the assessed values are likely much lower than the market value for these properties.
Stockton, 2023
| AT-RISK PROJECT | NUMBER OF UNITS | TOTAL ESTIMATED COST |
|---|---|---|
| Steamboat Landing | 150 | $17,939,633 |
| Filipino Center | 128 | $10,442,508 |
| Inglewood Gardens | 84 | $9,688,647 |
| Villa de San Joaquin | 30 | $4,104,987 |
| Total | 392 | $42,175,775 |
Source: San Joaquin County Assessor’s Office, 2023
Rent subsidies can also be used to preserve affordability of housing. Through a variety of funding sources, the City could potentially provide rental vouchers similar to those provided through the Housing Choice Vouchers Program (formerly Section 8). The amount of a rent subsidy would be equal to the difference between the fair market value for a unit and the cost that would be affordable to a lower-income household. Table HE-44 shows the estimated rent subsidies required to preserve the affordability of the at-risk units. Based on the assumptions shown in the table, it would cost the City an estimated $775,125 annually to subsidize rent for these units, or nearly $23,253,750 over 30 years.
Stockton, 2023
| UNIT SIZE | AFFORDABLE RENT FOR VERY LOW-INCOME (50% AMI) | 2022 FAIR-MARKET RENTS | MONTHLY SUBSIDY PER UNIT | ANNUAL SUBSIDY PER UNIT | TOTAL AT-RISK UNITS | TOTAL ANNUAL SUBSIDY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Studio | $725 | $899 | $174 | $2,088 | 80 | $167,040 |
| 1-BR | $829 | $904 | $75 | $903 | 223 | $201,369 |
| 2-BR | $933 | $1,137 | $205 | $2,454 | 48 | $117,792 |
| 3-BR | $1,035 | $1,607 | $572 | $6,864 | 37 | $253,968 |
| 4-BR | $1,119 | $1,847 | $728 | $8,739 | 4 | $34,956 |
| Total | 392 | $775,125 |
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, State Income Limits for San Joaquin County, 2022. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) User Data Sets: 2022 FY FMR Geography Summary for San Joaquin County, California.
Per-square-foot construction costs from recent approved facilities were used to estimate the cost of replacing the at-risk units if they were to convert to market-rate housing. As shown in Table HE-45, the estimated cost to replace the 392 at-risk units is about $92.3 million.
Stockton, 2022
| COST TYPE | PER-UNIT ESTIMATED COST | TOTAL ESTIMATED COST |
|---|---|---|
| Construction1 | $192,252 | $75,363,088 |
| Land2 | $1,604 | $628,600 |
| Building Permit Fee | $1,306 | $511,888 |
| Plan Check Fee | $548 | $214,993 |
| School District Fee | $5,840 | $5,840 |
| Impact Fees3 | $34,401 | $13,344,048 |
| Total | $235,592 | $92,351,899 |
Notes: Estimated cost per unit is based on a three-story residential building consisting of 27 one-bedroom units, including on-site work. Unit costs assume each unit is 1,000 square feet.
In summary, the above analyses show the costs of the different scenarios to be as follows:
Regardless of the method, preserving affordability of the at-risk units is costly. While providing rent subsidies appears to be the least costly method, Section 8 funding availability is limited and currently (2023) there are more federal and state funding sources to rehabilitate existing or build new affordable housing units. However, it may cost the City less to directly subsidize rent than assist in either the rehabilitation or replacement of the units.
Qualified entities to acquire at-risk properties and maintain long-term affordability are nonprofit or for-profit organizations with affordable housing development and managerial capacity. The following are organizations that can serve as qualified entities in San Joaquin County:
The construction cost is based on $192.25 per square foot for a three-story complex and 1,000 square feet per unit sums to $192,252.78 ↩
The average land cost per acre is assumed to be $202,286. ↩
Based on total fee estimates from Table HE-64. Sources: Redfin and City of Stockton Master Fee Schedule, 2022-23. ↩
Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requires that all housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021, contain an Assessment of Fair Housing consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16, 2015. Under California law, AFFH means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.”
California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires local jurisdictions to analyze racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk. Although this is the Housing Element for the City of Stockton, Government Code Section 65583 (c)(9), (c)(10), and Section 8899.50, (a), (b), and (c) require all local jurisdictions to address patterns locally and regionally to compare conditions at the local level to the rest of the region. To that end, the City of Stockton has prepared a local assessment of fair housing.
This section is organized by fair housing topics. For each topic, the regional assessment is first, followed by the local assessment. Strategies to address the identified issues are included throughout the section. Through discussions with stakeholders and fair housing advocates, and this assessment of fair housing issues, the City of Stockton identified factors that contribute to fair housing issues. These contributing factors are in Table HE-48, with associated actions to meaningfully affirmatively further fair housing related to these factors. Additional programs to affirmatively further fair housing are included in the Policy Document part of this Housing Element.
This section also includes an analysis of the Housing Element’s sites inventory as compared with fair housing factors. The location of housing in relation to resources and opportunities is integral to addressing disparities in housing needs and opportunity and to fostering inclusive communities where all residents have access to opportunity. This is particularly important for lower-income households. AB 686 added a new requirement for housing elements to analyze the distribution of projected units by income category, access to high resource areas, and other fair housing indicators compared to citywide patterns to understand how the projected locations of units will affirmatively further fair housing.
Various sources of information contribute to the Housing Element. The San Joaquin Valley REAP's "Taking Stock: A Comprehensive Housing Report for the San Joaquin Valley in 2022" provides a data package that has been pre-approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and serves as the primary data source for population and household characteristics. Dates for data included in the San Joaquin Valley REAP data package may vary depending on the selection of data that was made to provide the best data on the topic. These datasets rely on data reported by American Community Survey (ACS), California Department of Finance, California Economic Development Department, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), and the Department of Agriculture Agricultural Census. Where more current information is available, it has been provided. Please note that numbers for the same type of data (e.g., households) may not exactly match in different tables and sections because of the different data sources and samples used. The main data source for the assessment of fair housing was the HCD's AFFH Data Viewer mapping tool. Several additional data sources were used to supplement the 2022 REAP data package:
The first community workshop for Stockton residents as part of the Housing Element update took place via Zoom on Wednesday, September 14, 2022, from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. The focus of the workshop was potential sites to accommodate the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and also to educate residents about the update process and hear resident insights and ideas about how the City can improve housing opportunities in the future. Spanish translation was available during the workshop. The community workshop was recorded and posted on the City's Housing Element web page.
City staff and consultants facilitated the workshop and 20 participants attended. Throughout the workshop, community members were asked to provide feedback, ask questions or provide comments. All questions and comments were read aloud, and either City staff or the consultants responded or documented receipt of the comment. The following summary of questions and comments relate specifically to fair housing issues.
Challenges in the permitting process - many of the comments pertained to constraints being experienced related to processing and approval of applications, which are analyzed in Chapter 6 and programs identified in the Policy Document to address potential constraints and streamline the review and project approval process.
During this workshop, attendees were asked to participate in a series of polls and select their preferred responses. The following poll questions and top responses include:
Which housing groups do you think Stockton needs to focus on and provide housing for?
What type of housing is needed in Stockton?
To decide which sites are priorities for housing development, what criteria are most important to you?
The comments elicited by these questions have been considered and incorporated into the Housing Element, as applicable.
The second community workshop took place in person at the Buskirk Community Center on Wednesday, October 29, 2022, from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm. The purpose of this workshop was to educate residents about the Housing Element update and Housing Action Plan processes and to give attendees an opportunity to share their ideas and ask related questions. Spanish translation was available during the workshop, and translation for additional languages was available upon request.
The process was similar to Workshop #1, with 20 participants attending. Input from the participants was solicited throughout the workshop. A set of discussion questions were presented to residents during this virtual meeting, which are discussed in Chapter 1 of the Housing Element in the summary of the Outreach Program. Topics participant input was requested on included:
The following summary of questions and comments relate specifically to fair housing issues arising from the above discussion questions.
Housing stock and affordability – The influx of homebuyers from the Bay Area was identified as a concern. A Stockton Housing Action Plan Market Conditions report has been completed which addresses housing prices and recent in-migration trends. As well, the effect of gentrification of neighborhoods, rising home prices and cost burden is discussed in the Risk of Displacement section in this Assessment of Fair Housing.
Renter and Property Owner Relations - The availability of data on nonresident property owners and investors was brought up. The Assessment of Fair Housing provides tenure data, and identifies rental property owner and tenant relations, including evictions and discrimination as a fair housing issue, including Program 30. Practices to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing to address these issues, specific nonresident and investor data was not available. A participant from Disability Rights CA offered a fair housing training to the City (for decision makers or staff).
Sites – Concern was expressed regarding identification of lower income sites Downtown in with high CalEnviroScreen scores. Unit capacity is provided in this area of high need for affordable housing to foster housing mobility opportunities and reduce the risk of displacement of residents, as well as provide housing near transit and resources. The siting of units in environmentally challenged areas is analyzed. Staff noted that the City allows up to four units by right in all residential zones. This means density can increase in most areas of the city, not just downtown. The inclusion of residential sites in commercial developments to meet the RHNA was brought up. A detailed analysis of all potential sites in the city, including mixed-use potential, was conducted to determine appropriate sites for unit capacity to meet and exceed the RHNA, as presented in Chapter 4.
Homelessness – The unhoused is a fair housing concern, and it is often difficult to collect informative data that accurately reflects the magnitude of the population at risk, resulting in undercounting. The practice of homeless sweeps and the no-camping ordinance as a fair housing issue was mentioned in the workshop discussion. The data source for analysis of the homeless, described in Chapter 2 – Housing Need
Assessment, was a Point-in-Time count conducted by the San Joaquin County Community Development Department and the Central Valley Low Income Housing Corporation in late January 2022. Land use designations that support the development of homeless shelters and transitional housing facilities is discussed in Chapter 6 of the Housing Element. Program 25. Continue to Support Organizations Assisting Homeless Persons is included to increase shelter and transitional facilities and provide short term financial assistance for households at risk of becoming homeless, and Program 17. Development Code Revisions to ensure availability of sites for homeless facilities. A listing of Homeless Shelters, and Transitional Housing Facilities is provided in Tables HE-38, HE-39 and HE-40 in Chapter 2, Housing Needs Assessment.
These comments have been considered and incorporated into the Housing Element, as applicable.
In November 2022, seven consultations were conducted with Stockton stakeholders to offer opportunities to provide one-on-one input. Representatives from the following organizations were interviewed:
The stakeholders were asked the following questions, depending on the type of organization interviewed, and common responses include:
Opportunities and concerns: What are the 3 top opportunities you see for the future of housing in this jurisdiction? Increasing the variety of future developments, including mixed-use, infill development, ADUs;
De-concentration of affordable housing;
Improving local housing data;
Expanding housing services/resources; Updating the zoning code to be more inclusive and accessible;
Continuous compliance with State law.
What are your 3 top concerns for the future of housing in this jurisdiction?
Housing preferences: What types of housing do your clients prefer? Is there adequate rental housing in the community? Are there opportunities for home ownership? Are there accessible rental units for seniors and persons with disabilities?
Housing barriers/needs: What are the biggest barriers to finding affordable, decent housing? What are the unmet housing needs in this jurisdiction?
Housing conditions: How would you characterize the physical condition of housing in this jurisdiction? What opportunities do you see to improve housing in the future?
COVID - How has COVID affected the housing situation?
The eviction moratorium provided safety for economically impacted renters, but impacted landlords through a lack of resources.
Stakeholders shared that the factors that limit equity and fair housing are rooted in systemic racism, capitalism, sexism, and ableism. And to address these equity and fair housing concerns, the City needs to incorporate programs that reflect the needs of those most vulnerable in the Stockton community., which include low-income households, the elderly, disabled persons, large and single person households, single female-headed households with children, persons in poverty, the homeless, farmworkers, populations of color, cost burdened renters and homeowners, among others. Recommendations include programs that support affordable housing developments, an eviction protection and right-to-counsel program, a dedicated housing trust fund for affordable housing, landlord educational tools and resources, genuine advocacy for the homeless, a universal income program, a reasonable accommodation process, and social housing opportunities for people to co-own areas/property. They also shared that the City should ensure all new developments have an inclusionary housing component, which can be done by adopting inclusionary housing programs. These recommendations have been taken into consideration and can be reviewed in the Policy Document.
In support of efforts to prepare a Housing Action Plan for the City of Stockton, consultant team member BAE Urban Economics participated in a total of ten interviews with area stakeholders in the Spring and Summer of 2022 regarding issues and opportunities for the production and preservation of housing. Additional interviews will be conducted in the spring of 2023 with market rate developers to inform preparation of pro forma financial models for target housing types in Stockton. Due to significant overlap in the subject matter targeted for this initial round of interviews, and the list of stakeholders to be interviewed, BAE partnered with Enterprise Community Partners which was similarly engaged in preparation of an anti-displacement strategy for the City of Stockton. Participants in the first round of interviews included representatives from the following:
While the topics covered during each interview varied slightly based on the expertise and affiliation of the interview participant, all of the interviews covered the following topic areas:
Interview participants expressed a range of perspectives and experiences, but generally agreed on the underlying economic factors contributing to a lack of desired housing production in Stockton. All interview participants acknowledged an overabundance of detached single family housing in Stockton, which represents a majority of the newly built housing inventory. Interview participants acknowledged an under production, and lack of general availability, of higher density multifamily rental and missing middle housing, both rental and for-sale, that would meet the needs of their clients. Participants indicated that new construction is generally concentrated in the more affluent neighborhoods in north Stockton, and that there are large areas that are going unserved by new market-rate development, but which feature populations that would benefit from an expansion of the housing inventory, such as in south Stockton and the downtown area. These areas tend to be lower-income and residents often have less mobility, but which still offer robust neighborhood networks and cultural affiliations. The reasons cited for the lack of development in these areas include the high cost of construction and the relatively limited purchasing power of lower-income households in these areas.
Interviews indicated that a lack of newly constructed housing is putting tenants under pressure to accept housing that is, at least in some cases, in substandard condition and often more expensive than is typically considered appropriate. Participants indicated a relatively high prevalence of multiple households banding together to afford housing, resulting in overcrowded conditions, as well as households paying well over the accepted 30 percent of their income towards housing. Due to a lack of alternative housing options, households are often reluctant to submit complaints about substandard conditions and are unable to secure housing at more affordable rates. This is particularly prevalent among renter households, though interview participants also noted problems among lower-income owner households who are having trouble maintaining their homes. This sometimes results in foreclosure or condemnation, but more often in the household selling the property, often at a suppressed value due to the condition of the property. Multiple interview participants noted that many of these houses are then being purchased by higher-income households. The impression is that they are coming from outside the area, and that they subsequently rehabilitate the property and benefit from immediate equity appreciation. Interview participants voiced concerns that this dynamic prevents lower-income homeowners from fully benefiting from potential equity appreciation. Participants recommended increased funding for code enforcement and an enhanced multifamily rental inspection program to identify habitability issues. Participants also recommended increasing funding for home rehabilitation assistance to help keep lower-income homeowners in their homes and to discourage displacement and gentrification.
Interviewees noted that housing instability and displacement in Stockton is really a function of high and increasing housing costs, both for new construction and existing units, and stagnation among local workforce wages and associated household incomes. The pandemic exacerbated these trends with many lower-wage and service sector workers either losing their jobs or taking significant unpaid leaves of absence due to business closures and work-from-home policies. Interview participants experienced a significant increase in the need for homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing services during the first two years of the
pandemic, which is now beginning to abate with the revocation of pandemic-era restrictions. Interviewees commented that the City needs to pursue an aggressive expansion of the housing stock (something other than detached single-family homes) to address the lack of inventory, as well as strong economic development programs that can improve the earning potential of existing Stockton residents. Without both an increase in housing availability and the ability of households to pay for housing, the issue will continue to get worse and the number of households facing housing instability will grow.
To facilitate the production of low-income housing, as well as transitional and permanent supportive housing, interview participants indicate that the City needs to adjust expectations regarding funding recapture, allowing more grants and forgivable loans. Interviewees also suggested the City needs to increase its willingness to allow funding to go towards supportive services and that the City needs to consider programs to reopen existing single room occupancy (SRO) properties and/or facilitate development of new SRO properties in appropriate locations. They suggested the City also needs strong policies and programs to preserve naturally occurring affordable housing, where possible. Examples of these policies and programs may include, but should not be limited to, rehabilitation funding for both rental and ownership properties, possibly coupled with workforce housing deed restrictions (i.e., limited to occupancy by households with at least one person employed within the community), rental assistance and grants for back rent, cash incentives to property owners willing to accept tenants using public assistance, etc.
Interview participants generally supported efforts to expand the housing stock with a preference for the addition of both market rate and below-market rate rental housing. There is a desire to see such development both in higher income areas that can provide better access to opportunity for lower-income households, but also within lower opportunity areas where households are experiencing the greatest need. All interview participants also acknowledged that the City's aim should be to avoid adding additional low-income housing inventory in the downtown, as the city is already at risk of creating conditions associated with concentrated poverty, which run counter to the long-term objectives of the community towards creating a commercially and culturally vibrant downtown environment for all Stockton residents. The challenge seems to be that that is where the infrastructure capacity is concentrated and where it may be possible to secure land zoned for high density housing at a relatively low cost (i.e. City owned). Also, the area is unlikely to experience market rate housing development in the near future, so it can often be attractive to try to leverage low-income housing to try and spur investment.
Since 2017, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and HCD have developed annual maps of access to resources such as high-paying job opportunities; proficient schools; safe and clean neighborhoods; and other healthy economic, social, and environmental indicators to provide evidence-based research for policy recommendations. This effort has been dubbed “opportunity mapping” and is available to all jurisdictions to assess access to opportunities within their community.
The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps can help to identify areas in the community that provide strong access to opportunity for residents or, conversely, provide low access to opportunity. The information from the opportunity mapping can help to highlight the need for housing element policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low-resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty and encourage better access for lower-income households and communities of color to housing in high-resource areas. TCAC/HCD categorized census tracts into high-, moderate-, or low-resource areas based on a composite score of economic, educational, and environmental factors that can perpetuate poverty and segregation, such as school proficiency, median income, and median housing prices. The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps use a regional index score to determine categorization as high, moderate, and low resource. Census tract and neighborhood boundaries don’t exactly align in the City so this analysis refers mainly to census tracts in order to address state requirements for this analysis.
Areas designated as “highest resource” are the highest-scoring census tracts in the region, falling within the 0 to 20th percentile. It is expected that residents in these census tracts have access to the best outcomes in terms of health, economic opportunities, and education attainment. Census tracts designated “high resource” score in the 21st to 40th percentile compared to the region. Residents of these census tracts have access to highly positive outcomes for health, economic, and education attainment. “Moderate resource” areas are in the 41st to 70th percentile, and those designated as “moderate resource (rapidly changing)” have experienced rapid increases in key indicators of opportunity, such as increasing median income, home values, and an increase in job opportunities. Residents in these census tracts have access to either somewhat positive outcomes in terms of health, economic attainment, and education; or positive outcomes in a certain area (e.g., score high for health, education) but not all areas (e.g., may score poorly for economic attainment). Low-resource areas score above the 70th percentile and indicate a lack of access to positive outcomes and poor access to opportunities.
The final designation is “high segregation and poverty.” These are census tracts that have an overrepresentation of people of color compared to the county as a whole, and at least 30.0 percent of the population in these areas is below the federal poverty line ($27,750 annually for a family of four in 2022). In Stockton, many of the areas designated as high segregation and poverty have been identified as racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP) by HUD. Determination of R/ECAPs relies on a racial and ethnic concentration threshold as well as a poverty test. The racial and ethnic concentration threshold for a R/ECAP is a non-White population of 50.0 percent or more. The poverty test defines areas of “extreme poverty” as those where 40.0 percent or more of the population lives at or below the federal poverty line, or where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate in the metropolitan area, whichever is less. More information about R/ECAPs in Stockton is provided later in this section.
As seen in Figure HE-1, TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, 2022, Stockton has several spatial concentrations of opportunity area designations. The figure shows the 15
neighborhoods in the city as used throughout this General Plan and referenced in this section. Generally, from north to south they are:
The northern, eastern, and western edges of the city north of the Calaveras River in the Morada/Holman, Eight Mile/Bear Creek, Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton Road, and Trinity/Northwest Stockton neighborhoods are designated Highest and High Resource. These designations extend east of I-5 in the Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhood as far east as Pacific Avenue and as far south as West March Road. Two census tracts in the Midtown neighborhood, which include the University of the Pacific between the Calaveras River to the north, West Pershing Avenue to the west, Pacific Avenue to the east, and West Harding Way to the south; and the adjacent residential communities to the east of Pacific Avenue and west of both the Rural and San Joaquin Catholic Cemeteries, accessed off of North El Dorado Street and North California Street between East Alpine Avenue to the north and East Harding Way to the south, are designated as Highest and High opportunity areas, respectively.
Census tracts designated Moderate Resource opportunity areas are also predominantly identified in the northern portion of the city, generally north of East Harding Way; within the Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton Road and Morada/Holman neighborhoods; and residential enclaves adjacent to primarily unincorporated island areas in the lower Brookside/Country Club and eastern edge of the
Midtown neighborhoods as well as one census tract in the Downtown neighborhood.
The majority of the city south of Smith Canal to the west of North Pershing Avenue and south of West and East Harding Way to the east of North Pershing Avenue in the Midtown, Downtown, South Stockton, Port and Mount Diablo Waterfront, Weston/Van Buskirk, and Industrial Annex neighborhoods are designated by TCAC/HCD as Low Resource and Areas of High Segregation and Poverty. In contrast, Low Resource census tracts in northern Stockton tend to be more spread out and are often adjacent to Moderate and High Resource census tracts. The East Stockton neighborhood, eastern portions of the Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhood east of Pacific Avenue, and census tracts adjacent to and north of East Hammer Lane between the two Union Pacific Railroad Sacramento Subdivision and Fresno Subdivision lines are designated Low Resource, with two small residential census tracts assigned High Segregation and Poverty designations.
Stockton is a member of the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) joint-powers authority. SJCOG's other members are the County of San Joaquin and the cities of Lodi, Manteca, Tracy, Ripon, Escalon, and Lathrop. Based on the 2022 TCAC assessment of opportunity areas, areas on the east side of Lodi represent some of the COG region's lowest-opportunity areas, along with the areas of High Segregation and Poverty within Stockton identified previously.
Large unincorporated areas to the west of Stockton are designated as low-resource areas, as are many census tracts immediately adjacent to Stockton city limits. This is also true of central areas of Manteca, unincorporated areas just to the east of Manteca, one census tract in central Lathrop and two in central and northern Lodi. This is similar to many census tracts in the southern areas of Stockton's city limits and within its SOI.
The city of Escalon and the surrounding unincorporated areas are designated as moderate-resource areas, as is much of Lathrop and areas of north and central Tracy. The unincorporated communities of New Jerusalem and Vernalis are also within moderate-resource census tracts. Many of the high and highest-resource areas in
the COG region are located at the far south, east, and north ends of the county. Unincorporated communities to the north and northeast of Stockton, such as the Morada area, are designated as highest-resource areas, which is similar to neighborhoods on the north side of Stockton. Areas north of Lodi are identified as either high or highest resource areas. This includes the Lockeford, Victor, and Collierville unincorporated areas. Unincorporated communities farther to the east of Stockton, such as Linden and Farmington, are also considered to be high resource areas. South of Stockton, the city of Ripon is divided into high and highest-resource areas, while the majority of Tracy is considered either a high or highest resource area, with the exception of three census tracts on the north side. The unincorporated communities of Mountain House, Banta, Stoneridge, and Lammersville are also located within highest-resource census tracts.
⬚ figure
| Neighborhood | Site ID Prefix |
|---|---|
| Downtown | 1 |
| Midtown | 2 |
| East Stockton | 3 |
| South Stockton | 4 |
| Boggs Tract | 5 |
| The Port & Mount Diablo Waterfront | 6 |
| Brookside/Country Club | 7 |
| Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village | 8 |
| Morada/Holman Neighborhood | 9 |
| Mariposa Lakes | 10 |
| Industrial Annex | 11 |
| Weston/Van Buskirk | 12 |
| Trinity/Northwest Stockton | 13 |
| North Stockton Annex | 14 |
| Eight Mile/Bear Creek | 15 |
| Upper Hammer Lane/Thorton Road | 16 |
Source: HCD, 2022
Income is a primary indicator of a household’s standard of living and is a critical factor in determining the ability of that household to balance housing costs with other basic needs, such as food and transportation. These may also result in displacement due to a number of factors in addition to housing cost burden. According to the San Joaquin Council of Governments Displacement Study, 2021, displacement pressures threaten the ability of housing-challenged households to stay in their homes and limit where these households can live, reducing their ability to stay connected with supportive networks and limiting their access to opportunity. There are three basic types of displacement risk residents of Stockton might face, which are discussed in subsequent analysis:
Displacement risk is discussed in greater detail in the “Displacement Risk” section later in this document.
According to the 2016-2020 ACS, the annual median income (AMI) in the City of Stockton was $58,393 in 2020, an increase of more than $10,000 since 2010. The 2020 median income was notably lower in Stockton than for the county as a whole and the state, which, in 2020, had median incomes of $68,628 and $78,672,
respectively. However, it should be noted that median income data in 2020 may be reflective of the impact of COVID and associated unemployment and has been increasing in 2021 and 2022 as the economy recovers.
According to Table HE-7, Household Income Distribution, in the Housing Needs Assessment (HNA), in 2020 approximately 25.4 percent of households in Stockton were considered very low-income, which is any four-person household that earns less than $29,197 annually (less than 50.0 percent of AMI); approximately 10.8 percent of households correlated with the lower-income category, which is any four-person household that earns between $29,178 and $46,714 annually (between 51.0 and 80.0 percent of AMI); approximately 22.4 percent of households correlated with the moderate income category, which is any household that earns between $46,715 and $70,072 annually (between 81.0 and 120.0 percent of AMI; and approximately 41.4 percent of households correlated with the above moderate-income household category, earning over $70,074 annually (above 120.0 percent of AMI).
While the median income in Stockton ranges from $12,256 to $137,083 depending on the neighborhood, in general, higher incomes are found in the northern half of the city above Harding Way, with the exception of the lower portion of the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood south of French Camp Slough in the southwest corner of the city. Areas where the median income is greater than $87,100, as depicted on Figure HE-2, Median Household Incomes in Stockton, correlate with the above moderate-income range in the city. They are concentrated outside of the core of the city along its northern and western edges in the Trinity/Northwest Stockton, Eight Mile/Bear Creek, Morada/Holman, and Brookside/Country Club neighborhoods. There is also a concentration of census tracts in the Midtown neighborhood, inclusive of the University of the Pacific campus; the American Legion and Victory Parks; and the Elmwood, South Country Club, Northbank Court, and Oxford/Bristol residential areas with median incomes ranging between $90,833 and $94,706. There is one census tract in the
Brookside/Country Club neighborhood with a median income of $137,083, the highest in the city.
There are three neighborhoods—Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton Road, the lower portion of Morada/Holman, and Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village in the northern portion of the city—that have historically developed along the northern extension of major commercial thoroughfares from the Downtown and Midtown neighborhoods. They include a range of incomes and TCAC/HCD opportunity designations based on location of the residential areas, the presence of affordable housing resources, type and age of housing stock, physical development barriers (waterways, sloughs, railroad tracks), and other factors. Some of the block groups in these two neighborhoods may be experiencing gentrification and have concentrations of populations that are at increased risk of displacement.
The western portion of the Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton Road neighborhood to the west of Lower Sacramento Road consists primarily of moderate- and above moderate-income households—from $55,938 adjacent to I-5 where the affordable Emerald Pointe Townhomes are located, to $108,304 in the Stonewood Estates subdivision south of Laughlin Park and White Slough. There are two census block groups in this geographical neighborhood, with median incomes in the low-income category—a mixed residential, institutional, and commercial area adjacent to I-5 along Kelley Drive, and the lower portion of the Creekside residential area including Wagner Heights Apartments and Delta Sierra Middle School. The portion of this neighborhood between Lower Sacramento Road and the Union Pacific Railroad Fresno Subdivision line is a mix of low- and moderate-median incomes, with four affordable housing complexes along Hammer Lane. There are two block groups with very low-median incomes, one of which, including the Stockton Summerplace residential area and Parklane Elementary School, has been designated a TCAC/HCD Area of High Segregation and Poverty with a median income of $26,462.
The Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhood east of I-5, south of Hammer Lane, west of the Union Pacific Railroad Sacramento Subdivision line, and north of the Calaveras River is also primarily a mix of low- and moderate-median income areas. There are four block groups with median incomes in the very low-income category that are scattered throughout the neighborhood, and three of them are in the vicinity surrounding the San Joaquin Delta College campus. There is no pattern of concentration of very low-income households; adjacent block groups fall within the moderate- and above moderate-income categories. However, there are eight affordable multifamily housing complexes in this neighborhood, all of which are in block groups with median incomes below $30,897, and one of these block groups is designated a TCAC/HCD Area of High Segregation and Poverty and HUD R/ECAP. The presence of the affordable housing complexes generally are a contributing factor to the lower median incomes in the block groups where they are located.
A similar spatial distribution of affordable multifamily housing complexes within block groups with lower median incomes is found in the lower portion of the Morada/Holman neighborhood, with median incomes ranging from $29,359 to $52,465 in block groups that have an affordable housing resource. Historically, as discussed in the “Other Relevant Factors” section, a significant segment of the Asian community relocated to these newly developing localities during the 1960s in response to the construction of the SR-4 cross-city highway and remain a predominant community of color in the present. The very low-income block group, unlike most of the surrounding areas, which are primarily residential, consists of a mix of multifamily complexes (both affordable and market rate), vacant land, and nonresidential uses.
⬚ figure
| Neighborhood | Site ID Prefix |
|---|---|
| Downtown | 1 |
| Midtown | 2 |
| East Stockton | 3 |
| South Stockton | 4 |
| Boggs Tract | 5 |
| The Port & Mount Diablo Waterfront | 6 |
| Brookside/Country Club | 7 |
| Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village | 8 |
| Morada/Holman Neighborhood | 9 |
| Mariposa Lakes | 10 |
| Industrial Annex | 11 |
| Weston/Van Buskirk | 12 |
| Trinity/Northwest Stockton | 13 |
| North Stockton Annex | 14 |
| Eight Mile/Bear Creek | 15 |
| Upper Hammer Lane/Thorton Road | 16 |
Source: 2015-2019 ACS
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-61
A defined concentration of very low- and low-median income households and affordable multifamily complexes is evident north of the Calaveras River in the central portion of the city along the West Lane, Pacific Avenue, El Dorado Avenue, Hammer Lane, and March Lane commercial corridors, and south parts of the city in the Midtown, Downtown, and South Stockton neighborhoods between Harding Way and Charter Way, with the lowest median incomes at $12,256 and $16,750 in the heart of Downtown. These lower-income block groups are generally defined by major transportation routes, including the Union Pacific Railroad lines, rail terminal, and switching station; I-5; SR 4; and the Port of Stockton, and include a mix of single-family and multifamily residential, industrial uses, entertainment venues, public and institutional buildings, educational facilities, and commercial services. The majority of this concentration of lower-income households has a correlating TCAC/HCD designation as an Area of High Segregation and Poverty and have been identified by HUD as R/ECAPs. The pattern of primarily lower median income households in the vicinity of major transportation corridors (rail, freeways, the Port)) is evident in East Stockton as well as south of the Downtown in the South Stockton, Weston/Van Buskirk, and Industrial Annex neighborhoods. The pattern also occurs in two enclaves of Housing Authority of County of San Joaquin public housing; 436 units at Conway Homes in the Van Buskirk community with an associated median household income of $20,104; and 391 units at Sierra Vista Homes on Airport Way near the rail holding yards and Reverend Peterson and Williams Brotherhood Parks.
In Stockton, 16.8 percent of the population is considered under the poverty threshold, roughly equivalent to 14.0 percent of households that make less than 30.0 percent AMI, which is considered extremely low income. This is the highest rate among San Joaquin County jurisdictions. At the census-tract level, the highest rates of poverty, above 30.0 percent, are found south of Harding Way in the Midtown neighborhood, in the Downtown neighborhood, and south of SR-4 in the South Stockton and the East Stockton neighborhoods. The census tracts with poverty rates that are above 30.0 percent of the population generally coincide with the city's lower-income block groups (Figure HE-3, Local
Poverty Rates). Particularly high rates of poverty are in the Downtown (47.2 percent) bounded by East Park Street to the north, the Union Pacific Railroad Sacramento Subdivision line to the east, North Madison Street and El Dorado Street to the west, and the Mormon Slough to the south. This neighborhood includes the Amtrak Downtown ACE Station, 14 affordable multifamily complexes, single-family and multifamily housing units, Weber Point Events Center, DeCarli Waterfront Square, and a mix of industrial and commercial uses. Also, 43.5 percent of the population residing in the census tract in the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood (the Sierra Vista Annex-Conway Homes public housing development is in this tract) has an income below the poverty level. A poverty rate of 41.1 percent is seen in the residential areas east of the Union Pacific Railroad yards on either side of Airport Way in South Stockton, corresponding to the city's lowest-income residential areas, where housing typology and the presence of industrial uses likely account for increased housing affordability and higher rates of poverty. In addition, many areas south of SR-4 have historically been used as rail yard or port worker housing and were redlined areas, as discussed in the “Other Relevant Factors” section, with patterns of low incomes persisting in these areas. In general, elevated rates of poverty (above 20.0 percent) are found in the city's lower-income residential areas and often correlate with the locations of affordable multifamily housing units and mobile home parks.
Between 2013 and 2020, incomes have shifted in the city. The proportion of very low-income households has decreased from 33.1 percent in 2013 to 25.4 percent in 2020, with a similar decrease in the proportion of households (15.4 percent in 2013 to 13.9 percent in 2020) with median incomes between $30,000 and $45,000, roughly corresponding to the low-income category. Conversely, above moderate-income households with incomes between $75,000 and $124,999 increased from 18.9 percent in 2013 to 21.4 percent in 2020. The proportion of households with incomes generally corresponding to the moderate-income category shifted only a few tenths of a percentage point. In 2013, every census tract with an affordable multifamily complex was categorized as having a median income below $40,000, whereas in 2020, many of the block groups in the Pacific
Avenue/Lincoln Village and upper Midtown neighborhoods that have affordable housing complexes also have median incomes above $40,000. The northern, western, and eastern edges of the city have also seen increased median incomes.
This demonstrates that Stockton's residents have a wide range of incomes, with some distinctly higher-income areas in the northern half of the city; lower-income households predominate in the southern portion of the city where major transportation routes, industrial facilities, and nonresidential uses exist, in addition to historical practices of redlining. This pattern of income distribution is also evident in other jurisdictions in San Joaquin County along SR-99. However, though access to resources generally corresponds to income, as shown by TCAC/HCD Opportunity designations (Figure HE-1), there may be meaningful differences in access to other opportunity area factors, including the TCAC/HCD economic score, education domain score, and jobs/proximity index scores, which may contribute to higher-resource designations in lower-income areas. To improve access to areas of high opportunity for lower-income households, the City will work with developers to identify opportunities and reduce barriers to constructing higher density and affordable housing in higher income areas, particularly in the Trinity/Northwest Stockton, Brookdale/Country Club, Eight Mile/Bear Creek, and northeastern Morada/Holman neighborhoods; infill in the vicinity the Quail Lakes subdivision in Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhood; and in the vicinity of University of the Pacific within the Midtown neighborhood, (Programs 5, 8, and 12) and will encourage construction of ADUs across the city to increase housing mobility opportunities (Program 6).
Median household incomes in the COG are distributed similarly to the TCAC opportunity area designations previously discussed. As of the 2015-2019 ACS, the only census tracts within the COG that have median household incomes lower than $30,000 are located in Stockton. However, many areas of Lodi; the unincorporated county area to the west and northwest of Stockton (including the Thornton community); communities immediately to the west of Stockton; and census tracts within Lathrop, Manteca, and central
Tracy; also have median household incomes below $55,000, which is below both the State median income of $87,100 and below Stockton's 2020 median income of $58,393.
Census tracts in the far northeast and southeast of the unincorporated county tend to have median household incomes higher than $55,000 and lower than the statewide median. These areas include the unincorporated communities of Lockeford, Collierville, Woodbridge and Clements. This is also true of the city of Escalon, the southwest side of Ripon, north and central Tracy, and much of Manteca, as well as unincorporated communities of New Jerusalem and Vernalis.
Many of the communities in the COG with incomes above the state median but below $120,000 are the same communities identified as high and highest-opportunity areas under the TCAC designation system. This includes areas in north Stockton and in the SOI area north of Stockton including Morada; the unincorporated communities of Linden, Peters, and Farmington to the east; the northeast side of Ripon; much of Tracy and the unincorporated areas to the south including Chrisman; and the majority of the Lathrop area.
The COG area's highest-income community is the census tract covering Mountain House and the north side of Tracy, with a median household income of $128,246. This is the only community in the COG with a median household income above $125,000.
Few areas of the COG outside of Stockton have high concentrations of residents with incomes under the poverty line as of the 2015-2019 ACS. A small number of census tracts on the east side of Lodi, part of the unincorporated community of August, and the census tract that includes part of the Kennedy community represent the only areas outside of Stockton city limits where more than 30 percent of residents have incomes below the poverty line. However, August and Kennedy are also within the Stockton sphere of influence (SOI) area.
More medium concentrations of poverty, between 20 and 30 percent of the population, are located in the Lockeford area, the census tract that includes Thornton, a small number of census tracts in south-central Lodi and central Manteca, and in unincorporate communities just to the east and southeast of Stockton. Less than 20 percent of residents in each of the COG's other census tracts have incomes below the poverty line.
⬚ figure
| Neighborhood | Site ID Prefix |
|---|---|
| Downtown | 1 |
| Midtown | 2 |
| East Stockton | 3 |
| South Stockton | 4 |
| Boggs Tract | 5 |
| The Port & Mount Diablo Waterfront | 6 |
| Brookside/Country Club | 7 |
| Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village | 8 |
| Morada/Holman Neighborhood | 9 |
| Mariposa Lakes | 10 |
| Industrial Annex | 11 |
| Weston/Van Buskirk | 12 |
| Trinity/Northwest Stockton | 13 |
| North Stockton Annex | 14 |
| Eight Mile/Bear Creek | 15 |
| Upper Hammer Lane/Thorton Road | 16 |
Source: 2015-2019 ACS
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING BR-65
The City of Stockton is one of San Joaquin County’s more diverse jurisdictions; its share of minority residents is 80.6 percent, compared to 69.3 percent in San Joaquin County as a whole and 63.5 percent for the State (Table HE-5, Population Breakdown by Race/Ethnicity, in the HNA). The largest proportionate racial and ethnic concentrations in Stockton are Hispanic/Latino (43.5 percent), non-Hispanic Asian (20.5 percent), non-Hispanic White (19.4 percent), and non-Hispanic Black/African American (11.0 percent). Other demographic groups, including American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian Hispanic, Multiracial Hispanic, Native Hawaiian, and Other are represented by smaller populations, each comprising 2.0 percent or less of the city’s population. The racial and ethnic groups that experienced the most growth between 2013 and 2020 were Hispanic or Latino residents, non-Hispanic Asian residents, and non-Hispanic Black or African American residents, and the non-Hispanic White population declined from 22.3 percent in 2013. The data also indicate an increase in the number of residents who identify as multiracial or as part of other, unspecified racial and ethnic groups.
As illustrated in Figure HE-4, Local Racial Demographics, the northern portion of the city generally west of Lower Sacramento Road and North El Dorado Road and north of SR-4 has a greater concentration of block groups with non-White populations—between 41.0 and 60.0 percent—than the portion of the city south of downtown and SR-4. White non-Hispanic residents comprise majorities by block group in central Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton Road and Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhoods between I-5 and Lower Sacramento Road, and in the Brookside/Country Club neighborhood west of I-5. Also, the block groups to the east and south of University of the Pacific in the Midtown neighborhood are primarily White non-Hispanic, likely in part due to a concentration of students in the area. is also one block group in the predominantly non-White Morada/Holman neighborhood, including the Friendly Village Mobile Home Park and the Imperial Stockton Estates Mobile Home Park, with a White non-Hispanic population of 48.0 percent, followed by Hispanic at 24.5 percent and Asian at 15.8 percent. These neighborhoods generally coincide with high and moderate TCAC/HCD opportunity designations.
There are high concentrations of non-White residents, predominantly identifying as Hispanic or Latino, throughout most of South Stockton (south of SR-4), including in areas near the Stockton Metropolitan Airport and the border with French Camp, and in the East Stockton neighborhood. The data also indicate a smaller concentration of non-White residents along I-5 near West Hammer Lane, which includes a mix of Hispanic residents (around 36.0 percent), approximately 25.0 percent Asian residents, approximately 15.0 percent Black and African American, and a White non-Hispanic representation near 18.0 percent. There are also notable non-White concentrations along the city’s eastern boundary toward SR-99. However, unlike the majority of areas in the city with proportions of non-White populations above 81.0 percent, in which Hispanic households are predominantly represented, the Morada/Holman neighborhood in the northeast section of the city is proportionately the most racially and ethnically diverse. The block group west of SR-99 and east of the Union Pacific Railroad Fresno Subdivision line has a predominance of Asian households (46.0 percent) followed by Hispanic or Latino households at 30.3 percent, non-Hispanic White at 10.8 percent, and Black and African-American at 7.5 percent, correlating with a high TCAC/HCD designation; the remainder of the block groups within this geographic neighborhood have mixes of Asian and Hispanic or Latino residents between 35.0 and 40.0 percent each, with non-Hispanic White and Black or African American groups ranging between 11.0 percent and 17.0 percent each. There is another concentration of very racially diverse residential areas in the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, with a mix of Hispanic or Latino (39.1 percent), Asian (25.2 percent), Black and African American (21.2 percent), and White non-Hispanic 8.8 percent) residents. This data indicates that there are racially and ethnically integrated neighborhoods in the city that generally correlate to moderate and high resource designations.
Generally, the city’s most racially and ethnically diverse neighborhoods coincide with the city’s lowest-income neighborhoods and neighborhoods designated as Areas of High Segregation and Poverty, as well as locations of affordable multifamily housing resources and the two Sierra Vista public housing communities. These neighborhoods are found in predominantly Hispanic communities in the southern section of the city (Figure HE-4, Local Racial Demographics), although the racial and ethnic composition of the two public housing communities is more diverse, with roughly half of the residents identifying as Hispanic or Latino, and one-quarter each identifying as Black and Asian.
Similar to many jurisdictions in the San Joaquin Valley, Stockton once experienced redlining, which influenced racial and ethnic patterns in the city, and these communities may have more limited access to resources and opportunities than households with similar incomes living in other parts of the county (see the section titled “Other Relevant Factors”). However, in recent decades, Stockton has experienced dramatic integration and persistent diversity. The 2010-2014 and 2016-2020 ACS data reflect nearly identical spatial distributions of racial and ethnically diverse groups; however, there have been substantial shifts in the Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village, Midtown, East Stockton, and Morada/Holman neighborhoods from lower to higher proportional representations of non-White demographic groups. In general, areas of the city that are the most diverse now were also the city’s most diverse since the early 2000s, though these neighborhoods are more diverse today than they were previously.
This indicates that Stockton is home to a diverse population of residents with a wide range of household incomes, with generally higher incomes in areas of higher White non-Hispanic communities as well as neighborhoods with higher proportions of Asian-identifying residents on the east side of the city; distinctly lower incomes are found in communities with higher proportions of Hispanic-identifying residents living in the southern half of the city, with some neighborhoods experiencing high poverty and segregation and identification by HUD as a R/ECAP, discussed in the following section.
As of the 2014-2018 ACS, much of the San Joaquin COG region is predominantly Hispanic or White, as is the case for many of the census tracts in Stockton. The Cities of Manteca, Lodi, and Ripon each have a mix of block groups with predominantly White or Hispanic populations. In Lodi, segregation between these areas seems to be more pronounced, as non-White residents make up less than a third of residents in most predominantly White block groups. In central Lodi, one block group has a non-White population that represents only 19.5 percent of the total population according to the 2015-2019 ACS. Toward the east side of Lodi, where the community is predominantly Hispanic, block groups have non-White populations of as much as 90.9 percent of residents. In Manteca, predominantly White areas still have significant non-White populations, with many predominantly White areas in the 2014-2018 ACS having non-White populations of between 50 and 60 percent in the 2015-2019 ACS due to shifting populations or having multiple moderately-sized non-White minority communities that make up a majority when combined. In Lathrop's majority Hispanic and Asian areas, non-White residents make up more than 75 percent of residents in each block group. In its predominantly White southwest side, non-White residents make up 48.4 percent of the population. Escalon is an exception to this mix of White and Hispanic communities in incorporated areas, as all of the block groups in this city are predominantly White, and non-White communities make up 31.7 to 41.3 percent of residents.
Several unincorporated communities to the north and northeast of Stockton are predominantly White, including Collierville, Acampo, Lockeford, and Clements. To the far east of the city, block groups that include the unincorporated communities of Peters and Farmington are also predominantly White. South of Stockton, the unincorporated communities of Banta, Stoneridge, New Jerusalem, and Vernalis are also predominantly White, as are the unincorporated areas surrounding Ripon and Escalon. However, as is the case in incorporated cities, in many of these areas non-White residents represent at least thirty percent of the population, indicating that some majority-White areas may be approaching a balance of White and non-White residents. The predominantly White block groups with
the lowest percentage of residents who identify as non-White are located in the north of the Linden community (28.6 percent of residents) and immediately west of Lodi (27.2 percent).
Unincorporated areas to the northwest of Stockton including Thornton are predominantly Hispanic. Of unincorporated areas in the County, this community has one of the higher concentrations of non-White residents in the county (75.9 percent). This is also true of the block groups to the southwest of Stockton and to the north or west of Lathrop, including French Camp (73.9, 80.5, and 82.3 percent), and immediately to the southeast near the airport (76.9 percent of residents). The block groups in the far southwest region of the unincorporated county, including the south side of Tracy and the unincorporated community of Chrisman, are also predominantly Hispanic, with 61.9 percent of residents identifying as non-White. It is worth noting that these large concentrations of non-White residents in predominantly Hispanic areas are not necessarily all Hispanic, but that Hispanic residents make up the largest community in the area. Block groups with predominantly Hispanic populations are also located in the east of Stockton, the Noble Acres community, part of Linden, and several unincorporated areas to the east of Stockton without larger named communities. In these areas the percent of residents that identify as non-White is closer to 50 percent.
As with several areas of north Stockton, one block group that includes the community immediately to the north of the city has a predominantly Asian population. In this block group, 86.7 percent of residents identify as non-White, though not all non-White residents necessarily identify as Asian. This high concentration of non-White residents is also true of the unincorporated Mountain House and Lammersville area (74.3 percent of residents) and a small area on the west side of Tracy (80.3 percent non-White), each of which has a predominantly Asian population. The block group covering part of central Lathrop and the area just to the north of the city is also predominantly Asian, and 82.4 percent of residents in this area identify as non-White.
Data for several unincorporated areas to the west of Stockton and north of Tracy on predominant populations and the percent of the population that are non-white are not available from the 2015-2019 ACS.
To increase housing mobility opportunities for lower- and moderate-income households and non-White households, the City will implement Program 12 to continue to support construction of high-density housing in areas with better access to opportunities to facilitate economic mobility for lower-income residents and will promote construction of a range of housing types to meet a variety of needs.
⬚ figure
| Neighborhood | Site ID Prefix |
|---|---|
| Downtown | 1 |
| Midtown | 2 |
| East Stockton | 3 |
| South Stockton | 4 |
| Boggs Tract | 5 |
| The Port & Mount Diablo Waterfront | 6 |
| Brookside/Country Club | 7 |
| Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village | 8 |
| Morada/Holman Neighborhood | 9 |
| Mariposa Lakes | 10 |
| Industrial Annex | 11 |
| Weston/Van Buskirk | 12 |
| Trinity/Northwest Stockton | 13 |
| North Stockton Annex | 14 |
| Eight Mile/Bear Creek | 15 |
| Upper Hammer Lane/Thorton Road | 16 |
City Limits Stockton Neighborhoods Racial Demographics 2018 (Block Group) Percent of Total Non-White Population
81%
Pipeline Projects Housing Sites by Income Category Pipeline Project
Vacant Site
Source: Esri, 2018
R/ECAPS and RCAAs Concentrations of minority populations or concentrations of affluence may indicate a fair housing issue despite relative integration compared to the region.
R/ECAPs In 2013, HUD developed a method for identifying disproportionate impacts of poverty on racial and ethnic minority groups that relies on a racial and ethnic concentration threshold, as well as a poverty test. Figure HE-5, Racially or Ethically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP), identifies the R/ECAP areas in Stockton by census tracts based on the HUD criteria. Concentrations of R/ECAP tracts are located throughout Downtown Stockton and the areas immediately to the south of SR-4 in South Stockton, correlating with several of the tracts identified by the Home Owners Loan Corporation Redlining Grade (University of Richmond, 2021) as "Declining" and "Hazardous," and a TCAC/HCD Opportunity Resource designation of High Segregation and Poverty. Many of the deed restricted housing complexes in the city are included within the boundaries of the R/ECAPS, with the highest concentration in the Downtown, which likely contributes to the concentration of households in poverty. The R/ECAP tract geographic distribution is very similar to that of lower income households, with proportions of renter households above 60.0 percent; between 15.0 to 29.5 percent of residents live in overcrowded conditions in all but one census tract (which is adjacent to rail switching yards and largely industrial uses); over 60.0 percent of renters pay over 30.0 percent of their income for housing (one census tract in Homestead community has slightly lower renter overpayment at 56.1 percent); and over 40.0 percent of owners overpay for housing. Also, between 20.0 percent to 60.0 percent of households in these census tracts are single female-headed households.
There are also three scattered census tracts identified as R/ECAPS in the Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton Road and Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhoods. While the census tracts northwest of the intersection of West Lane and East Hammer Road, and the census tract southeast of the intersection of East March Lane and North El Dorado Street are designated as TCAC/HCD Areas of High Segregation and Poverty, the census tract
southeast of the intersection of Thornton Road/Pacific Avenue and West Hammer Lane has a moderate TCAC/HCD resource opportunity designation. Within this census tract, the median income in 2019 was $42,939 and the percentage of persons in poverty is 21.1 percent, with 37.2 percent of children in the tract in households below the poverty level. As well, 77.2 percent of the population is non-White, which meets the requirement for a R/ECAP having a non-White population over 50.0 percent of the total tract. Based on these characteristics, this tract has a concentration of non-White households but the population rate is below that required of a R/ECAP. As stated previously, HUD identified R/ECAP areas in 2013. Therefore, more current data suggest that this area may have experienced a decrease in poverty rate. However, household characteristics still indicate a concentration of lower-income, cost-burdened households. Approximately 75.9 percent of households are renters, 57.3 percent of renter households overpay for housing, and 33.4 percent of homeowners overpay for housing; it is located in a moderate risk of flooding zone; there are two affordable housing complexes; and while the senior population is fairly low in this tract, at 12.8 percent of the total tract population, 57.6 percent of seniors experience a disability, which is equivalent to 44.8 percent of the persons with disabilities in this tract.
The City will provide opportunities for provision of mixed-income housing integration through Programs 6 and 12.
RCAAS Where the R/ECAP areas reflect concentrations of poverty, HCD has developed an alternative metric focused on areas of Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence (RCAAs). An RCAA is defined as a tract in which the percentage of a population tract that identifies as White is 1.25 times higher than the percentage that identifies as White in the entire COG region (also called the Location Quotient), and where the median income is at least 1.5 times greater than the COG AMI. There are two RCAA areas in Stockton—one in the Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton Road neighborhood with a TCAC/HCD High Resource Opportunity area designation, and the Brookside Country Club neighborhood with a Highest TCAC/HCD Resource Opportunity area designation. The limited distribution
of RCAAs reflects the relatively high representation of communities of color in most of Stockton as well as the limited affluence level (Figure HE-6, Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence).
In contrast to R/ECAPs, RCAAs usually have persisted due to decades of focused investment, appreciated value of real estate, and wealth generation resulting from discriminatory practices and covert (and in some cases overt) racially restrictive covenants, indicating possible barriers to entry for non-White and lower-income households in these neighborhoods. The UC Merced Urban Policy Lab found that White residents of Stockton are the most isolated compared with other ethnicities. Stockton’s isolation index of 0.248 for White residents means that the average White resident lives in a neighborhood in which 24.8 percent of the population is White. Therefore, the higher percentage of non-Hispanic White population in the RCAAs indicates that there are other factors that have influenced this level of segregation.
As discussed in greater detail in the “Other Relevant Factors” section, the Brookside Country Club RCAA tract coincides with the development of the Brookside Master Planned community in the late 1980s, designed as an elite golf course community emphasizing security, better educational facilities, and an exceptional quality of life. Though racial discriminatory exclusion was not direct, the community was socioeconomically differentiated by income and the ability to pay the high market rate home prices and association fees. In 2020, the RCAA has an overall median income of $105,766, and a Location Quotient of White population of 1.47 (47.1 percent White), although the actual percentage of White population varies within the four block groups encompassed by the RCAA.
Although the median income within the four block groups remains among the highest in the city, the racial and ethnic composition of the Brookside RCAA has been shifting, and should this trend continue over the next decade, the Brookside Country Club neighborhood may no longer qualify as an RCAA. In 2010 (2010 census), the proportion of White population ranged from 48.2 to 71.8 percent, with two block groups at 63.0 percent; followed by Asian residents comprising between 18.4 to 30.9 percent; and Hispanic residents did not exceed 12.6 percent in any block group. In comparison, in 2020 (2016-2020 ACS), the White population had diminished to between 32.4 and 57.1 percent; the Asian population had risen to between 20.1 and 32.4 percent for an average of 21.6 percent tract-wide; and the Hispanic population had increased to between 13.4 and 25.3 percent for an average of 22.1 percent within the tract. While this shift in the racial and ethnic composition of the RCAA suggests that White residents may be relocating elsewhere in the city, it also indicates increasing integration and housing mobility opportunities for (higher income) non-White populations.
The second RCAA is not as clearly distinguished from other census tracts with higher income residents, although it meets the parameters of the RCAA definition; the Location Quotient is 1.26 (40.4 percent White), with a median income of $96,118 and a High resource designation. The non-White population is more heavily Hispanic, at 30.5 percent of the tract population, with a fairly equal mix of Asian and Black residents—approximately 11.0 percent. The RCAA encompasses the Stonewood Estates community, also developed in the mid-1980s, with home values averaging $500,000. Similar to the Brookside RCAA, the racial and ethnic composition has shifted from 54.0 percent White in 2010 to 40.4 percent White in 2020, and though the income remains high, in relative terms the overall median income in the tract is lower than in 2010. Based on these characteristics, it is likely that this tract will no longer meet the RCAA parameters at some point in the near future. However, the shift in socioeconomic characteristics indicates that this RCAA has provided housing mobility opportunities for moderate-income households and non-White households in a TCAC/HCD High resource designated area.
The City will commit to Programs 6, 12, 14, 15, 17, 26, and 27 to integrate affordable housing into these neighborhoods to increase housing mobility opportunities and increased access to resources for lower income households.
⬚ figure
Figure HE-5: Racially or Ethically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
⬚ figure
| Neighborhood | Site ID Prefix |
|---|---|
| Downtown | 1 |
| Midtown | 2 |
| East Stockton | 3 |
| South Stockton | 4 |
| Boggs Tract | 5 |
| The Port & Mount Diablo Waterfront | 6 |
| Brookside/Country Club | 7 |
| Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village | 8 |
| Morada/Holman Neighborhood | 9 |
| Mariposa Lakes | 10 |
| Industrial Annex | 11 |
| Weston/Van Buskirk | 12 |
| Trinity/Northwest Stockton | 13 |
| North Stockton Annex | 14 |
| Eight Mile/Bear Creek | 15 |
| Upper Hammer Lane/Thorton Road | 16 |
Source: HUD, 2013
⬚ figure
| Neighborhood | Site ID Prefix |
|---|---|
| Downtown | 1 |
| Midtown | 2 |
| East Stockton | 3 |
| South Stockton | 4 |
| Boggs Tract | 5 |
| The Port & Mount Diablo Waterfront | 6 |
| Brookside/Country Club | 7 |
| Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village | 8 |
| Morada/Holman Neighborhood | 9 |
| Mariposa Lakes | 10 |
| Industrial Annex | 11 |
| Weston/Van Buskirk | 12 |
| Trinity/Northwest Stockton | 13 |
| North Stockton Annex | 14 |
| Eight Mile/Bear Creek | 15 |
| Upper Hammer Lane/Thorton Road | 16 |
Source: 2015-2019 ACS, HCD 2022
The majority of R/ECAP areas in San Joaquin COG are located within Stockton. However, one census tract on the northeast side of Lodi was also designated a R/ECAP. No other cities or unincorporated areas of the county have R/ECAP-designated areas.
Two areas of Lodi were considered RCAAs, one tract that includes the city's west side and an adjacent unincorporated area and another that includes the city's north side. Median household incomes in these areas were $109,375 and $103,750, respectively. Non-White residents represented less than a third of the population in each of these areas.
The north side of Ripon was identified as an RCAA. As previously discussed, this is a predominantly White area with a median household income of $101,957.
The area southwest of Tracy, which is a predominantly Hispanic area, was also identified as an RCAA. Though the community has a predominant Hispanic population, White residents make up 38.1 percent of the community, which is approximately at the threshold of White population to qualify as an RCAA in San Joaquin County. This area has a median household income of $113,269.
No other areas of the unincorporated county or cities within the County were identified as RCAAs.
Approximately 72.5 percent of Stockton households are family households, defined by California law as a household of two or more persons, regardless of relationship status. As indicated by Table HE-36, Female-Headed Households, in the HNA, 30.3 percent of family households are headed by single females with no spouse, which is greater than in San Joaquin County at 25.1 percent, and the state at 26.2 percent. Similarly, Stockton has a greater proportion of single female-headed households with children under the age of 18 (8.1 percent of all households and 26.8 percent of total female-headed households) compared to countywide (5.8 percent of total households and 23.1 percent of female-headed households) and statewide (4.7 percent of total households and 17.9 percent of female-headed households). Of the total number of female-headed
households in the city, 28.9 percent have incomes below the poverty level. Overall, female-headed households with children comprise 55.5 percent of total households in poverty in Stockton, which indicates that these households are at particular risk of displacement and challenges securing affordable housing. The spatial distribution in the northern portion of the city of single-parent, female-headed households with children of between 20.0 to 40.0 percent of the total number of single female-headed households in the tract is generally consistent with TCAC/HCD Low and Moderate opportunity designations in the Morada/Holman and Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton Road neighborhoods, and the portion of the Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhood east of Thornton Road as well as south of March Road. The entire East Stockton neighborhood shows rates of single-parent, female-headed households with children between 20.0 to 40.0 percent of the total number of single female-headed households. Data indicate that there is a common correlation between higher rates of single-parent, female-headed households with children in the census tracts with lower-incomes, a predominance of non-White households, and availability of affordable housing resources.
The spatial distribution of single-parent, female-headed households with children of between 40.0 to 60.0 percent of the total number of single female-headed households in the tract is generally consistent with TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas of High Segregation and Poverty designations and lower-median household incomes. The majority of the southern portion of the city, including the Downtown, portions of the East Stockton neighborhood, and South Stockton neighborhoods, have rates of single-parent, female-headed households with children between 20.0 to 60.0 percent of the total number of single female- headed households in the tract. Higher rates of this household type in lower-resource, lower-income areas suggest that children in these households may have more limited access to resources and opportunities compared with children living in other parts of the city or in other family configurations. However, the higher presence of single female-headed households with children in low resource areas is not a consistent correlation in all census tracts. There are two census tracts designated TCAC/HCD High resource opportunity in the Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village neighborhood, where between
40.0 to 60.0 percent of households are single female-headed households with children. In the census tract bounded by I-5 to the west, Grouse Run Drive to the east, and March Lane to the south, median incomes range from $60,341 to $98,491 (Figure HE-7, Children in Female-Headed Households), with non-White populations between 41.6 to 69.3 percent. However, although the census tract south of Weberstown Mall is designated High resource opportunity, it has a median household income of $39,240, and 79.2 percent of the population is non-White, which aligns more closely to the pattern of higher rates of this household type in lower-income, more racially and ethnically diverse areas, suggesting that the more positive TCAC/HCD designation is a result of proximity to access to resources, amenities, and educational facilities.
As of the 2015-2019 ACS, few areas of the San Joaquin COG area outside of Stockton have significant concentrations of children living in households headed by a single female householder. Areas with more than 20 percent of children living in this household type tend to be located within cities, with two exceptions. In the Lockeford area, 36.4 percent of children live in this household type, and in the census tract that includes the communities of New Jerusalem and Vernalis, 26.8 percent of children live in households with single female householders. Neither of these census tracts was among the region's lowest-income areas.
In San Joaquin COG's incorporated areas, medium concentrations of children in female-headed households are more common. In Escalon, 22 percent of children live in this household type, which is a similar rate to two census tracts in north and central Tracy (25.2 and 22.3 percent of children, respectively). Each of these census tracts has a median household income above $65,000.
Central Manteca has three small census tracts where 32.0, 27.0, and 22.9 of children live in female-headed households, and central Lathrop has one census tract where 20.6 percent of children live in this household type. However, in both cities fewer than 20 percent of children in the remaining census tracts live in female-headed households. Each of these census tracts has a median household income above $50,000.
Lodi's northeast side has a collection of three census tracts where more than one-quarter of children live in female-headed households with 33.4, 25.5, and 32.2 percent of children living in this household type, respectively. The first two of these three tracts are also the city's lowest-income areas, with median household incomes of $33,438 and $36,037. The third has a median household income of $57,931. Another tract on the city's south side has a medium concentration of children in female-headed households (23.2 percent) and has a median household income of $55,284.
The census tract with the highest rate, between 61.0 and 80.0 percent of single female-headed households with children, is found in the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood in the southwest portion of the city. The census tract is designated an Area of High Segregation and Poverty, which also corresponds to the location of the Sierra Vista–Conway Homes Annex affordable public housing community. This indicates a concentration of single-parent, female-headed households in a low-resource, low-income, and predominantly non-White neighborhood.
⬚ figure
| Neighborhood | Site ID Prefix |
|---|---|
| Downtown | 1 |
| Midtown | 2 |
| East Stockton | 3 |
| South Stockton | 4 |
| Boggs Tract | 5 |
| The Port & Mount Diablo Waterfront | 6 |
| Brookside/Country Club | 7 |
| Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village | 8 |
| Morada/Holman Neighborhood | 9 |
| Mariposa Lakes | 10 |
| Industrial Annex | 11 |
| Weston/Van Buskirk | 12 |
| Trinity/Northwest Stockton | 13 |
| North Stockton Annex | 14 |
| Eight Mile/Bear Creek | 15 |
| Upper Hammer Lane/Thorton Road | 16 |
Pipeline Projects
Housing Sites by Income Category
Pipeline Project
Vacant Site
Source: 2015-2019 ACS
Data from the 2016-2020 ACS indicate that approximately 22.2 percent of households consist of residents living alone. A slightly higher proportion (54.6 percent) of single-person households are renters compared to homeowners (45.4 percent). The spatial distribution of single-person households is fairly evenly distributed throughout the city at a rate below 20.0 percent of households (Figure HE-8, Adults Living Alone). However, there is a concentration of single-person households ranging from 28.7 percent to 42.6 percent of the total households in three census tracts in and near the Greater Downtown area. Almost one-quarter (24.4 percent) of the population in these tracts are Generation Z (age 7 to 25), with Millennials (age 25 to 42) comprising 28.9 percent of the population, followed by Baby Boomers (age 59 to 77) at 19.3 percent, and Generation X (age 43 to 58) at 18.5 percent. Individuals over 77 represented only 7.0 percent of the population. All three census tracts are TCAC/HCD designated as an Area of High Segregation and Poverty and are identified as a R/ECAP by HUD. As well, there are 17 affordable housing resources in this area, several of which are operated by the Housing Authority of County of San Joaquin as permanent supportive housing for the formerly homeless. There is also one area with a concentration of single-person households above 20.0 percent in the census tract adjacent to University of the Pacific campus in the Midtown neighborhood with a TCAC/HCD Moderate resource opportunity designation. Within this tract, the largest age cohort is again Millennials at 25.8 percent, with Baby Boomers comprising 22.4 percent of the population, Generation Z at 20.9 percent and Generation X at 14.9 percent. In contrast to the Downtown however, the oldest age cohort represents 13.5 percent of the population. While the higher proportion of persons who live alone in this tract could be partially attributed to its adjacency to the college campus, the higher proportions of persons in the older age cohorts suggests that a portion of residents may be aging in place, particularly associate with convenient access to a range of medical facilities. Although incomes range between $17,478 to $57,03, and 20.0 percent of the population has an income below the poverty line, the two affordable housing complexes and student living arrangements may contribute to the dynamic of lower economic conditions and single-
person households, and therefore the population in this tract is not considered at risk of displacement.
The City will implement Programs 6 and 30 to improve access to affordable housing for single-parent female headed households and single person households in areas of higher opportunity by encouraging construction of affordable units in a range of sizes, and improve opportunities in low-opportunity areas.
As is the case in Stockton's census tracts, rates of adults living alone are typically low throughout the San Joaquin County COG area. Only one census tract outside of Stockton has a rate of adults living alone that is higher than 20 percent. This tract, located in Lodi, is also one of the census tracts with a higher percentage of children living in female-headed households. Though it is not one of the city's lowest-income tracts, with a median household income of $57,931, medium concentrations of both groups may indicate housing that may be more affordable to single-income households.
Three of the region's highest-income census tracts also have some of its lowest rates of adults living alone. Thes include the Mountain House area and the two tracts directly south, where 3.8, 3.0, and 2.0 percent of households are adults living alone. These tracts have median household incomes of $128,246, $119,479, and $113,269, respectively. These tracts also have relatively low percentage of children living in female-headed households (8.3, 5.4, and 0 percent, respectively). This suggests that housing in this area may be less affordable to single-income households.
⬚ figure
| Neighborhood | Site ID Prefix |
|---|---|
| Downtown | 1 |
| Midtown | 2 |
| East Stockton | 3 |
| South Stockton | 4 |
| Boggs Tract | 5 |
| The Port & Mount Diablo Waterfront | 6 |
| Brookside/Country Club | 7 |
| Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village | 8 |
| Morada/Holman Neighborhood | 9 |
| Mariposa Lakes | 10 |
| Industrial Annex | 11 |
| Weston/Van Buskirk | 12 |
| Trinity/Northwest Stockton | 13 |
| North Stockton Annex | 14 |
| Eight Mile/Bear Creek | 15 |
| Upper Hammer Lane/Thorton Road | 16 |
Source: 2015-2019 ACS
Persons living with disabilities are an important population with special needs with respect to housing. Such persons are often more likely to live in poverty, struggle to secure and maintain adequate employment, and sometimes require significant accommodations in housing. As shown in Table HE-33 in the HNA, 14.6 percent of the total population in Stockton five years and older had one or more disabilities in 2020, compared to 13.3 percent countywide and 8.0 percent in California. Among school age children, the most frequent disability was cognitive (48.6 percent). For persons ages 18 to 64 years, the most frequent disabilities were ambulatory (27.4 percent), cognitive (23.2 percent), and independent living (20.8 percent). Among seniors, ambulatory and independent living disabilities were the most frequent (29.2 percent and 21.6 percent, respectively).
Figure HE-9, Percentage of the Population with a Disability, shows the geographic distribution of residents with disabilities by census tract. The spatial distribution of Stockton residents living with disabilities is consistent with patterns demonstrated by Areas of High Segregation and Poverty and lower-income households, with lower rates of disability generally corresponding to High and Moderate resource designated areas. The majority of the city has a rate of persons with a disability below 20.0 percent, with census tracts with 10.0 percent or below of residents experiencing a disability found in the Trinity/Northwest Stockton, Brookside Country Club, Midtown (University of the Pacific), and the Port and Mount Diablo Waterfront (which contains very little residential population) neighborhoods. Census tracts with a share of residents with a disability between 20.0 percent to 30.0 percent of the total population are found in four tracts north of the Greater Downtown. Two of these tracts are adjacent to University of the Pacific campus, and one is adjacent to and inclusive of San Joaquin Delta College. The availability of commercial uses, services, amenities, and transit opportunities in the vicinity of the campuses suggests that these areas may be attractive residential options for persons with disabilities, with TCAC/HCD designations ranging from Low resource west of University of the Pacific to High resource to the east of University of the Pacific and the San Joaquin Delta College environs. The final census
⬚ figure
tract with a high rate of persons with disabilities is in the Upper Hammer Lane/Thornton Road neighborhood between I-5 and Thornton Road, including the Wagner Heights Rehabilitation Center, suggesting that the residents of this facility contribute to the higher incidence of disability. South of Greater Downtown in the Weston/Van Buskirk neighborhood, the census tract north of French Camp and Walker Slough, west of I-5, including the Sierra Vista II affordable public housing complex, has a rate of persons with disabilities of 23.1 percent, of which 29.7 percent are seniors (although seniors comprise less than 10.0 percent of the total population in this tract, 65.0 percent experience a disability). This census tract is TCAC/HCD designated as an Area of High Segregation and Poverty, has a poverty rate of 43.5 percent, and the highest rate of single female-headed households with children.
The census tracts with the highest proportion of residents with disabilities are found in Greater Downtown Stockton, north of Dr. Martin Luther King Boulevard (formerly East Charter Way,) east of I-5, south of West Harding Way and East Park Street, and west of North Van Buren Street and the Union Pacific Railroad Sacramento Subdivision/ACE line. The proportion of persons with disabilities range from 19.6 to 20.8 percent in the census tracts south of Harding Way and north of West Park Street (between 34.8 and 47.3 percent of disabled persons in these tracts are seniors); to 31.1 percent in the downtown core (33.7 percent of persons with disabilities are seniors); to just over 25.0 percent in the census tract to the west and southwest of the Downtown core (with seniors between 27.9 and 48.9 percent of disabled persons). As previously discussed, the Greater Downtown area is designated a TCAC/HCD Area of High Segregation and Poverty, HUD identifies it as a R/ECAP, and a large number of affordable housing and homeless resources are located in the vicinity, with transit opportunities available at the Amtrak Downtown ACE Station, the nearby Amtrak San Joaquin Street, and the Greyhound terminal at the corner of South Center and East Market Street.
⬚ figure
| Neighborhood | Site ID Prefix |
|---|---|
| Downtown | 1 |
| Midtown | 2 |
| East Stockton | 3 |
| South Stockton | 4 |
| Boggs Tract | 5 |
| The Port & Mount Diablo Waterfront | 6 |
| Brookside/Country Club | 7 |
| Pacific Avenue/Lincoln Village | 8 |
| Morada/Holman Neighborhood | 9 |
| Mariposa Lakes | 10 |
| Industrial Annex | 11 |
| Weston/Van Buskirk | 12 |
| Trinity/Northwest Stockton | 13 |
| North Stockton Annex | 14 |
| Eight Mile/Bear Creek | 15 |
| Upper Hammer Lane/Thorton Road | 16 |
Source: 2015-2019 ACS
458 pages load as you reach them