Rocklin City Council
April 28, 2026

Ordinance No. XXXX
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN
AMENDING ROCKLIN MUNICIPAL CODE - TITLE 17 (ZONING)

SPECIFIC TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND

JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

(Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Zoning Ordinance Amendments / ZOA2026-0001)

The City Council of the City of Rocklin finds as follows:

A. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Rocklin Municipal Code (RMC) – Zoning Code (Title 17) to update and clarify regulati ons for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) within the City of Rocklin. This ordinance amendment will help to ensure that the City’s r egulations remain consistent with and in full compliance with recent legis lative mandates established by the State of California (Government Code §§ 65852.2 and 65852.22).

B. The proposed amendments to the RMC are consistent with and implement the policies of the City of Rocklin's General Plan.

C. The proposed amendments to the RMC are not likely to create serious health problems or create nuisances on or near affected properties.

D. Authority. The City Council enacts this ordinance under the authority granted to cities by Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution and Go vernment Code section 37100.

NOW THEREFORE, THE C ITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKLIN DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Findings. The findings and recitals set forth above are true and correct.

Section 2. Amendment to Code. The Rocklin Municipal Code – Zoning Code (Title 17) is hereby amended to read as follows:

286

Ordinance No. XXXX
Chapter 17.04 - DEFINITIONS
Sections:

17.04.275 Junior accessory dwelling unit.
"Junior accessory dwelling unit" means a unit that contains no more than five hundred square feet of interior l ivable space in size, includes an efficiency kitche n consistent with building code standards, is contained entirely within the walls of a single- family residence or multi -family building, and may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitati on facilities with the existing structure or unit. See also Section

17.04.015, Accessory dwelling unit.

Chapter 17.67 – ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNITS
Sections:

17.67.020 Applications and processing.

A. Applications for junior accessory dwelling units or accessory dwelling u nits shall be processed within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of a complete application and approved if they meet the requirements of this chapter. Incomplete applications will be returned within fifteen (15) business days of receiving the incomplete application with a single written explanation of what additional information is required to submit a complete application.

B. For applications using a pre -approved accessory dwelling unit plan, the City s hall process the application within thirty (30) cal endar days of receipt of a complete application. Incomplete applications will be returned with an explanation of what additional information is required.

C. Notwithstanding subdivision A. above, if a compl eted application is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the application for the junior accessory dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit shall not be acted upon until the application for the new single -family dwelling is approved, but thereafter shall be ministerially processed within sixty (60) calendar days thereafter and approved if it meets the requirements of this chapter. Occupancy of the junior accessory dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit sh all not be allowed until the city approves occupancy of the primary dwelling.

D. The city shall grant a delay in processing if requested by the applicant.

E. All applications for junior accessory dwelling units or accessory dwelling units shall be accompanied by an application fee.

F. All junior accessory dwelling units and accessory dwelling units are also subject to building inspection and permit fees.

287

Ordinance No. XXXX

17.67.030 Locations allowed.

A. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units shall b e a permitted use in all zones where residences are a permitted or conditional use.

B. Junior accessory dwelling units may be developed on any legally created lot and shall be located within the walls of the existing or proposed primary dwelling.

C. Accessory dwelling units may be located in any of the f ollowing places on a legally created lot:

1. Attached to an existing or proposed primary dwelling;

2. Located within the walls of the existing or proposed dwelling;

3. Located within an existing accessory structure;

4. Detached from the existing dwelling, but located on the same lot as the existing or proposed primary dwelling; or

5. In existing multifamily dwelling structures within the portions of the structure that are not used as livable space prov ided that the unit complies with the California Bui lding Standards Code as set forth in Title 15 of this code for dwellings. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be created within any portion of the habitable area of an existing dwelling unit in a multifam ily structure. Up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the existing multifamily units in the building may be allowed as additional ADU’s, provided that at a minimum at least one ADU unit is permitted.

6. Up to eight (8) detached accessory dwelling units on a l ot with an existing multifamily dwelling structure, provided that the number of existing units on the lot are maintained, the height does not exceed eighteen feet (18’ -0”), and that four-foot (4’-0”) side and rear yard setbacks are maintained.

D. One (1) accessory dwelling unit may be allowed per residential lot containing an existing or proposed single -family residence. An accessory dwelling unit may be allowed in conjunction with a junior accessory dwelling unit when the requirements of Section 17.67.050 are met.

E. No more than two (2) total dwelling units, inclusive of any combination of primary dwelling units, accessory dwelling units, and junior accessory dwelling units shall be permitted on any single lot created through a subdivision pursuant to Government Code Section 66411.7 (SB 9, 2021). The maximum number of dwelling units on the original single-family parcel shall be four (4) units.

17.67.040 General requirements; ownership; rental.

A. Junior accessory dwelling units and accessory dwelling uni ts shall comply with all applicable building code r equirements. However, fire sprinklers shall not be required in a junior accessory dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit if they are not required for the primary dwelling unit.

B. Except the requirements related to fire sprinklers as set forth in Government Code Section 66323, all development standards contained in the underlying zoning 288

Ordinance No. XXXX
district shall apply to junior accessory dwelling units and accessory dwelling units unless they are inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter, in which case the development standards of this chapter shall apply.

C. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.

1. Junior accessory dwelling units shall not be sold separately from the primary residence.

2. Junior accessory dwe lling units may be rented independently of the primary unit.

3. Junior accessory dwelling units may not be rented for fewer than thirty consecutive calendar days.

4. Either the junior accessory dwelling unit or the primary dwelling unit must be owner occ upied, except if a junior accessory unit contains i ndependent sanitation facilities, pursuant to Government Code Section 66333.

5. Unless the property is owned by a governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization, one (1) of the dwellings on the l ot must be the bona fide principal residence of at least one legal owner of the lot, as evidenced at the time of approval of the junior accessory dwelling unit by appropriate documents of title and residency.

6. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a junior accessory dwelling unit, the owner shall record a covenant in a form prescribed by the city attorney, which shall run with the land and provide for the following:
a. A prohibition on the sale of the junior accessory dwelling unit, separate from the sale of the single-family residence;
b. A restriction on the size and attributes of the junior accessory dwelling unit consistent with this section;
c. A prohibition against renting the property for fewer than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days; and
d. A requirement that either the primary residen ce or the junior accessory dwelling unit be the owner's bona fide principal residence, unless the owner is a governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

7. A copy of the recorded covenant sh all be filed with the community development department prior to issuance of a building permit.

D. Accessory Dwelling Units.

1. Accessory dwelling units shall not be sold separately from the primary residence, except as otherwise allowed by California law.

2. Accessory dwelling units may be rented independently of the primary unit.

3. Accessory dwelling units may not be rented for fewer than thirty consecutive calendar days.
289

Ordinance No. XXXX

4. No owner-occupied requirement shall be imposed for any accessory dwelling.

17.67.050 Development standards.

A. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.

1. A junior accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed five hundred square feet in interior livable space in size, shall be contained entirely within the walls of a single-family residence, and shall contain at least an efficiency kitchen w hich includes a cooking appliance such as a stove, range or cooktop (microwaves and ovens cannot replace the stove), a sink with hot and cold water, a refrigerator of adequate size, and a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the junior accessory dwelling unit.

2. No junior accessory dwelling unit shall be smaller than the size required to allow an efficiency unit pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1.

3. A junior accessory dwelling unit may, but is not required to, include separate sanitation facilities. If separate sanitation facilities are not provided, the junior accessory dwelling unit shall share sanitation facilities with the primary residence.

4. A junior accessory dwelling unit entrance shall not face the same public street as the front door of the primary dwelling unit, unless compliance with this standard is physically precluded by site constraints as documented in the application plans.

5. Any expansion beyond the existing physica l structure of the primary residence is limited to one hundred fifty square feet and shall be solely to accommodate ingress and egress, pursuant to Government Code Section 66323(a)(1)(A).

6. The primary d welling unit side and rear setbacks may be reduced to no less than four feet to accommodate an exterior stair and landing that provide required access to the junior accessory dwelling unit if it is located on the second story.

7. A junior accessory dwell ing unit shall be architecturally consistent with t he primary dwelling unit by meeting the following objective standards:
i. The roof pitch of the junior accessory dwelling unit shall be within plus or minus two degrees (2º) of the same roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit; and
ii. The roof material shall be the same material type as the primary dwelling unit (e.g., composition shingle, concrete tile, standing seam metal); and iii. The primary exterior cladding material shall be the same type as the primary dwelling (e.g., stucco, wood lap, brick venee r), or of a greater material quality as verified by the building official.
290

Ordinance No. XXXX

8. Any balcony, deck or open stair landing of a junior accessory dwelling unit that faces the rear or side property line (excludin g a street side property line) must meet one of the following objective standards:
i. Setback: The elevated outdoor area must be setback ten feet (10’ -0”) or more from the side and rear property lines; or
ii. Screening: If the elevated outdoor area is setb ack less than ten feet (10’ - 0”) from the side and r ear property lines, it shall incorporate a permanent opaque visual screen at least six feet (6’ -0”) in height, measured from the surface of the floor. The screen must be continuous along the entire edge facing the property line. A maximum of ten (10) square feet of the elevated area needed solely for ingress/egress is exempt from this screening requirement.

9. Junior accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide for any additional parking or mak e up for any parking displaced by their constructio n, including conversion of all or part of an existing garage.

B. Accessory Dwelling Units.

1. Accessory dwelling units shall be exempt from lot coverage limitations to the minimum extent necessary to al low the construction of a detached or attached accessory dwelling unit, provided that the accessory dwelling unit complies with all other objective development standards, including height, setbacks, building code, and fire safety requirements.

2. Maximum Height:
i. Detached accessory dwelling units: The m aximum height shall be sixteen feet (16’-0”) measured from natural grade.
ii. Detached accessory dwelling units located within one -half (1/2) mile of a major transit stop or high -quality transit corridor: The maximum height shall be eighteen feet (18’ -0”) measured from natural grade, and shall be permitted an additional two feet (2’ -0”) of height when necessary to accommodate a roof pitch that matches the primary dwelling, consistent with Government Code Section 66321(b)(4)(B).
iii, Detached accessory dwell ing units on a lot that has an existing or proposed multistory multifamily dwelling: The maximum height shall be eighteen feet (18’-0”) measured from natural grade.
iv. Attached accessory dwelling units: T he maximum height shall be twenty - five feet (25’ -0”) or the heigh t of the primary dwelling, whichever is lower, measured from natural grade.

3. No accessory dwelling unit shall be smaller than the size required to allow an efficiency unit pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1.

4. An accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate entrance from the primary dwelling unit. Where the lot has more than one street frontage, the accessory dwelling unit entrance shall not face the same public street fro ntage as the 291

Ordinance No. XXXX
primary dwelling unit. For lots with a single street frontage, the accessory dwelling unit may face the street only if the site plan demonstrates that access from the side or rear of the lot is physically precluded by one or more of the following objective conditions:
i. A lack of a minimum four-foot (4’-0”) clear path of travel at grade along the side or rear of the primary dwelling unit; or
ii. A running slope along the required path of travel greater than fifteen percent (15%); or
iii. A documented conflict with a legally recorded utility or access easement that prohibits such use.

5. An accessory dwelling unit shall contain a kitchen which includes a cooking appliance such as a stove, range or cooktop (microwaves and ovens cannot replace the stove), a sink with hot and cold water, a refrige rator of adequate size, and a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the accessory dwelling unit.

6. Except as specified below, an accessory dwelling unit shall be required to comply with the setback requirements of the zone in which the unit is to be located.:
i. No setback is required for an existing living area or an existing accessory structure converted to an accessory dwelling unit, or for a new acces sory dwelling unit constructed in the same location and built to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
ii. For all accessory dwelling units, a setback of four -feet (4’-0”) is required from the rear and side property lines.
iii. An accessory dwelling unit may be located within the front setback only if it is physically or legally impossible to construct the accessory dwelling unit elsewhere on the lot without violating side or rear yard setbacks, height limits, building or fire -safety code requirem ents, or utility access requirements, and if clear evidence of such impossibility is document ed in the application file.

7. The maximum interior livable space for any attached or detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed one thousand two hundred (1 ,200) square feet.

The maximum floor area for an attached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the existing primary dwelling; however, in all cases the city shall permit a minimum of 850 square feet and shall permit up to 1,000 square feet where an ADU provides more than one bedr oom, consistent with Government Code Section 66321(b)(2).

8. An accessory dwelling unit, shall be architecturally consistent with the primary dwelling unit by meeting the following objective standards:
i. The roof pitch of the accessory dwelling unit shall be within plus or minus two degrees (2º) of the same roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit; and 292

Ordinance No. XXXX
ii. The roof material shall be the same material type as the primary dwelling unit (e.g., composition shingle, concrete tile, standing seam metal); and iii. The primary exterior cladding material shall be the same type as the primary dwelling (e.g., stucco, wood lap, brick veneer), or of a greater material quality as verified by the building official.
iv. The window trim, sill height, and proportions shall be consistent with the primary dwelling; and
v. The building eave depth shall be within plus or minus twelve inches (12”) of the primary dwelling.

9. The City’s pre -approved ADUs plans are exempt from any o bjective design standards that conflict with the approved design.

10. No balcony, deck or open stair landing of an accessory dwelling unit that faces the rear or side property line nearest the accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted, except as needed to allow ingress and egress.

11. Parking for an accessory dwelling unit shall be as follows:
i. Except as provided in subsection ii., accessory dwelling units shall provide one (1) parking space per accessory dwelling unit. Accessory dwelling unit parking requirements are in addition to the parking required for the primary residence as provided in Section 17.66.100. Parking spaces may be provided as tandem parking on a driveway or in setback areas unless the community development director makes specific fi ndings that tandem parking and parking in setback areas is not feasible because of specific topographical conditions and/or other conditions that would pose a risk to health and safety. No parking may extend into a public sidewalk or public right-of-way.
ii. No parking may be required for an accessory dwe lling unit if any of the following apply:
a. The accessory dwelling unit is contained within an existing primary residence or accessory structure or proposed primary residence. b. The accessory dwelling unit is located within one -half mile walking distance of public transit. For purposes of this section, "public transit" means a bus stop or train station where public transportation runs on fixed routes and charges set fares.
c. The accessory dwelling uni t is located within an architecturally and historically significant district.
d. Where on -street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupants of the accessory dwelling unit.
e. When a designated parking area for one or more car-share vehicles is located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit. 293

Ordinance No. XXXX
iii. When a garage, carport, covered parking structure, or uncovered off - street parking space is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, the parking spaces need not be replaced.

17.67.060 Utilities and impact fees.

A. No junior accessory dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted if it is determined that there is not adequate water or sewer service to the property.

B. Except as provided in subsection C., an accessory dwelling unit may be required to have a new or separate utility connection, including a separate sewer lateral, between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. A connection fee or capacity charge may be c harged that is proportionate to the size in square feet of the accessory dwelling unit or its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values. Separate electric and water meters shall be required for the second unit.

C. The following accessory dwelling units shall be exempt from any requirement to install a new or separate utility connection and to pay any associated connection or capacity fees or charges:

1. Junior accessory dwelling units.

2. Standard accessory dwelling units converted from interior space under Sec tion

17.67.050.B., unless the unit is constructed within a new single-family home.

D. All utility extensions shall be placed underground.

E. Impact Fees.

1. No impact fees may be imposed on (1) a junior accessory dwelling unit that has five hundred (500 ) square feet or less of interior livable space or (2) an accessory dwelling unit that has seven hundred fifty (750) square feet or less of interior livable space. For purposes of this section, "impact fees" include the fees specified in Sections 66000 and 66477 of the Government Code, but do not include utility connection fees or capacity charges.

2. For accessory dwelling units that have a floor area of more than seven hundred fifty (750) square feet, impact fees shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.

17.67.070 Delay of enforcement of building standards.

A. Prior to January 1, 2030, the owner of an accessory dwelling unit that was built before January 1, 2020, may submit an application to the building official requesting that correction of any vio lation of building standards be delayed for five years. For purposes of this section, "building standards" refers to those standards enforced by local agencies under the authority of Section 17960 of the C alifornia Health and Safety Code.

B. The building official shall grant the application if the building official determines that enforcement of the building standard is not necessary to protect health and safety.

In making this determination, the director shall consult with the fire marshal. No 294

Ordinance No. XXXX
delay may b e granted for violations involving structural integrity, fire hazards, or other life-safety conditions.

C. No applications pursuant to this section shall be approved on or after January 1, 2030. However, a ny delay that was approved by the city before January 1, 2030, shall be valid for the full term of the delay that was approved at the time of the approval of the application.

D. Until January 1, 2030, any notice to correct a violation of building standard that is issued to the owner of an accessory dwelli ng unit built before January 1, 2020, shall include a statement that the owner has a right to request a delay in enforcement of the building standard for an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to this section.

E. This section shall remain in effect until January 1, 2035, and as of that date is repealed.

Section 3. Environmental. The proposed amendments to the Rocklin Municipal Code will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment under CEQA, and are therefore exempt under sections 15060(c)(2) and 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Section 4. Severability. If any section, sub -section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinan ce and each section, sub -section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub - sections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 5. Effective Date . This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the day of its adoption.

Section 6. Publication. Within fifteen ( 15) days of the passage of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause the full text of the ordinance, with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the ordinance , to be published in the Placer Herald . In lieu of publishing the full text of the ordinance, the City Clerk, if so directed by the City Attorney and within fifteen (15) days, shall cause a summary of the ordinance, prepared by the City Attorney and with the names of the City Council members voting for and against the ordinance, to be published in the Placer Herald, and shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of the ordi nance, along with the names of those City Council members voting for and aga inst the ordinance. The publication of a summary of the ordinance in lieu of the full text of the ordinance is authorized only where the requirements of Government Code section 36933(c)(1) are met.
295

Ordinance No. XXXX

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rocklin held on April 28, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers

PASSED AND AD OPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rocklin held on __________, 20__, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

____________________________________
David Bass, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________
Avinta Singh, City Clerk

First Reading: 04.28.2026
Second Reading:

Effective Date:

296

Title 17 – ZONING
Chapter 17.04 DEFINITIONS

17.04.275 Junior accessory dwelling unit.
"Junior accessory dwelling unit" means a unit that contains is no more than five hundred square feet of interior livable space in size, includes an efficiency kitchen consistent with building code standards, is contained entirely within the walls of a single- family residence or multi-family building, and may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure or unit. See also Section

17.04.015, Accessory dwelling unit.

Chapter 17.67 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNITS
Sections:

17.67.010 Purpose and applicability.

A. The purpose of this chapter is to prov ide for accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units in accordance with the provisions of state law.

B. In cases of conflict between this chapter and any other provision of this title, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. To the extent that any provision of this chapter is in conflict with state law, the applicable provision of state law shall control, but all other provisions of this chapter shall remain in full force and effect.

17.67.020 Applications and processing.

A. Applications for junior accessory dwellin g units or accessory dwelling units shall be ministerially processed within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of a complete application and approved if they meet the requirements of this chapter. Incomplete applications will be returned within fifteen (15) business days of receiving the incomplete application with a single written an explanation of what additional information is required to submit a complete application.

B. For applications using a pre-approved accessory dwelling unit plan, the City shall process the application within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of a complete application. Incomplete applications will be returned with an explanation of that additional information is required.

C. Notwithstanding subdivision A. above, if a completed the permit application is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the application for the junior accessory dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit shall not be acted upon until the application for the new single-family dwelling is 297

Created: 2025‐09‐22 09:18:18 [EST]
(Supp. No. 58)

approved, but thereafter shall be ministerially processed within sixty (60) calendar days thereafter of receipt of a complete application and approved if it meets the requirements of this chapter. Occupancy of the junior accessory dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit shall not be allowed until the city approves occupancy of the primary dwelling.

CD. The city shall grant a delay in processing if requested by the applicant.

DE. All applications for junior accessory dwelling units or accessory dwelling units shall be accompanied by an application fee.

EF. All junior accessory dwelling units and acce ssory dwelling units are also subject to building inspection and permit fees.

17.67.030 Locations allowed.

A. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units shall be a permitted use in all residential (R) zones and in any planned development (PD) zones where residences are a permitted or conditional use.

B. Junior accessory dwelling units ma y be developed on any legally created lot and shall be located within the walls of the existing or proposed primary dwelling.

C. Accessory dwelling units may be located in any of the following places on a legally created lot:

1. Attached to an existing or proposed primary dwelling;

2. Located within the walls of the existing or proposed dwelling;

3. Located within an existing accessory structure;

4. Detached from the existing dwelling, but located on the same lot as the existing or proposed primary dwelling; or

5. In existing multifamily dwelling struct ures within the portions of the structure that are not used as livable space, provided that the unit complies with the California Building Standards Code as set forth in Title 15 of this code for dwellings. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be created within any portion of the habitable area of an existing dwelling unit in a multifamily structure. Up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the number of existing multifamily units in the building may be allowed as additional ADU’s, provided that at a minimumbut at least one ADU unit is permitted, shall be allowed.

6. Up to two eight (8) detached accessory dwelling units on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling structure, provided that the number of existing units on the lot are maintained, the height does not exceed sixteen eighteen feet (18’-0”), and that four-foot (4’-0”) side and rear yard setbacks are maintained. 298

D. One (1) accessory dwelling unit may be allowed per residential lot containing an existing or proposed single-family residence. An accessory dwelling unit may be allowed in conjunction with a junior accessory dwelling unit when the requirements of Section 17.67.050 are met.

E. No more than two (2) tota l dwelling units, inclusive of any combination of primary dwelling units, accessory dwelling units, and junior accessory dwelling units shall be permitted on any single lot created through a subdivision pursuant to Government Code Section 66411.7 (SB 9, 2021). The maximum number of dwelling units on the original single-family parcel shall be four (4) units.

17.67.040 General requirements; ownership; rental.

A. Junior accessory dwelling units and acce ssory dwelling units shall comply with all applicable building code requirements. However, fire sprinklers shall not be required in a junior accessory dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit if they are not required for the primary dwelling unit.

B. Except the requirements related to fire sprinklers as set forth in Government Code Section 66323, all All development standards contained in the underlying zoning district shall apply to junior accessory dwelling units and accessory dwelling units unless they are inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter, in which case the development standards of this chapter shall apply.

C. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.

1. Junior accessory dwelling units shall not be sold separately from the primary residence.

2. Junior accessory dwelling units ma y be rented independently of the primary unit.

3. Junior accessory dwelling units ma y not be rented for fewer than thirty consecutive calendar days.

4. Either the junior accessory dwelling unit or the primary dwelling unit must be owner occupied, except if a junior accessory unit contains independent sanitation facilities, pursuant to Government Code Section 66333.

45. Unless the property is owned by a gover nmental agency, land trust, or housing organization, one (1) of the dwellings on the lot must be the bona fide principal residence of at least one legal owner of the lot, as evidenced at the time of approval of the junior accessory dwelling unit by appropriate documents of title and residency.
i6. Prior to issuance of a building permit fo r a junior accessory dwelling unit, the owner shall record a covenant in a form prescribed by the city attorney, which shall run with the land and provide for the following:
a. A prohibition on the sale of t he junior accessory dwelling unit, separate from the sale of the single-family residence;
299

b. A restriction on the size and attribut es of the junior accessory dwelling unit consistent with this section;
c. A prohibition against renting t he property for fewer than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days; and
d. A requirement that either the primary residence or the junior accessory dwelling unit be the owner's bona fide principal residence, unless the owner is a governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization.

7.ii. A copy of the recorded covenant shall be filed with the community development department prior to issuance of a building permit.

D. Accessory Dwelling Units.

1. Accessory dwelling units shall not be sold separately from the primary residence, except as otherwise allowed by California law.

2. Accessory dwelling units may be r ented independently of the primary unit.

3. Accessory dwelling unit s may not be rented for fewer than thirty consecutive calendar days.

4. For applications received prior to January 1, 2025, there is no requirement for a legal owner of the parcel to reside in any of the residences on the parcel.No owner-occupied requirement shall be imposed for any accessory dwelling unit.

17.67.050 Development standards.

A. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.

1. A junior accessory dwelling unit sha ll not exceed five hundred square feet in interior livable space in size, shall be contained entirely within the walls of a single-family residence, and shall contain at least an efficiency kitchen which includes a cooking appliances such as a stove, range or cooktop (microwaves and ovens cannot replace the stove), a sink with hot and cold water, a refrigerator of adequate size, and a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the junior accessory dwelling unit.

2. No junior accessory dwelling unit s hall be smaller than the size required to allow an efficiency unit pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1.

3. A junior accessory dwelling unit may, but is not required to, include separate sanitation facilities. If separate sanitation facilities are not provided, the junior accessory dwelling unit shall share sanitation facilities with the primary residence.

4. A junior accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate entrance from the primary dwelling unit. Said entrance shall not face the same public street as the front door of the primary dwelling unit, if possible unless compliance with 300

this standard is physically precluded by site constraints as documented in the application plans.

5. Any expansion beyond the existing physica l structure of the primary residence is limited to one hundred fifty square feet and shall be solely to accommodate ingress and egress, pursuant to Government Code Section 66323(a)(1)(A).

6. The primary dwelling unit side and rear setbacks may be reduced to no less than four feet to accommodate an exterior stair and landing that provide required access to the junior accessory dwelling unit JADU if it is located on the second story.

67. A junior accessory dwelling unit shall use the same be architecturally consistent with the style, exterior materials, and colors as the existing or proposed primary dwelling, and the quality of the materials shall be the same or exceed that of the primary dwelling. Junior accessory dwelling units shall be consistent with applicable design standards if located within an architectural district. The appearance of the residence shall remain that of a single-family residence, as determined by the community development director unit by meeting the following objective standards:.
i. The roof pitch of the junior accesso ry dwelling unit shall be within plus or minus two degrees (2º) of the same roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit; and
ii. The roof material shall be the same material type as the primary dwelling unit (e.g., composition shingle, concrete tile, standing seam metal); and iii. The primary exterior cladding materi al shall be the same type as the primary dwelling (e.g., stucco, wood lap, brick veneer), or of a greater material quality as verified by the building official.

78. Any No balcony, deck or open stair landing of an a junior accessory dwelling unit that faces the rear or side property line nearest the accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted, except as needed to allow ingress and egress. (excluding a street side property line) must meet one of the following objective standards:
i. Setback: The elevated outdoor area mu st be setback ten feet (10’-0”) or more from the side and rear property lines; or
ii. Screening: If the elevated outdoor area is setback less than ten feet (10’- 0”) from the side and rear property lines, it shall incorporate a permanent opaque visual screen at least six feet (6’-0”) in height, measured from the surface of the floor. The screen must be continuous along the entire edge facing the property line. A maximum of ten (10) square feet of the elevated area needed solely for ingress/egress is exempt from this screening requirement.

89. Junior accessory dwelling units sha ll not be required to provide for any additional parking or make up for any parking displaced by their construction, including conversion of all or part of an existing garage.

B. Accessory Dwelling Units.
301

1. Accessory dwelling units shall be exempt from Limits on lot coverage limitations to the minimum extent necessary to allow the construction of a detached or attached accessory dwelling unit, provided that the and size must permit or shall be waived to allow an eight-hundred-square-foot detached or attached accessory dwelling unit sixteen feet in height with minimum four-foot side and rear yard setbacks, if the proposed accessory dwelling unit is in compliance complies with all other objective development standards, including but not limited to front yard height, setbacks, building code, and fire safety requirements.

2. Maximum Height:
i. Detached accessory dwelling units: The maximum height shall be sixteen feet (16’-0”) measured from natural grade.
ii. Detached accessory dwelling units lo cated within one-half (1/2) mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor: The maximum height shall be eighteen feet (18’-0”) measured from natural grade, and shall be permitted an additional two feet (2’-0”) of height when necessary to accommodate a roof pitch that matches the primary dwelling, consistent with Government Code Section 66321(b)(4)(B).
iii, Detached accessory dwelling units on a lot that has an existing or proposed multistory multifamily dwelling: The maximum height shall be eighteen feet (18’-0”) measured from natural grade.
iv. Attached accessory dwelling units: The maximum height shall be twenty- five feet (25’-0”) or the height of the primary dwelling, whichever is lower, measured from natural grade.

3. No accessory dwelling unit shall be smaller than the size required to allow an efficiency unit pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1.

34. An accessory dwelling unit shall hav e a separate entrance from the primary dwelling unit. Said Where the lot has more than one street frontage, the accessory dwelling unit entrance shall not face the same public street frontage as the front door of the primary dwelling unit, if possible. For lots with a single street frontage, the accessory dwelling unit may face the street only if the site plan demonstrates that access from the side or rear of the lot is physically precluded by one or more of the following objective conditions:
i. A lack of a minimum four-foot (4’-0”) clear path of travel at grade along the side or rear of the primary dwelling unit; or
ii. A running slope along t he required path of travel greater than fifteen percent (15%); or
iii. A documented conflict with a legall y recorded utility or access easement that prohibits such use.

5. An accessory dwelling unit shall contain a kitchen which includes a cooking appliance such as a stove, range or cooktop (microwaves and ovens cannot replace the stove), a sink with hot and cold water, a refrigerator of adequate 302

size, and a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the accessory dwelling unit.

46. Except as specified below, an accessory dwelling unit shall be required to comply with the setback requirements of the zone in which the unit is to be located.:
i. No setback is required for an existi ng living area or an existing accessory structure converted to an accessory dwelling unit, or for a new accessory dwelling unit constructed in the same location and built to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
ii. For all accessory dwelling units, a setback of four - feet (4’-0”) is required from the rear and side property lines.
iii. An accessory dwelling unit may be loca ted within the front setback only if it is physically or legally impossible to construct the accessory dwelling unit elsewhere on the lot without violating side or rear yard setbacks, height limits, building or fire-safety code requirements, or utility access requirements, and if clear evidence of such impossibility is documented in the application file.

57. The floor area of maximum interior livable space for any attached or detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed eight hundred fifty square feet for a studio or one bedroom or one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet for a unit that contains more than one bedroom. The maximum floor area for an attached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the existing primary dwelling; however, in all cases the city shall permit a minimum of 850 square feet and shall permit up to 1,000 square feet where an ADU provides more than one bedroom, consistent with Government Code Section 66321(b)(2).

68. An accessory dwelling unit, whether attached or detached, shall be use the same architecturally consistent with the style, exterior materials, and colors as the existing or proposed primary dwelling unit by meeting the following objective standards:, and the quality of the materials shall be the same or exceed that of the primary dwelling. Accessory dwelling units shall be consistent with applicable design standards if located within an architectural district. The appearance of the residence shall remain that of a single-family residence, as determined by the community development director. i. The roof pitch of the accessory dwel ling unit shall be within plus or minus two degrees (2º) of the same roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit; and ii. The roof material shall be the same material type as the primary dwelling unit (e.g., composition shingle, concrete tile, standing seam metal); and iii. The primary exterior cladding materi al shall be the same type as the primary dwelling (e.g., stucco, wood lap, brick veneer), or of a greater material quality as verified by the building official.
303

iv. The window trim, sill height, and pr oportions shall be consistent with the primary dwelling; and
v. The building eave depth shall be within plus or minus twelve inches (12”) of the primary dwelling.

79. The City’s pre-approved ADUs plans are exempt from any objective design standards that conflicts with the approved design.

10. No balcony, deck or open stair landing of an accessory dwelling unit that faces the rear or side property line nearest the accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted, except as needed to allow ingress and egress. 1011. Parking for an accessory dwelli ng unit shall be as follows:
i. Except as provided in subsection ii2., accessory dwelling units shall provide one (1) parking space per accessory dwelling unit. Accessory dwelling unit parking requirements are in addition to the parking required for the primary residence as provided in Section 17.66.100. Parking spaces may be provided as tandem parking on a driveway or in setback areas unless the community development director makes specific findings that tandem parking and parking in setback areas is not feasible because of specific topographical conditions and/or other conditions that would pose a risk to health and safety. No parking may extend into a public sidewalk or public right-of-way.
ii. No parking may be required for an acce ssory dwelling unit if any of the following apply:
a. The accessory dwelling unit is contained within an existing primary residence or accessory structure or proposed primary residence. b. The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit. For purposes of this section, "public transit" means a bus stop or train station where public transportation runs on fixed routes and charges set fares.
c. The accessory dwelling unit is lo cated within an architecturally and historically significant district.
d. Where on-street parki ng permits are required but not offered to the occupants of the accessory dwelling unit.; or
e. When a designated parking area for one or more car-share vehicles is located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit. iii. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure, or uncovered off- street parking space is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, the parking spaces need not be replaced.

304

17.67.060 Utilities and impact fees.

A. No junior accessory dwelling unit or accesso ry dwelling unit shall be permitted if it is determined that there is not adequate water or sewer service to the property.

B. Except as provided in subsection C., an accessory dwelling unit may be required to have a new or separate utility connection, including a separate sewer lateral, between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. A connection fee or capacity charge may be charged that is proportionate to the size in square feet of the accessory dwelling unit or its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values. Separate electric and water meters shall be required for the second unit.

C. The following accessory dwelling units s hall be exempt from any requirement to install a new or separate utility connection and to pay any associated connection or capacity fees or charges:

1. Junior accessory dwelling units.

2. Standard accessory dwelling units conver ted from interior space under Section

17.67.050.B., unless the unit is constructed within a new single-family home.

D. All utility extensions shall be placed underground.

E. Impact Fees.

1. No impact fees may be imposed on (1) a junior accessory dwelling unit that has five hundred (500) square feet or less of interior livable space or (2) an accessory dwelling unit that has is less than seven hundred fifty (750) square feet in size or less of interior livable space. For purposes of this section, "impact fees" include the fees specified in Sections 66000 and 66477 of the Government Code, but do not include utility connection fees or capacity charges.

2. For accessory dwelling units that have a floor area of more than seven hundred fifty (750) square feet or more, impact fees shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.

17.67.070 Delay of enforcement of building standards.

A. Prior to January 1, 2030, the owner of an accessory dwelling unit that was built before January 1, 2020, may submit an application to the building official requesting that correction of any violation of building standards be delayed for five years. For purposes of this section, "building standards" refers to those standards enforced by local agencies under the authority of Section 17960 of the California Health and Safety Code.

B. The building official shall grant the applicat ion if the building official determines that enforcement of the building standard is not necessary to protect health and safety.

In making this determination, the director shall consult with the fire marshal. No 305

delay may be granted for violations involving structural integrity, fire hazards, or other life-safety conditions.

C. No applications pursuant to this sect ion shall be approved on or after January 1, 2030. However, any delay that was approved by the city before January 1, 2030, shall be valid for the full term of the delay that was approved at the time of the approval of the application.

D. Until January 1, 2030, any notice to correct a violation of building standard that is issued to the owner of an accessory dwelling unit built before January 1, 2020, shall include a statement that the owner has a right to request a delay in enforcement of the building standard for an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to this section.

E. This section shall remain in effect unt il January 1, 2035, and as of that date is repealed.

306
City Council
Staff Report

Subject:

Inclusionary Housing Report and In-Lieu Fee Discussion
Date:

April 28, 2026
Submitted By:

Elizabeth Sorg, Assistant to the City Manager
Aly Zimmermann, City Manager
Department:

City Manager's Office
Recommendation:

Provide Direction to Staff for the Adoption of an Inclusionary Housing In-lieu Fee and Revisions to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

Background:

March 24, 2026 City Council Meeting
Summary

On March 24, 2026 staff presented the draft Affordable Housing Inclusionary Program and Commercial Linkage Fee Analysis (the "report") prepared by Keyser Marston Associates (KMA). The report, included as Attachment 2, marks the summary of a year-long effort to evaluate the impact of residential and commercial development on affordable housing demand and Rocklin’s state-mandated obligations to create affordable housing in Rocklin’s current development market. The report recommends the City adopt a long-term inclusionary housing ordinance and a by-right in-lieu fee. The report also provides recommended fee levels for a commercial linkage fee if the City Council directs staff to establish a commercial linkage fee.

The report demonstrates that market rate housing and commercial development in the City drive the affordable housing demand. The report also contains a feasibility analysis that tests different fee amounts and on site unit requirements.

The report recommends the following:

Residential Development
The City establish an inclusionary housing program including an onsite obligation and an in-lieu fee option
All residential projects should be subject to an onsite obligation equal to 5% of units at Low Income
Developments should be allowed to pay an in lieu fee by right at $5 per square foot of living area.

Projects with nine or fewer units should be exempt from the affordable housing requirements
Item Number D1.

307
The report includes additional considerations for implementation, including considering a lower fee for multi family developments and annual indexing of the fee using the California Construction Cost Index.

Nonresidential Development
If the City Council directs staff to establish a commercial linkage fee program on non- residential development, then KMA recommends the following:

The City establish fees for affordable housing consistent with the Nexus Study’s conclusion that demand for affordable housing is created by nonresidential development.

Fees should be comparable to other similar fees in the market.

New office, hotel, and commercial development fees in the market are approximately $2.75 to $3.00.

The report also mentions that the City could consider reducing the fee in certain areas to incentivize development, like downtown.

At the conclusion of the March 24 discussion, the City Council directed staff to return with additional information about the following items:

How much vacant land for residential development is left in Rocklin, and how much fee revenue could be expected to be generated from that land if it was all developed at market rate?
Is it possible to charge a different fee depending on the square footage of each dwelling unit and exempt smaller units from fees?
Can developers opt to construct an ADU as their on-site obligation instead of paying the in-lieu fee?
How many affordable units could be constructed with in-lieu fee revenue?

In the next section, staff is presenting material designed to provide the City Council with sufficient information to continue discussion. At the conclusion of the report, staff summarizes
next steps
for City Council consideration.

Responses to March 24, 2026 Information Requests
Vacant Residential Land and Possible Fee Revenue
The City has approximately 372 acres of vacant parcels zoned for residential development with over half of that acreage as Low Density Residential (LDR). As the City continues to build out, the majority of the residential growth will happen in areas that are LDR. The General Plan defines LDR as 1-3.4 units per acre, generally producing large single-family homes. The next highest available land is on Medium Density Residential (MDR). The General Plan defines MDR as 3.5-8.4 units per acre. These are typically medium to large single-family homes.

Attachment 1 - Table 1 shows the summary of acreage based on General Plan Designation and Density for all residential zoning types: RR: Rural Residential; LDR: Low Density Residential; MDR: Medium Density Residential; MHDR: Medium High Density Residential; HDR: High Density Residential.

These sites would generate approximately 1,072 units at the lowest density, up to 2,910 at the highest density. The potential number of units generated is based on density alone and does not differentiate between single family or multifamily developments. 308
KMA’s Draft Inclusionary Analysis identified five prototype residential developments based on information from prior developments in Rocklin, the greater Sacramento region, and industry trends. These protype developments are:

Low-Density Single-Family Development – 3,400+ sf
Medium Density Single Family Development – 2,500 sf
Medium High-Density Single-Family Development – 1,800 sf Townhomes – 1,600 sf
Apartments – 975 sf
Staff used these prototypes to analyze the potential square footage of homes that could be produced on vacant residential parcels based on the allowable density of each parcel. If all vacant acres were developed with housing, at the lowest density this would result in approximately 1.9 million square feet of housing; at the highest density it would result in 5.5 million square feet of housing (see Attachment 1 – Table 1).

Based on feedback from City Council, staff developed three possible fee scenarios and the potential revenue that could be generated to support affordable housing. All scenarios assume that the sites would be developed at market rate and the applicant would pay the in-lieu fee instead of building housing on site. This fee analysis is included in Attachment 1 - Tables 2-4.

The first scenario is a $5 per square foot in lieu fee on all residential development (Attachment 1 – Table 2). This fee could generate between $9.8 million to $27.6 million in fees.

The second scenario is a $5 per square foot fee for large homes greater than 3,000 square feet (Attachment 1 – Table 3). This fee could generate between $3.8 million and $ 12.8 million.

The third scenario is a graduated fee based on the square footage of the development (Attachment 1 – Table 4). For units with 1,000 square feet or fewer, no fee would be applied.

As the square footage increases, the fee increases as well. Since housing costs are generally driven by the size of the units, the assumption is that the lower square footage units would be more affordable by default. This graduated approach could generate between $5.2 million and $15.4 million in revenue.

Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are smaller residential units that are built on existing single family lots. In Rocklin, ADUs can be constructed as attached units or detached units. For the purpose of the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the City can claim up to 40 ADUs for the total RHNA cycle, 30 in the Very Low/Low category and 10 in the Moderate category. This restriction is set in the City’s Adopted Housing Element. The existing inclusionary housing ordinance requires projects constructing ten or more units to provide a minimum of:
15% of units to be sold or rented to low-income housings or; 10% of units to be sold or rented to very low-income households or; 5% or units to be sold or rented to extremely low-income households 309
If the City were to allow a project to construct ADUs to meet these obligations, there would be restrictions. In order for them to count toward the City’s RHNA obligation, the units would need to be:

Deed restricted
. A deed would need to be recorded on the property stating that the units would only be rented to households who are income-qualified.

Annual reporting
. The City would need to receive a report annually from every deed restricted property that they are complying with the regulations in the deed restriction.

Some jurisdictions allow the construction of ADUs to meet inclusionary obligations; however, they do not have the same reporting limitations that Rocklin has. Placer County recently approved a 322-unit single family subdivision in November of 2025. Below is a summary of the process they
undertook to approve the construction of ADUs to meet RHNA obligations:

An affordable housing agreement was executed at the recording of a final map.

The agreement allows developer to satisfy the 10% on-site requirement with the development of 33 homes with ADUs that do not exceed 750 square feet.

The affordable housing agreement cites the Housing Element policy, which allows the county to consider ADUs of less than 750 SF to be affordable by design and eligible to satisfy the low-income requirements in specific plans and new developments.

The project will record deed restrictions on 32 homes with ADUs which do not restrict income or rents but do prohibit: short term rental, no separate sale of ADU, and limit size to 750 SF. The County may enforce the deed restrictions.

The deed restrictions have to be recorded before a building permit is issued.

The property owner is also required to submit an annual self-certification form to verify compliance.

In the event of non-compliance, the County has the right to enforce the restrictions.

If the City allowed the construction of ADUs to meet inclusionary requirements, the City could not report more than five units per year to meet RHNA obligations under the current adopted Housing Element. If the direction of the City Council is to move forward with allowing ADUs to meet RHNA obligations, then staff recommends taking an amendment to the Housing Element to claim more units per year. This would require the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to approve the amendments as well, which is an approximately four to six month process.

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments has begun preparations for the seventh RHNA cycle, which will update the City’s required housing units under RHNA. The City is actively participating in the regional planning for the seventh cycle allocation and distribution of RHNA obligations by jurisdiction. Ultimately, this process will require the City to adopt a new Housing Element. During the creation of a new Housing Element, staff can also make changes to the reportable ADUs to be in line with the expected construction of new ADUs.

Affordable Housing Incentive Program and Uses of Fee Revenue On January 23, 2024, the City Council adopted the Affordable Housing Incentive Program (AHIP). The AHIP offers three different incentives for developers to take advantage of if they construct affordable housing:

310
1 .

Fee Reductions
. Affordable developments proposing units at 60% or less AMI can receive a 40% reduction in certain development impact fees (Park Improvement, Trail, Community and Recreation Facility, and Public Facility). 2 .

Fee Deferrals
. The payment of certain fees as defined by Government Code section 66007 are deferred until the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3 .

Low/Mod Income Housing Asset Fund Contribution
. The City may contribute up to
$40,000 toward the construction of each extremely low or very low income unit in the form of a City loan, memorialized in an affordable housing agreement. The loan would be a residual receipts loan with an interest rate of 3% per year.

Affordable housing projects usually require a combination of private equity, tax credits, affordable housing bond proceeds, and any other funds available to make the projects buildable. Typically, these funding sources are very competitive with no guarantee of funding, and projects often fall short of the necessary financing. The financing gap varies with each project, but the City has been approached to provide anywhere from $2 million to $4.5 million in gap financing, depending on the size and financing structure of the project.

Currently the City’s only source of funding to provide gap financing for affordable housing is the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund (LMIHAF).

The purpose of the LMIHAF gap financing investment is to leverage private investment to deliver the maximum amount of affordable housing units with the City’s limited resources. It is not intended to provide the full capital costs to construct the units. Affordable housing projects cost in the range of $450,000 to $550,000 per unit to develop. Previously requested City assistance averages to approximately 4% of the total development cost. Developers are only able to access the LMIHAF loan after they have presented a full financing plan to the City including a combination of tax credits, bonds, and other financing that shows a gap remaining to get to project completion. If the City Council adopts an in-lieu fee, that fee would be used to supplement the decreasing LMIHAF and continue to leverage limited City funds to provide the needed gap financing to increase the construction of affordable units in the City.

Rocklin’s AHIP financing program has been successfully utilized by the Pacific Street Apartments project where the City invested $2.6 million in gap financing and contributed a development site valued at $4.4 million. Pacific Street Apartments will bring 109 units of affordable housing to those making 60% or less of the area median income (AMI). The City has also committed $2.23 million to the College Park Senior development, The Steven, which will bring 178 units of affordable housing to seniors in Rocklin.

The LMIHAF is also used to pay for administrative costs (legal costs incurred to complete affordable housing transactions) and to provide homeless prevention and rapid rehousing grant funding to regional nonprofits. There are approximately 130 outstanding loans amounting to $3 million in future revenue. However, 90% of those loans are from first time homebuyer programs and under $25,000 each. The repayment of these loans is slow and unpredictable. The City receives approximately 1 - 2 repayments per year. There is very little funding anticipated to return to the LMHIAF, and currently the number of projects the City can support with gap financing is limited. Unless a new revenue source is established, there is no new revenue coming into the LMIHAF, meaning once funds are exhausted the City will have no resources for affordable housing unless another solution is adopted.

311
Number of Affordable Units Supported with Affordable Housing In-lieu Fee Revenue

Staff have estimated the number of new affordable housing units that could potentially be created if an In-Lieu Fee program is adopted and the funds are used to provide gap financing for the development of affordable units. The potential count of affordable housing units has been estimated based on the range of in-lieu fee revenue projections described in this staff report and a range of assumptions regarding the amount of gap financing to be provided by the City. Gap financing scenarios are calculated based on the City's AHIP at $40,000 per unit.

Based on the In-Lieu Fee revenue projections and the range of required gap financing, it is estimated that the In-Lieu Fees could support the following number of Extremely Low to Very Low-Income affordable units:

Scenario 1 $5/sqf for all residential development: 246 to 689 units Scenario 2
$5/sqf for residential over 3000 square foot: 95 to 319 units Scenario 3 Graduated fee based on square footage: 130 to 385 units Next Steps
Staff is seeking direction from City Council on the following items:

Inclusionary Policy - Affordability Levels.

The current inclusionary housing ordinance
requires the construction of 15% of units on site to be low; 10% of units on site to be very low; or 5% of units on site to be extremely low. City Council is asked to confirm the current levels or propose changes to the affordably levels or percentages based on KMA’s report.

In Lieu Fee.

If the City Council continues to maintain an inclusionary policy, adoption of an in-lieu fee provides developers an option to pay a fee in lieu of constructing units.

Developers have been supportive of the in-lieu approach as opposed to a strict inclusionary only approach. The following direction is needed on in-lieu fees:

Should the City adopt an in-lieu fee on residential development? If so, what level of fee should be adopted and how should it be structured? Should the City adopt a Nexus study establishing the connection between nonresidential development and affordable housing demand? If so, what level of fee should be adopted and should lower fees be charged to certain development categories or areas of the City?

ADUs.

ADUs may be used in certain circumstances to meet inclusionary requirements.

Should projects be allowed to meet their inclusionary obligation with the construction of ADUs?
If the City Council desires ADUs to be an option for residential developers to meet inclusionary requirements, the City’s Housing Element would need to be updated.

Staff needs further direction to initiate the request to HCD to allow more ADUs to count toward RHNA numbers. This would require additional allocation of staff time to this project as well as additional budget for consulting services necessary to prepare the amendment.

How should the City enforce affordability requirements on the ADUs? Staff recommends adopting a model similar to the Placer County model described in this report and would need to prepare a secondary item to formalize this program.

312
If directed, staff will revise the existing inclusionary housing ordinance, which would go before the Planning Commission and City Council at a later date if changes are directed to the Inclusionary Policy. Staff is also prepared to create a resolution which adopts the in-lieu fees, which would come before City Council at a later date. The fee can be adopted by the City Council prior to revisions to the inclusionary housing ordinance.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no direct fiscal impact to provide direction to staff. Future actions to adopt an in-lieu fee or make revisions to the inclusionary housing ordinance may result in fiscal impacts, but those will be brought forward at a future City Council meeting.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Fee Scenarios

2. Draft Affordable Housing Inclusionary Program and Commercial Linkage Fee Analysis 313
April 28, 2026
Inclusionary Housing Report: Fee Analysis

Table 1: Remaining sites zoned for housing

Table 2: $5/sqf for all residential development
Anticipated revenue from $9.8 million to $27.6 million

Acreage GP GP Prototype
Density Low Medium High SF Low Medium High

24.0 RR 1 per acre/3 24 48 72 3500 84,000 168,000 252,000 237.3 LDR 1-3.4 246 542 839 3400 676,875 1,489,910 2,303,920

75.2 MDR 3.5-8.4 264 448 632 2500 659,038 1,121,114 1,580,690

3.3 MHDR 8.5-15.4 28 40 51 1800 50,400 72,000 91,800

32.9 HDR ≥15.5 510 790 1316 975 497,226 770,055 1,283,100 372.7 1,967,539 3,621,079 5,511,510
Number of Expected Units Anticipated Square Footage
Acreage GP GP Prototype
Density Low Medium High SF Low Medium High

24.0 RR 1 per acre/3 24 48 72 3500 84,000 168,000 252,000 237.3 LDR 1-3.4 246 542 839 3400 676,875 1,489,910 2,303,920

75.2 MDR 3.5-8.4 264 448 632 2500 659,038 1,121,114 1,580,690

3.3 MHDR 8.5-15.4 28 40 51 1800 50,400 72,000 91,800

32.9 HDR ≥15.5 510 790 1316 975 497,226 770,055 1,283,100 372.7 1,967,539 3,621,079 5,511,510

5.00$ 5.00$ 5.00$
Fee revenue 9,837,695 18,105,395 27,557,550
246 453 689
Number of Expected Units Anticipated Square Footage
Estimated number of units supported
314
Table 3: $5/sqf for residential over 3000 square foot.

Anticipated revenue $3.8 million to $12.8 million

Table 4: Graduated fee based on square footage. Square footage in alignment with development impact fees.

Anticipated revenue $5.2 million to $15.4 million

Acreage GP GP Prototype
Density Low Medium High SF Low Medium High

24.0 RR 1 per acre/3 24 48 72 3500 84,000 168,000 252,000 237.3 LDR 1-3.4 246 542 839 3400 676,875 1,489,910 2,303,920 261.3 760,875 1,657,910 2,555,920

5.00$ 5.00$ 5.00$
Fee revenue 3,804,375 8,289,550 12,779,600
95 207 319
Number of Expected Units Anticipated Square Footage
Estimated number of units supported
Acreage GP GP Prototype Fee Amount
Density Low Medium High SF Low Medium High Low Medium High

24.0 RR 1 per acre/3 24 48 72 3500 84,000 168,000 252,000 $5 $420,000 $840,000 $1,260,000 237.3 LDR 1-3.4 246 542 839 3400 676,875 1,489,910 2,303,920 $4 $2,707,500 $5,959,640 $9,215,680

75.2 MDR 3.5-8.4 264 448 632 2500 659,038 1,121,114 1,580,690 $3 $1,977,114 $3,363,342 $4,742,070

3.3 MHDR 8.5-15.4 28 40 51 1800 50,400 72,000 91,800 $2 $100,800 $144,000 $183,600

32.9 HDR ≥15.5 510 790 1316 975 497,226 770,055 1,283,100 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 372.7 1072 1868 2910 1,967,539 3,621,079 5,511,510 $5,205,414 $10,306,982 $15,401,350 Estimated number of units supported 130 258 385
Anticipated Fee RevenueNumber of Expected Units Anticipated Square Footage Square Footage Fee Amount
<600 sq. ft. $0
600-1000 sq. ft. $0
>1000-1500 sq.
ft. $1
>1500-2000 sq.
ft. $2
>2000-2500 sq.
ft. $3
>2501-3500 sq.
ft. $4
3500+ sq. ft. $5
Age restricted $0
315

DraŌ Report

Affordable Housing Inclusionary Program and
Commercial Linkage Fee Analyses

Prepared for:

City of Rocklin

Prepared By:

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

February 24, 2026

DRAFT
316
Table of Contents
SUMMARY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................1 I. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................3 A. Financial Feasibility Analysis ............................................................................................................. 3 B. ResidenƟal Nexus Analysis ................................................................................................................ 6 C. Review of Affordable Housing Programs in Other JurisdicƟons........................................................ 6 D. Developer Input ................................................................................................................................ 7 E. City of Rocklin’s RHNA ObligaƟons .................................................................................................... 8 F. RecommendaƟons ............................................................................................................................ 9 II. NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ..............................................................................................9 A. Non-ResidenƟal Nexus Analysis ........................................................................................................ 9 B. Housing Fees in Other JurisdicƟons ................................................................................................ 10 C. RecommendaƟons .......................................................................................................................... 11 TECHNICAL REPORT 1: HOUSING ANALYSIS AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS REPORT ................ 12 I. RESIDENTIAL MARKET STUDY .................................................................................................... 13 A. Housing Development and Prototype Projects ............................................................................... 13 B. Market CondiƟons ........................................................................................................................... 14

1. Market Rate Rents ...................................................................................................................... 14

2. Market Rate Sales Prices ............................................................................................................. 15 II. AFFORDABILITY STUDY.............................................................................................................. 18 A. RHNA ObligaƟons and Historical Permiƫng Trends ....................................................................... 18 B. Household Income Categories ........................................................................................................ 19 C. Household Income Needed to Afford Prototype New Market Rate Units ...................................... 20 III. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 20 A. Analysis LimitaƟons ......................................................................................................................... 21 B. Development Investment Supported, Rental Projects .................................................................... 21 C. ResidenƟal Land Values ................................................................................................................... 22 D. Development Costs ......................................................................................................................... 22 E. Feasibility Criteria............................................................................................................................ 24 F. Feasibility Findings .......................................................................................................................... 25 G. Scenario Testing .............................................................................................................................. 26 H. Compliance Cost Analysis ................................................................................................................ 28 DRAFT
317
I. PotenƟal Development Project Responses to New Requirement .................................................. 30 IV. AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS ............................................ 31 TECHNICAL REPORT 2: RESIDENTIAL NEXUS STUDY ........................................................................... 61 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 62 A. ResidenƟal Nexus Study .................................................................................................................. 62 B. Methodology and Models Used ...................................................................................................... 63 C. Nexus Study Results ........................................................................................................................ 63 D. Data Sources and QualificaƟons ..................................................................................................... 63 II. THE RESIDENTIAL NEXUS STUDY ................................................................................................ 64 A. IntroducƟon .................................................................................................................................... 64 B. The Nexus Concept ......................................................................................................................... 64 C. Use of this ResidenƟal Nexus Study ................................................................................................ 64 D. Methodology and Models Used ...................................................................................................... 64 E. Underlying AssumpƟons Related to Net New Demand for Housing .............................................. 65 F. Geographic Area of Impact ............................................................................................................. 66 III. RESIDENTIAL NEXUS STUDY METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 66 A. Market Survey and ResidenƟal Prototypes ..................................................................................... 67 B. Income of the Homebuyer Household ............................................................................................ 67

1. Ownership Units.......................................................................................................................... 68

2. Apartment Units ......................................................................................................................... 68

3. Estimated Gross Household Incomes ......................................................................................... 69

4. Income Available for Expenditures ............................................................................................. 69

5. Deductions to Gross Household Income..................................................................................... 69

6. Expenditures for Input to IMPLAN .............................................................................................. 70 C. The IMPLAN Model ......................................................................................................................... 71

1. IMPLAN Model Description ......................................................................................................... 71

2. Application of the IMPLAN Model to Estimate Job Growth ....................................................... 71 IV. THE KMA JOBS-HOUSING NEXUS MODEL ................................................................................... 72 A. Analysis Approach and Framework ................................................................................................. 72

1. Analysis Steps .............................................................................................................................. 73

2. Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................... 78 B. Nexus-Supported Inclusionary Housing Percentages ..................................................................... 79 C. Total Affordable Housing Nexus Costs............................................................................................. 79 DRAFT
318

1. Affordability Gap Analysis ........................................................................................................... 79

2. Total Affordable Housing Nexus Costs ........................................................................................ 80 V. ADDENDUM: FACTORS RELATING TO THE NEXUS CONCEPT ........................................................ 81 A. Addressing the Housing Needs of a New PopulaƟon versus the ExisƟng PopulaƟon .................... 81 B. Economic Cycles .............................................................................................................................. 81 C. The Burden of Paying for Affordable Housing ................................................................................. 82 D. Changes in Labor Force ParƟcipaƟon .............................................................................................. 82 E. CommuƟng ...................................................................................................................................... 82 F. ConservaƟve AssumpƟons .............................................................................................................. 83 VI. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 83 VII. AB 602...................................................................................................................................... 85 TECHNICAL REPORT 3: NON RESIDENTIAL NEXUS STUDY ................................................................. 124 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 125 A. Non-ResidenƟal Nexus Study ........................................................................................................ 125 B. Building Types and Affordability Levels ......................................................................................... 125 C. Maximum Nexus Costs .................................................................................................................. 125 II. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ............................................................................................. 126 A. Benefits of Affordable Housing to Non-ResidenƟal Development................................................ 126 B. Analysis OrganizaƟon .................................................................................................................... 127 C. Data Sources and QualificaƟons ................................................................................................... 127 III. THE NON-RESIDENTIAL NEXUS STUDY ..................................................................................... 128 A. The Nexus Concept ....................................................................................................................... 128

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 128

2. The Legal Basis and Context ...................................................................................................... 128

3. The Nexus Methodology ........................................................................................................... 129

4. The Relationship Between Construction and Job Growth ........................................................ 130

5. Discount for Changing Industries .............................................................................................. 131

6. Other Factors and Assumptions ................................................................................................ 131 B. Non-ResidenƟal Nexus Analysis .................................................................................................... 132

1. Analysis Approach and Framework........................................................................................... 132

2. Household Income Limits .......................................................................................................... 133

3. Analysis Steps ............................................................................................................................ 133

4. Housing Demand by Income Level ............................................................................................ 143 DRAFT
319

5. Housing Demand by Square Foot Building Area ....................................................................... 143 C. Maximum Nexus Costs .................................................................................................................. 144

1. Affordability Gap Analysis ......................................................................................................... 144

2. Total Affordable Housing Nexus Costs ...................................................................................... 144 IV. ADDENDUM: FACTORS RELATING TO THE NEXUS CONCEPT ...................................................... 145 A. Addressing the Housing Needs of a New PopulaƟon versus the ExisƟng PopulaƟon .................. 145 B. SubsƟtuƟon Factor ........................................................................................................................ 146 C. Indirect Employment and MulƟplier Effects ................................................................................. 146 D. Changes in Labor Force ParƟcipaƟon ............................................................................................ 147 E. CommuƟng .................................................................................................................................... 147 F. Economic Cycles ............................................................................................................................ 147 G. ConservaƟve AssumpƟons ............................................................................................................ 148 V. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS ............................................................................................... 149 VI. AB 602.................................................................................................................................... 150 VII. COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES IN OTHER JURISIDICTIONS ........................................................... 151 TECHNICAL REPORT 4: AFFORDABILITY GAP ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 190 I. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 191 II. CITY-ASSISTED AFFORDABLE UNIT PROTOTYPES ....................................................................... 191 A. Affordable Rental Units ................................................................................................................. 191

1. Development Costs ................................................................................................................... 191

2. Unit Values ................................................................................................................................ 192 B. Affordable For Sale Units .............................................................................................................. 192 III. AFFORDABILITY GAPS ............................................................................................................. 193

DRAFT
320
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Market Rate ResidenƟal Prototypes .............................................................................................. 3 Figure 2. Feasibility Findings, Base Case, No Affordable Housing ObligaƟon ............................................... 4 Figure 3. Feasibility Results, For Sale Units: Scenario Testing ...................................................................... 5 Figure 4. Feasibility Results, Rental Units: Scenario Testing ......................................................................... 5 Figure 5. Inclusionary Percentage Sufficient to Mitigate Impacts ................................................................ 6 Figure 6. City of Rocklin RHNA ObligaƟons, 2021-2029 Housing Element Period ........................................ 8 Figure 7. City of Rocklin Permitted Housing Units Per Year, By Income Level.............................................. 8 Figure 8. Maximum Legally Supportable Non-ResidenƟal Linkage Fees Per Square Foot .......................... 10 Figure 9. Non-Residential Affordable Housing Linkage Fees ...................................................................... 11 Figure 10. Market Rate Residential Prototypes .......................................................................................... 14 Figure 11. Historic Rents and Vacancy Rates, City of Rocklin ...................................................................... 14 Figure 12. Asking Rents in Newer Apartment Projects in Rocklin (Built Since 2017) .................................. 15 Figure 13. Median Sales Prices, All Homes, 2022-2025 .............................................................................. 16 Figure 14. Asking Prices of New Homes in Rocklin ..................................................................................... 16 Figure 15. Sales Prices of Newer Homes in Rocklin (Built Since 2015) ....................................................... 17 Figure 16. Market Rate Prototypes ............................................................................................................. 17 Figure 17. City of Rocklin RHNA ObligaƟons, 2021-2029 Housing Element Period .................................... 18 Figure 18. City of Rocklin Permitted Housing Units Per Year, By Income Level ......................................... 18 Figure 19. 2025 Placer County Income Limits ............................................................................................. 19 Figure 20. 2025 Affordable Prices ............................................................................................................... 19 Figure 21. 2025 Affordable Rents (Monthly) ............................................................................................... 20 Figure 22. Affordability of New Market Rate Units ..................................................................................... 20 Figure 23. Net OperaƟng Income and Investment Supported, 100% Market Rate .................................... 21 Figure 24. Land and Site Work Cost Estimates ........................................................................................... 22 Figure 25. Total Permiƫng, Impact and ConnecƟon Fee EsƟmates, New ResidenƟal Units ...................... 23 Figure 26. Total Development Cost Per Unit .............................................................................................. 23 Figure 27. Feasibility Criteria....................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 28. Feasibility Findings, Base Case, No Affordable Housing Obligation ........................................... 26 Figure 29. Feasibility Results, For Sale Units: Scenario Testing .................................................................. 27 Figure 30. Feasibility Results, Rental Units: Scenario Testing ..................................................................... 27 Figure 31. Compliance Cost Analysis, For Sale Prototypes ......................................................................... 29 Figure 32. Compliance Cost Analysis, Apartments ..................................................................................... 29 Figure 33: Maximum ResidenƟal Linkage Fee ............................................................................................. 63 Figure 34. Summary of Affordability Categories ......................................................................................... 65 Figure 35. ResidenƟal Prototypes ............................................................................................................... 67 Figure 36. EsƟmated Gross Household Incomes ......................................................................................... 69 Figure 37. Income Available for Expenditures ............................................................................................ 70 Figure 38. Jobs Generated Per 100 Units .................................................................................................... 72 Figure 39. 2025 Household Income Limits for Placer County ..................................................................... 73 Figure 40. RaƟo of Household Income to Individual Worker Income ......................................................... 76 Figure 41. Percent of Households by Size and No. of Workers ................................................................... 77 Figure 42. ResidenƟal Unit Demand Impacts - Per 100 Market Rate Units ................................................ 78 DRAFT
321
Figure 43: Affordable Unit Demand Per 100 Market Rate Units ................................................................. 79 Figure 44. Affordability Gaps ....................................................................................................................... 80 Figure 45. CalculaƟon of Maximum Supported Fee Per Market-Rate Unit ................................................. 80 Figure 46. Maximum Legally Supportable ResidenƟal Linkage Fee Per Square Foot of ResidenƟal Building Area ............................................................................................................................................................. 80 Figure 47. Maximum Legally Supportable Non-ResidenƟal Linkage Fees Per Square Foot ...................... 126 Figure 48. Summary of Affordability Categories ....................................................................................... 133 Figure 49. Employment EsƟmate for Prototypical 100,000 Square Foot Buildings .................................. 135 Figure 50. Net New Jobs ........................................................................................................................... 136 Figure 51. Number of Housing Units Needed ........................................................................................... 136 Figure 52. Percent of Jobs by OccupaƟon ................................................................................................. 138 Figure 53. Number of Worker Households by Worker OccupaƟon Category ........................................... 139 Figure 54. Placer County Worker Compensation by Building Type (2025) ............................................... 140 Figure 55. RaƟo of Household Income to Individual Worker Income ....................................................... 141 Figure 56. 2025 Household Income Limits for Placer County ................................................................... 141 Figure 57. Percent of Households by Size and No. of Workers ................................................................. 142 Figure 58. Number of Households by Income Category Per 100,000 Square Feet of Building................. 143 Figure 59. Percentage of Households by Income Category ...................................................................... 143 Figure 60. New Worker Households Per Square Foot ............................................................................... 144 Figure 61. Affordability Gaps ..................................................................................................................... 144 Figure 62. Maximum Legally Supportable Non-ResidenƟal Linkage Fees Per Square Foot ...................... 145 Figure 63. Unit Values for Affordable Rental Units ................................................................................... 192 Figure 64. Affordability Gap for Moderate Income Households ............................................................... 192 Figure 65. Affordability Gap CalculaƟon ................................................................................................... 193 DRAFT
322
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 1
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx

SUMMARY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DRAFT
323
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 2
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
The City of Rocklin (“City”) is considering adopƟng inclusionary housing requirements on residenƟal development and affordable housing development impact fees on non-residenƟal development to support the development of affordable housing and to help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs (RHNA) allocaƟon. This DraŌ Report, including the Summary and RecommendaƟons and four technical reports, was prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) pursuant to a contract with the City.

Together, the analyses provide documentaƟon and support for the adopƟon of an inclusionary ordinance with in-lieu fees and a commercial linkage fee. This DraŌ Report presents an overview of the findings and provides draŌ recommendaƟons for the City’s affordable housing program. Full documentaƟon of each of the following analyses can be found in the Technical Reports:

 Technical Report 1: Housing Analysis and Financial Feasibility Analysis, which analyzes the housing market in Rocklin, the City’s Regional Housing Needs (RHNA), and evaluates the feasibility of a range of potenƟal affordable housing obligaƟons. The Technical Report also includes a review of the affordable housing requirements in neighboring jurisdicƟons.

 Technical Report 2: ResidenƟal Nexus Analysis, which documents the impact that new market rate residenƟal development has on the demand for affordable housing. This analysis provides a contextual comparison to the financial feasibility analysis and may also be used in support of fees charged for fracƟonal unit inclusionary obligaƟons. The nexus analysis is not a legal requirement for establishing onsite inclusionary housing requirements or in-lieu fees.

 Technical Report 3: Non-ResidenƟal Nexus Analysis, which documents the impact that new non- residenƟal development has on the demand for affordable housing. This analysis is prepared to meet the requirements of the California MiƟgaƟon Fee Act in order to establish an affordable housing linkage fee for new non-residenƟal development.

 Technical Report 4: Affordability Gap Analysis, which esƟmates the financial gap between what lower income households can afford to pay and the cost of producing new affordable housing in Rocklin. The Affordability Gaps are used as inputs to the Financial Feasibility Analysis and both nexus analyses.

The Summary and RecommendaƟons secƟon of the DraŌ Report contains a brief overview of the methodology and findings of each analysis. Based on the findings of the analyses, together with our understanding of the City’s policies and prioriƟes, the report presents a set of draŌ recommendaƟons for consideraƟon by the City.

The analyses in this report have been prepared using the best and most recent data available. Local and current data was used whenever possible. Sources such as the United States Census (Census), the American Community Survey of the Census (ACS), California Employment Development Department (EDD) and the United States Bureau of Labor StaƟsƟcs (BLS) data were used extensively. Other sources and analyses are noted in the Technical Reports. While we believe all sources uƟlized are sufficiently accurate for the purposes of the analyses, we cannot guarantee their accuracy. KMA assumes no liability for informaƟon from these and other sources.

DRAFT
324
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 3
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
I. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

KMA evaluated the development pipeline in Rocklin and conducted a residenƟal market study to idenƟfy prototypical residenƟal product types in the City. Five prototypes were established: three single family detached projects with a range of densiƟes, an aƩached townhome project, and an apartment project.

These market rate prototypes are the starƟng points for the feasibility analysis and the residenƟal nexus analysis.

Figure 1. Market Rate ResidenƟal Prototypes
Low Density
SFD
Medium
Density SFD
Medium High
Density SFD Townhome Apartments
Density 3 dua 5 dua 12 dua 18 dua 25 dua
Number of Stories 1-2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 3 stories Average Unit Size 3,400 sf 2,500 sf 1,800 sf 1,600 sf 975 sf Bedroom Mix 50% 4 BR
50% 5 BR
25% 3 BR
75% 4 BR
100% 3 BR 100% 3 BR 35% 1 BR
50% 2 BR
15% 3 BR
Average # of Bedrooms 4.5 BRs 3.75 BRs 3 BRs 3 BRs 1.8 BRs Parking Type 2-car garage 2-car garage 2-car garage 2-car garage Carports, Surface Market Sales Price/Rent $1,300,000 $950,000 $675,000 $550,000 $2,750/mo See Technical Report 1 for more informaƟon.

A. Financial Feasibility Analysis

The financial feasibility analysis esƟmates the development feasibility of the residenƟal prototypes under current condiƟons with no affordable housing obligaƟon, the Base Case scenario. It then tests the ability of each prototype to sustain alternaƟve on-site inclusionary requirements and in-lieu fee rates.

The feasibility analysis esƟmates the costs to develop the new market rate residenƟal projects and the sales revenues or rental income generated upon compleƟon. If the sales revenues or rental income are sufficient to support the development costs and generate a sufficient profit margin, the prototype is considered feasible. This approach to evaluaƟng financial feasibility, known as a pro forma approach or income approach, is standard pracƟce in the real estate industry and is uƟlized in one form or another by all developers when analyzing new construcƟon projects.

Each prototype project is placed into one of the following three categories based on the pro forma results for each scenario:
1) Feasible – includes projects that are generally feasible and expected to develop under current market condiƟons.
2) Marginal – projects with weaker feasibility that require some improvement in economics to move forward.

DRAFT
325
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 4
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
3) Challenged – projects that have feasibility challenges and are not likely to move forward without significant improvements to the pro forma, such as higher prices and rents or lower costs.1

Figure 2 summarizes the current financial feasibility of new residenƟal development in Rocklin. This represents feasibility without an affordable housing obligaƟon.

Figure 2. Feasibility Findings, Base Case, No Affordable Housing ObligaƟon Unit Size
Sales Price /
Developer
Investment
Supported by Rent
Development
Cost
Surplus /
(Gap)
Surplus /
(Gap) as %
of Total
Dev Cost
Feasibility
Conclusion
Low Density Single
Family Detached 3,400 sf $1,300,000 $1,267,000 $33,000 3% Feasible Medium Density Single
Family Detached 2,500 sf $950,000 $933,000 $17,000 2%
Feasible
Medium High Density
Single Family Detached 1,800 sf $675,000 $664,000 $11,000 2% Feasible
Townhome 1,600 sf $550,000 $598,000 ($48,000) -8% Challenged Apartments 750 sf $339,000 $374,000 ($35,000) -9% Challenged See Technical Report 1 for more informaƟon. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

The pro forma model was then used to evaluate the ability of new residenƟal development projects in Rocklin to sustain a range of potenƟal inclusionary housing requirements, including the following scenarios:
 On-Site Affordable Units, with 5%, 10%, and 15% affordable units at affordability levels ranging from Very Low to Moderate Income.

 In-Lieu Fee Scenarios including:
- Fees sufficient for the City to provide gap financing for offsite affordable units equal to 5% to 15% of the units in the market rate project.2
- Fees of $5 and $10 per square foot to be applied to the market rate units.

The pro forma model is also used to calculate the fee levels that would be equivalent to the burden of providing on-site affordable units, also known as the compliance cost. Results of the scenario tesƟng are summarized in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

1 While the analysis of the prototypes may indicate that a type of development is generally “challenged”, the development factors of specific projects vary considerably and may enable some projects of that type to be successfully built.
2 These scenarios assume that the City provides funding for units in a 100% affordable tax-credit financed rental project. See Technical Report 1 for more information.

DRAFT
326
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 5
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
Figure 3. Feasibility Results, For Sale Units: Scenario Testing For Sale Prototypes
Low
Density
SFD
Medium
Density
SFD
Medium
High
Density SFD Townhome
Base Case - No Inclusionary Obligation Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged 5% Onsite at Low Income Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged 10% Onsite at Moderate Income Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged 10% Onsite at Low Income Marginal Marginal Marginal Challenged 10% Onsite at Very Low Income Marginal Marginal Marginal Challenged 15% Onsite at Low Income Challenged Challenged Challenged Challenged In-Lieu Fee @ $5 psf Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged In-Lieu Fee @ $10 psf Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged In-Lieu Fee @ 5% Offsite (City-Funded Units) Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged In-Lieu Fee @ 10% Offsite (City-Funded Units) Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged In-Lieu Fee @ 15% Offsite (City-Funded Units) Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged See Technical Report 1 for more informaƟon.

Figure 4. Feasibility Results, Rental Units: Scenario Testing Apartments
Base Case - No Inclusionary Obligation Challenged
5% Onsite at Low Income Challenged
10% Onsite at Low Income Challenged
10% Onsite at Very Low Income Challenged
15% Onsite at Low Income Challenged
In-Lieu Fee @ $5 psf Challenged
In-Lieu Fee @ $10 psf Challenged
In-Lieu Fee @ 5% Offsite (City-Funded Units) Challenged In-Lieu Fee @ 10% Offsite (City-Funded Units) Challenged In-Lieu Fee @ 15% Offsite (City-Funded Units) Challenged See Technical Report 1 for more informaƟon.

The scenario tesƟng suggests that single family detached prototypes can support onsite obligaƟons of 5% at Low Income or 10% at Moderate Income. Deeper affordability targets, such as 10% Low Income, or 10% at Very Low, reduce project feasibility into the Marginal category for most detached prototypes. A 15% onsite obligaƟon at Low Income challenges feasibility for all of the prototypes. The analysis finds that the in-lieu fees tested are feasible for the three single family detached prototypes.

The feasibility of the townhome and apartment project prototypes are challenged in the Base Case 100% market-rate scenario. Therefore, affordable housing obligaƟons further impair feasibility under current market condiƟons.

DRAFT
327
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 6
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
B. ResidenƟal Nexus Analysis

The residential nexus analysis documents the linkages between market rate residential development in Rocklin and the future demand for additional affordable housing. It is important to note that per current legislation and case law, a nexus study is not required to impose inclusionary housing obligations on market rate residential projects or to impose an option to pay a fee in lieu of providing affordable units in market rate residential projects (in-lieu fees).

KMA prepared the residential nexus study to provide a contextual comparison to the financial feasibility analysis. The purpose of a residential nexus study is to demonstrate and quantify the impact of new market rate residential development on the demand for affordable housing. The underlying nexus concept is that newly constructed market rate residential units represent net new households in Rocklin.

These households generate new income in Rocklin that will be used to consume goods and services. This increased consumption translates into new jobs, a share of which are low paying. These new households with low paying jobs require housing, which results in the new demand for affordable units in Rocklin.

The new demand for affordable units is combined with an estimate of the local funding required to develop new affordable housing units to estimate the maximum nexus costs.

The following table identifies inclusionary percentages derived from the Residential Nexus Study.

Figure 5. Inclusionary Percentage Sufficient to Mitigate Impacts Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3 Prototype 4 Prototype 5

Low Density
Detached
Medium Density
Detached
Medium High
Density Detached
Single Family
Attached Apartments
30% of Median Income 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3%
50% of Median Income 7.2% 5.9% 4.9% 4.1% 3.4%
80% of Median Income 7.0% 5.9% 4.9% 4.2% 3.5%
Subtotal to 80% AMI 14.8% 12.3% 10.2% 8.7% 7.1%

120% of Median Income 5.1% 4.4% 3.6% 3.2% 2.7%
Total (0-120% AMI) 19.9% 16.6% 13.8% 11.8% 9.7%
Totals may not sum due to rounding.

C. Review of Affordable Housing Programs in Other JurisdicƟons

Understanding affordable housing requirements in neighboring jurisdicƟons can provide helpful context when considering new requirements for the City of Rocklin. The jurisdicƟons reviewed by KMA include the City of Sacramento, Roseville, Loomis, Folsom, Elk Grove, Placer County and Rancho Cordova.

Roseville and Rancho Cordova do not have inclusionary housing programs and therefore are not included in the summary below. The review of local programs idenƟfied the following:
 Onsite Requirements: Many local programs have a 10% onsite opƟon or requirement, including Sacramento, Folsom, Loomis, and Placer County. Loomis is the only program that requires onsite units without an in-lieu fee opƟon.

DRAFT
328
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 7
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
 Affordability Levels: The City of Sacramento’s onsite opƟon targets Low Income units. Loomis and Folsom specify Very Low and Low Income units. Placer County’s program targets a mix of Very Low, Low and Moderate Income units.

 In-lieu and Impact Fees. Sacramento, Folsom and Placer County assess their fees per square foot of market rate units, while Elk Grove has a flat rate per market rate unit. Loomis only allows fees for fracƟonal units and has not yet established a fee level. Fees in the local jurisdicƟons are primarily in the $3.00 per square foot range, with the excepƟon of the proposed fee in Loomis.

Fees in this range will almost certainly be less costly than providing units onsite, and developers will select fee payment over providing units in most cases when allowed. The analysis suggests that fees in the $3.00 per square foot range are approximately equivalent to a jurisdicƟon’s cost to support the construcƟon of affordable units within a 100% affordable tax credit financed project equal to 5% of the market rate units.
 AlternaƟve Compliance OpƟons. Most programs offer a range of compliance opƟons including land dedicaƟon and offsite construcƟon. AddiƟonal compliance opƟons allowed in some jurisdicƟons include acquisiƟon and rehabilitaƟon of affordable units, credits, preservaƟon of exisƟng units and custom proposals. Most require approval from the jurisdicƟon.

D. Developer Input

KMA sought input from market rate developers acƟve in Rocklin and throughout the region, through stakeholder meeƟngs, one-on-one interviews, email communicaƟons and shared pro formas. Members of the development community noted the following:
 Development in Rocklin can be more expensive than in neighboring communiƟes due to the soil condiƟons. Horizontal development costs (site work, grading, etc.) vary significantly in Rocklin depending on whether hard rock is found on the site.
 TradiƟonal single family detached products on tradiƟonal lots are financially feasible in Rocklin, but it is difficult to get more complicated or higher density projects to meet target feasibility thresholds. Projects that are feasible in other jurisdicƟons, such as alley-loaded single family detached products, are not feasible for many developers in Rocklin due to higher development costs.
 Total fees (permiƫng, impact fees, and connecƟon fees) are significant and are impacƟng project feasibility, especially for apartment projects. In parƟcular, water connecƟon fees charged by Placer County Water Agency and sewer connecƟon fees charged by South Placer Municipal UƟlity District add significant expense to a project.
 Affordable housing fees that fall within the range of neighboring jurisdicƟons are thought to be feasible in Rocklin.
 Fees are preferred to onsite obligaƟons. One developer noted that an onsite obligaƟon without an in-lieu fee opƟon would prevent them from building in the City in the future.

DRAFT
329
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 8
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
 Allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to saƟsfy the affordability requirements for larger single family homes can be a financially feasible way to create affordable units.

 A developer suggested that inclusionary fees should not be applied to projects that are aiming to be affordable by design and that establishing a policy to reduce exisƟng fees (including connecƟon fees) on projects that are affordable by design would encourage the development of addiƟonal affordable housing.

E. City of Rocklin’s RHNA ObligaƟons

RHNA obligaƟons represent a minimum projecƟon of addiƟonal housing units needed to accommodate projected household growth at all income levels by the end of the Housing Element’s statutory planning period. The City's RHNA obligaƟons for the 2021-2029 Housing Element period are shown below.

Figure 6. City of Rocklin RHNA ObligaƟons, 2021-2029 Housing Element Period Income Category (% of AMI) Number of Units Percent of Units Very Low (< 50% AMI) 1,911 34%
Low (50 – 80%) 1,151 20%
Moderate (80 – 120%) 771 14%
Above Moderate (Over 120%) 1,828 32%
Total 5,661 100%
Source: City of Rocklin.

Per State law, the City prepares a Housing Element Annual Progress Report for submiƩal to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The report documents the City’s progress towards meeƟng its RHNA obligaƟons, including data on enƟtlements, approvals, and building permits.

Figure 7 presents the number of building permits issued by income level from 2018 through 2025.

Figure 7. City of Rocklin Permitted Housing Units Per Year, By Income Level Year Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total 2018 0 0 0 45 540 585
2019 2 0 0 82 355 439
2020 2 0 4 151 266 423
2021 0 5 2 10 502 519
2022 32 60 196 32 239 559
2023 0 0 0 0 185 185
2024 0 0 0 0 256 256
2025 28 37 45 0 194 304
Total 64 102 247 320 2,537 3,270
Percent 2% 3% 8% 10% 78% 100%
Source: California Housing & Community Development. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

As shown in Figure 7, the vast majority of building permits issued in the City are for housing units affordable to Above Moderate Income households. The percentage of total units declines as the DRAFT
330
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 9
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
affordability of the units deepens, with only 2% of units permiƩed affordable to Extremely Low Income households.

Recently, the City has been in discussions to provide assistance to two addiƟonal tax-credit funded affordable housing rental developments, which would provide new Very Low and Low Income housing units. These projects are not represented in the numbers in Figure 7.

An inclusionary housing program is one tool that ciƟes may use to meet RHNA obligaƟons.

F. RecommendaƟons

Based on the findings of the financial feasibility analysis, a review of the requirements in other jurisdicƟons, a review of the City’s progress towards its RHNA obligaƟons, discussions with City staff and input received from the development community, KMA recommends the following affordable housing obligaƟons:
 The City establish an inclusionary housing program including an onsite obligation with an in-lieu fee option.
 All residential projects should be subject to an onsite obligation equal to 5% of units at Low Income.
 Developments should be allowed to pay an in-lieu fee, by right, in the range of $5.00 per square foot of livable area. This is approximately the amount of funding required for the City to assist with the development of new off-site affordable units equal to between 5% and 10% of the market rate project.
 Given that the economics of developing multi-family housing is currently challenged, the City could consider levying a fee of less than $5.00 per square foot on multifamily units.  The fees should be indexed to changes in the California Construction Cost Index and adjusted annually.
 Projects with nine or fewer units should be exempt from the affordable housing program requirements.

II. NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

A. Non-ResidenƟal Nexus Analysis

The non-residential nexus analysis documents the linkages between non-residential development in Rocklin and the demand for additional affordable housing. The analysis is conducted to meet the requirements imposed by several United States Supreme Court decisions, and by California Government DRAFT
331
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 10
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
Code Section 66000 et seq., which is sometimes referred to as “the Mitigation Fee Act.” These analyses are commonly referred to as linkage or nexus analyses.

This analysis evaluates a cross section of non-residential development types that have occurred in Rocklin in recent years, and/or that may be built in the near-term future. For each land use, the analysis translates new development into new jobs, a share of which are low paying. The new households with low paying jobs require housing, which results in the new demand for affordable units in Rocklin. The new demand for affordable units is combined with an estimate of the local funding required to develop new affordable housing units to estimate the maximum nexus costs.

The following table idenƟfies the maximum legally supportable nexus costs derived from the Non- ResidenƟal Nexus Study. These nexus costs represent the maximum legally supportable Non-ResidenƟal Linkage Fee amounts. However, it is important to note that these are not the fee amounts being recommended by KMA.

Figure 8. Maximum Legally Supportable Non-ResidenƟal Linkage Fees Per Square Foot Retail / Commercial $72.50
Office $71.00
Hotel / Lodging $29.10
Warehouse $17.10
Light Industrial $28.80
Research and Development $28.20
See Technical Report 3 for more informaƟon.

B. Housing Fees in Other JurisdicƟons

KMA reviewed the affordable housing linkage fees imposed by other jurisdicƟons in the Sacramento / Placer County region. For the jurisdicƟons with housing linkage fees, the fees are in the $1.00 - $3.00 per square foot, generally. Roseville does not have a linkage fee, nor does the western part of Placer County.

DRAFT
332
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 11
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
Figure 9. Non-Residential Affordable Housing Linkage Fees Land Use Fees per SF
City of Sacramento Office
Hotel
Commercial
Manufacturing
Warehouse/Office
$3.33
$3.18
$2.68
$2.08
$0.91
Folsom Office, Retail, Industrial, and
Manufacturing
$2.05
County of Sacramento Office
Hotel
R&D
Commercial
Manufacturing
Warehouse
$3.00
$3.00
$2.00
$2.00
$1.00
$1.00
Elk Grove Commercial/Retail
Hotel
Manufacturing
Warehouse
$1.05
$3.11
$1.19
$1.28
Citrus Heights Office
Hotel
Industrial/ R&D
Commercial/Retail
$1.89
$2.28
$1.62
$1.72
Rancho Cordova Office
Hotel
R&D
Commercial
Manufacturing
Warehouse
$0.97
$0.92
$0.82
$0.77
$0.61
$0.26
Placer County, Sierra and Lake Tahoe area only All Non-Residential $2.73 See Technical Report 3 for more informaƟon.

C. RecommendaƟons

If the City of Rocklin would like to establish an affordable housing linkage fee on new non-residenƟal development, KMA recommends fee levels similar to those charged in the neighboring jurisdicƟons. For new office, hotel and commercial space, a fee in the $2.75 to $3.00 range is comparable to Rocklin’s neighbors. For manufacturing, industrial, and warehousing space, a fee in the $1.00 to $2.00 range is comparable to neighboring jurisdicƟons. If Rocklin desires to encourage non-residenƟal development in Downtown Rocklin, it could consider applying a reduced fee to the Downtown.

DRAFT
333
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 12
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
TECHNICAL REPORT 1: HOUSING ANALYSIS AND FINANCIAL

FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS REPORT

DRAFT
334
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 13
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
The City of Rocklin (“City”) is considering the adopƟon of an affordable housing requirement for new residenƟal development. This Technical Report documents the Housing Analysis and Financial Feasibility Analysis conducted by Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) pursuant to a contract with the City. It was prepared to provide support and context for the City’s affordable housing program. The analysis begins with a Housing Analysis to develop market rate prototypes and affordable rents and sales prices. The Housing Analysis includes a residenƟal market study and an affordability study. The analysis then evaluates the current financial feasibility of the prototypes and models the impact on project feasibility of a range of potenƟal affordable housing requirements, including onsite obligaƟons and in-lieu fee opƟons. This report also includes a review of affordable housing programs in other jurisdicƟons near Rocklin.

I. RESIDENTIAL MARKET STUDY

This secƟon presents the findings of the residenƟal market study, conducted in support of the financial feasibility analysis and the residenƟal nexus analysis. The market study was conducted in Spring and Summer 2025. The purpose of the market study is to idenƟfy the range of residenƟal product types expected to be built in the City in the near-term future and to assign average unit characterisƟcs (square footage, bedrooms, parking, etc.) and market sales prices or rents to each product type.

A. Housing Development and Prototype Projects

The City of Rocklin provided informaƟon on recently built projects as well as projects in the development pipeline. Technical Report 1 Table 1 presents a summary of recent single family detached development in the City, including project densiƟes and an overview of lot sizes, when available. The density categories correspond to the City’s land use designaƟons for single family detached units: Low Density ResidenƟal (up to 3.4 units to the acre), Medium Density ResidenƟal (3.5 to 8.4 units to the acre) and Medium High Density ResidenƟal (8.5 to 15.4 units to the acre). While the City of Rocklin is nearing build-out of its residenƟal land, the City sƟll expects development in each of these three land use categories in the future.

Technical Report 1 Table 2 presents summaries of higher density residenƟal development. As shown in the table, there are several higher density rental apartment projects in the City’s development pipeline.

There are, however, only a few higher density ownership projects in the development pipeline. As the City approaches buildout, it is anƟcipated that higher density ownership projects will become more common. The City requested that KMA model a typical aƩached townhome development based on examples from the greater Sacramento region, as this project type is expected in the future.

KMA’s review of the development pipeline idenƟfied five development prototypes. The prototypes are selected to represent the range of typical market rate development expected in the short- to mid-term future in Rocklin. The development program for each of the prototypes is summarized in the figure below.

DRAFT
335
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 14
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
Figure 10. Market Rate Residential Prototypes
Low Density
SFD
Medium
Density SFD
Medium High
Density SFD
Townhome Apartments
Density 3 dua 5 dua 12 dua 18 dua 25 dua
Number of Stories 1-2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 3 stories Average Unit Size 3,400 sf 2,500 sf 1,800 sf 1,600 sf 975 sf Bedroom Mix 50% 4 BR
50% 5 BR
25% 3 BR
75% 4 BR
100% 3 BR 100% 3 BR 35% 1 BR
50% 2 BR
15% 3 BR
Average # of Bedrooms 4.5 BRs 3.75 BRs 3 BRs 3 BRs 1.8 BRs Parking Type 2-car garage 2-car garage 2-car garage 2-car garage Carports, Surface See Technical Report 1 Table 3.

For more informaƟon on the prototypes, including sample photographs and a list of example projects in Rocklin, see Technical Report 1 Table 3.

B. Market CondiƟons

KMA reviewed the performance of the residenƟal market in order to establish typical sales prices and rent levels for the prototypes summarized in the figure above.

1. Market Rate Rents
As shown in Figure 11, the City of Rocklin has experienced fairly steady growth in market rate rents over the past 15 years. The average rent in the City for all units, new and old, is approximately $2,500 per month.

Figure 11. Historic Rents and Vacancy Rates, City of Rocklin

Source: CoStar.

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025 YTDEffective Rent Vacancy %
DRAFT
336
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 15
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
Technical Report 1 Table 4 presents rents in apartment units built since 2000 in the City of Rocklin. New apartment units typically rent for a premium over older units. To esƟmate the rents in new apartment units in Rocklin, KMA reviewed the asking rents in apartments built since 2017, presented in Technical Report 1 Table 5. Four recently built apartment projects were idenƟfied, including The Terraces at Stanford Ranch, Sierra Gateway Apartments, Garnet Creek Apartments and The James. Rents for one- bedroom units ranged from $2,077 per unit to $2,374 per unit, while two-bedroom units ranged from $2,231 to $3,094 per unit, and three-bedroom units from $2,604 to $3,002 per unit.3 Based on the asking rents in these projects, KMA esƟmated that the Apartment prototype, which averages 975 sf and

1.8 bedrooms, would rent for approximately $2,750 per month.

Figure 12 below shows the asking rents for units in the four newer apartment projects in Rocklin, along with the esƟmated rent for the Apartment prototype.

Figure 12. Asking Rents in Newer Apartment Projects in Rocklin (Built Since 2017) Source: CoStar, KMA.

2. Market Rate Sales Prices
As shown in Figure 13, the median sales prices of all homes in Rocklin has hovered around the $700,000 range since 2023. As with the apartments, new homes typically sell for a premium over older homes. In addition, around the median sales price, there is a fairly wide spread of home prices reflecting the range of unit sizes built in the City.
3 Typically, 3-bedroom units have higher rents and more square footage than 2-bedrooms units. The market data for newer units in Rocklin include a project with larger 2-bedroom units on average than 3-bedroom units, with slightly higher average rents. See Technical Report 1 Table 5 for more information.

Apartment
Prototype
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Asking Rent/month
Square Feet
DRAFT
337
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 16
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
Figure 13. Median Sales Prices, All Homes, 2022-2025

Source: Realtor.com

KMA reviewed the asking prices of new homes in Rocklin, summarized below in Figure 14 and presented with more detail in Technical Report 1 Table 6. New homes currently marketing in Rocklin range in size from 1,200 sf to over 4,000 sf, with asking prices ranging from just over $500,000 to almost $1.5 million.

The unit sizes and asking prices of the four ownership prototypes are also shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14. Asking Prices of New Homes in Rocklin

Source: The Gregory Group, KMA.

To supplement the new home asking sales prices data, KMA also reviewed the selling prices of newer homes in Rocklin, including new sales and resales of newer units. Figure 15, below, shows the sales prices for homes built since 2015 and sold since January 2024. AddiƟonal detail on homes built since 2020 and sold since January 2024 is provided in Technical Report 1 Table 7. Again, the data illustrates the wide range in unit sizes and sales prices for single family homes in the City.

$400,000
$450,000
$500,000
$550,000
$600,000
$650,000
$700,000
$750,000
$800,000
Feb-22 Aug-22 Mar-23 Oct-23 Apr-24 Nov-24 May-25 Dec-25 Low Density SFD
Medium Density
SFD
Med. High Dens.

SFD
Townhome
$300,000
$500,000
$700,000
$900,000
$1,100,000
$1,300,000
$1,500,000
$1,700,000
800 1,300 1,800 2,300 2,800 3,300 3,800 4,300 4,800
Sales Price
Square Feet
DRAFT
338
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 17
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
Figure 15. Sales Prices of Newer Homes in Rocklin (Built Since 2015)

Source: CoreLogic, KMA.

Using the sales data for new homes and resales of newer homes, KMA esƟmated the sales prices for the four for-sale prototypes. The prototypes are designed to cover the range of product types expected to be built in Rocklin going forward. The sales prices and rents for all five prototypes are shown in Figure 16 below.

Figure 16. Market Rate Prototypes
Low Density
SFD
Medium
Density SFD
Medium High
Density SFD
Townhome Apartments
Density 3 dua 5 dua 12 dua 18 dua 25 dua
Number of Stories 1-2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 3 stories Average Unit Size 3,400 sf 2,500 sf 1,800 sf 1,600 sf 975 sf Bedroom Mix 50% 4 BR
50% 5 BR
25% 3 BR
75% 4 BR
100% 3 BR 100% 3 BR 35% 1 BR
50% 2 BR
15% 3 BR
Average # of Bedrooms 4.5 BRs 3.75 BRs 3 BRs 3 BRs 1.8 BRs Parking Type 2-car garage 2-car garage 2-car garage 2-car garage Carports, Surface
Market Sales Price/Rent $1,300,000 $950,000 $675,000 $550,000 $2,750/mo See Technical Report 1 Table 3.

The prototypes shown in Figure 16 are used in the financial feasibility analysis and the residenƟal nexus analysis. They are intended to reflect the range of likely market rate development in Rocklin over the next five to ten years. They were reviewed by the development community as part of the Stakeholder MeeƟng in August 2025.

Low Density SFD
Medium Density
SFD
Med. High Dens.

SFD
Townhome$350,000
$550,000
$750,000
$950,000
$1,150,000
$1,350,000
$1,550,000
$1,750,000
$1,950,000
$2,150,000
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000
Sales Price
Square Feet
DRAFT
339
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 18
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
II. AFFORDABILITY STUDY
This section presents an overview of the City’s affordable housing obligations, the affordability of market rate units, the household income categories included in the analysis, and the affordable rents and sales prices used in the analysis.

A. RHNA ObligaƟons and Historical Permiƫng Trends
The City's Regional Housing Needs AllocaƟon (RHNA) for the 2021-2029 Housing Element period is shown below. RHNA obligaƟons represent a minimum projecƟon of addiƟonal housing units needed to accommodate projected household growth at all income levels by the end of the Housing Element’s statutory planning period.

Figure 17. City of Rocklin RHNA ObligaƟons, 2021-2029 Housing Element Period Income Category (% of AMI) Number of Units Percent of Units Very Low (< 50% AMI) 1,911 34%
Low (50 – 80%) 1,151 20%
Moderate (80 – 120%) 771 14%
Above Moderate (Over 120%) 1,828 32%
Total 5,661 100%
Source: City of Rocklin.

Per State law, the City prepares a Housing Element Annual Progress Report for submiƩal to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The report documents the City’s progress towards meeƟng its RHNA obligaƟons, including data on enƟtlements, approvals, and building permits.

Figure 18 presents the number of building permits issued by income level from 2018 through 2025.

Figure 18. City of Rocklin Permitted Housing Units Per Year, By Income Level Year Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
2018 0 0 0 45 540 585
2019 2 0 0 82 355 439
2020 2 0 4 151 266 423
2021 0 5 2 10 502 519
2022 32 60 196 32 239 559
2023 0 0 0 0 185 185
2024 0 0 0 0 256 256
2025 28 37 45 0 194 304
Total 64 102 247 320 2,537 3,270
Percent 2% 3% 8% 10% 78% 100%
Source: California Housing & Community Development. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

As shown in Figure 18, the vast majority of building permits issued in the City are for housing units affordable to Above Moderate Income households. The percentage of total units declines as the DRAFT
340
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 19
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
affordability of the units deepens, with only 2% of units permiƩed affordable to Extremely Low Income households.

Recently, the City has been in discussions to provide assistance to two addiƟonal tax-credit funded affordable housing rental developments, which would provide new Very Low and Low Income housing units. These projects are not represented in the numbers in Figure 18.

An inclusionary housing program is one tool that ciƟes may use to meet RHNA obligaƟons.

B. Household Income Categories

The financial feasibility analysis addresses the following income categories defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in relation to the Area Median Income (AMI):
 Very Low Income: households earning up to 50% of AMI;  Low Income: households earning over 50% of AMI and up to 80% of AMI; and  Moderate Income: households earning over 80% of AMI and up to 120% of AMI.

The 2025 median income for a family of four in Placer County is $120,800. Figure 19 idenƟfies income limits for each income category and household size.

Figure 19. 2025 Placer County Income Limits

Household Size (Persons)
Income Category % of AMI 1 2 3 4 5 6
Extremely Low Income 30% AMI $27,050 $30,900 $34,750 $38,600 $41,700 $44,800 Very Low Income 50% AMI $45,050 $51,450 $57,900 $64,300 $69,450 $74,600 Low Income 80% AMI $72,050 $82,350 $92,650 $102,900 $111,150 $119,400 Median Income 100% AMI $84,550 $96,650 $108,700 $120,800 $130,450 $140,150 Moderate Income 120% AMI $101,450 $115,950 $130,450 $144,950 $156,550 $168,150 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2025 Income Limits.

AMI = Area Median Income

The affordable prices and rents for the income categories addressed in the analysis are shown in Figure 20 and Figure 21. SupporƟng calculaƟons are provided in Technical Report 1 Tables 8 and 9.

Figure 20. 2025 Affordable Prices
Single Family Detached AƩached
3-BR 4-BR 5-BR 3-BR 4-BR
Very Low Income, 50% of AMI Prices $143,800 $149,100 $154,600 $137,600 $147,600 Low Income, 70% of AMI Prices $226,200 $237,900 $250,200 $220,000 $236,400 Moderate Income, 110% of AMI Prices $466,100 $497,300 $528,900 $460,100 $495,800 Based on 2025 Income Limits. Assumes a 10% downpayment. See Technical Report 1 Table 8 for supporƟng calculaƟons.

DRAFT
341
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 20
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx

Figure 21. 2025 Affordable Rents (Monthly)
Studio 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR
Very Low Income, 50% of AMI Rents $977 $1,112 $1,225 $1,338 Low Income, 60% of AMI Rents $1,188 $1,354 $1,497 $1,640 Based on 2025 Income Limits. Affordable rents are net of uƟlity allowance. See Technical Report 1 Table 9 for supporƟng calculaƟons.

C. Household Income Needed to Afford Prototype New Market Rate Units

The esƟmated household income needed to afford prototype market rate units is idenƟfied in Technical Report 1 Table 10. Findings are based on market prices and rents, shown in from Figure 22. As shown:
 For sale prototypes – households need between 113% and 223% of area median income to afford prototype market rate for-sale units, depending on the prototype. This assumes the household has a 20% cash down payment.4
 Rental prototypes – households need 108% of area median income to afford prototype market rate rental units.

The esƟmated market prices for the higher density for sale prototypes are within a range that Moderate Income households can afford, assuming the homebuyer has a 20% cash down payment. Market rents for new prototype rental apartment units are affordable for Moderate Income households (up to 120% AMI).

Figure 22. Affordability of New Market Rate Units
Low
Density SFD
Medium
Density SFD
Medium High
Density SFD Townhome Apartments
Prototype Sales Price / Rent Level $1,300,000 $950,000 $675,000 $550,000 $2,750 Household Income (% of AMI)
Required to
223% 175% 134% 113% 108%
EsƟmates assume a 20% downpayment. See Technical Report 1 Table 10.

III. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

The financial feasibility analysis evaluates the economics of the prototype residenƟal development projects and tests their ability to sustain alternaƟve affordable housing fee rates and on-site inclusionary requirements.

The feasibility analysis esƟmates the costs to develop the new market rate residenƟal projects and the sales revenues or rental income generated upon compleƟon. If the sales revenues or rental income are sufficient to support the development costs and generate a sufficient profit margin, the prototype is

4 A 20% down payment reduces monthly mortgage payments and eliminates a need for mortgage insurance. This in turn reduces the income estimated to be needed to afford the unit, due to lower monthly housing costs. The affordable sales prices assume a 10% downpayment, increasing the amount of income required to afford a unit.

DRAFT
342
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 21
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
considered feasible. This approach to evaluaƟng financial feasibility, known as a pro forma approach or income approach, is standard pracƟce in the real estate industry and is uƟlized in one form or another by all developers when analyzing the feasibility of new construcƟon projects.

A. Analysis LimitaƟons

This analysis, by its nature, can only provide an overview-level assessment of development economics because it is based on prototypical projects rather than specific projects. Every project has unique characterisƟcs that will dictate rents or sale prices supported by the market as well as development costs and developer return requirements. Each developer will assess a project’s risks and returns and assemble project financing differently. The economics of actual projects may look beƩer, and some may look worse than those of the prototypes analyzed.

The feasibility analysis represents a snapshot of real estate market condiƟons as of the Ɵme this analysis was prepared in the summer / early fall 2025. Real estate development economics are fluid and are impacted by constantly changing condiƟons with regard to rent potenƟal and sale prices, construcƟon costs, land costs, and costs of financing. A year or two from now, condiƟons will undoubtedly be different than they are today.

B. Development Investment Supported, Rental Projects

The magnitude of investment supported for new for sale housing is determined by the sales prices of the new units, shown in Figure 16. For new rental units, the amount of developer investment supported is oŌen calculated using Net OperaƟng Income and an esƟmated return on cost.

Net OperaƟng Income (NOI) is equal to the annual rental income plus other income (laundry, pet income, etc.) minus operaƟng expenses and a 5% allowance for credit loss and vacancy. As shown in Figure 23, the NOI for market rate units is esƟmated at $21,200/unit/year. NOI is divided by a return on cost (ROC)5 to esƟmate the amount of developer investment (debt and equity) that can be supported by the rental income from the project. A 6.25% threshold developer return on cost is used, based on a combinaƟon of published surveys and feedback provided by local developers. On this basis, the supported investment with 100% market rate units is esƟmated at $339,000.

Figure 23. Net OperaƟng Income and Investment Supported, 100% Market Rate Apartment Prototype
Monthly Rent $2,750
Gross Rental Income $33,000
Other Income $1,200
(Less) 5% Vacancy, OperaƟng Expense, Taxes ($13,000)
Net OperaƟng Income $21,200
Threshold Return on Cost 6.25%
Developer Investment Supported $339,000

5 Return on Cost (ROC) represents the ratio between net operating income and development cost of the project.

DRAFT
343
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 22
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
C. ResidenƟal Land Values

Data on residential land sales was accessed from CoStar, a third-party vendor of market data, Zillow, and active local developers. Technical Report 1 Table 11 provides a summary of the residential land sale transactions by type. Few land transactions have occurred since 2022, and the published data does not always indicate whether the sale represents raw land or finished lots. The condition of lots at sale is an important consideration in pricing. Finished lots with necessary intract street and utility improvements will sell for a premium over lots without these improvements in place. This is particularly true in Rocklin, where soil conditions can make site development costs very expensive. Site development costs vary greatly throughout the City, and discussions with developers and city staff suggest that the soil conditions add uncertainty as well as expense to development in Rocklin. For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that site development costs will be significantly more expensive than is typically experienced throughout the broader market area. It is expected that some projects in Rocklin will have lower site development costs.

Figure 24. Land and Site Work Cost Estimates
Prototype Density
(du/ac)
Representative
Lot Size (sf)
Site Cost Per
Unit
Intract
Improvements
Per Lot/Unit
Finished Lot/
Per Unit Cost
(before fees)
Low Density SFD 3 11,000 $145,000 $305,000 $450,000
Medium Density SFD 5 7,000 $105,000 $192,000 $297,000 Medium High Density
SFD
12 3,000 $44,000 $134,000 $178,000
Townhome 18 attached $29,000 $90,000 $119,000
Apartments 25 n/a $17,000 $38,000 $56,000
Totals may not sum due to rounding.

D. Development Costs

The direct costs of development include all contractor labor and material costs to construct the project including general requirements, contractor fees, and contingencies. As shown in Figure 26, the direct construction costs are estimated between $195,000 to $374,000/unit depending upon the unit type and size. Key variables with respect to direct costs include the size of the unit, unit type, and overall density.

In general, higher density prototypes are more costly on a per square foot basis than lower density prototypes. The cost estimates have been made based on cost figures provided by development professionals active in the local market and third-party cost estimator Marshall & Swift.

Indirect costs of development include architecture and engineering (A&E), municipal fees and permits costs, taxes, insurance, overhead, debt financing costs, etc. Fees and permits were estimated using two or three sample projects for each prototype. The City provided fee payment data for the sample projects that were processed through the City. In some cases, the projects were processed before the City adopted a set of new impact fees; KMA added an estimate for the new City fees as necessary. Given the recent increases in Placer County Water Agency water connection fees, KMA calculated water connection fees based on the mix of lot sizes, non-residential (landscaping) meter sizes, etc., for the DRAFT
344
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 23
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
sample projects but applied the current rates. In addition, a local developer provided fee calculations for a project under development, and a second developer reviewed and confirmed that the estimates were generally consistent with their experience. For scenarios that include affordable housing on-site for households earning less than 60% AMI, the City’s existing program of reducing certain impact fees is taken into consideration in the estimates.

Figure 25. Total Permiƫng, Impact and ConnecƟon Fee EsƟmates, New ResidenƟal Units Low
Density SFD
Medium
Density SFD
Medium High
Density SFD Townhome Apartments
Gross Square Footage 3,400 sf 2,500 sf 1,800 sf 1,600 sf 1,026 sf City, County, State, PCTPA Permits & Fees $39,000 $35,000 $34,500 $28,000 $21,000 School Impact Fees ($5.17/gross sf) $17,578 $12,925 $9,306 $8,272 $5,306 PCWA Water ConnecƟon Fees $23,000 $17,500 $8,500 $8,500 $6,500 SPMUD Sewer ConnecƟon Fees $14,812 $14,812 $14,812 $14,812 $14,812 Total Per Unit, Rounded $94,400 $80,200 $67,100 $59,600 $47,600

Affordable Unit Fee ReducƟon
(40% City Impact Fees)
($4,200) ($3,600) ($3,600) ($3,600) ($1,600)

Estimated financing costs reflect an interest rate of 7% for for-sale prototypes and 8% for rental.

The for-sale pro forma analyses reflect a threshold builder net profit margin of 10% of sales revenue. For rental projects, profit to the developer is captured as part of the return on cost, discussed in Section B above.

Total development cost plus a threshold builder profit margin is estimated to range from roughly $374,000 to $1,267,000/unit depending on the prototype, as summarized in Figure 26. See Technical Report 1 Table 12 for additional details.

Figure 26. Total Development Cost Per Unit

Unit
Size
Land /
Lot Costs
Direct
Construction
Fees and
Permits(1)
Indirects,
Financing,
Sales, Closing
Builder
Profit(2)
Total Cost
+Builder
Profit
Low Density SFD 3,400 sf $450,000 $374,000 $94,400 $219,000 $130,000 $1,267,000 Medium Density SFD 2,500 sf $297,000 $300,000 $80,200 $162,000 $95,000 $933,000 Medium High Density SFD 1,800 sf $178,000 $236,000 $67,100 $116,000 $67,500 $664,000 Townhome 1,600 sf $119,000 $264,000 $59,600 $101,000 $55,000 $598,000 Apartments 975 sf $56,000 $195,000 $47,600 $76,000 n/a $374,000 (1) Includes all connection fees.
(2) Threshold net builder profit margin estimated at 10% of sales. For rentals, developer returns are reflected as part of the return on cost used to identify supported investment.

See Technical Report 1 Table 12 for additional information. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

DRAFT
345
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 24
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
E. Feasibility Criteria

The financial feasibility analysis is based on the relationship between the project’s revenue potential, estimated development costs, and a threshold developer return commensurate with the cost of funds and development risk. Each prototype project is placed into one of the following three categories based on the pro forma results for each scenario:

1) Feasible – includes projects that are generally feasible and expected to develop under current market condiƟons. For-sale projects are classified as feasible if sales revenues are in balance with development costs plus a 10% net profit to the homebuilder. Rental projects are classified as feasible if the developer investment supported by the project’s rental income, based on a threshold return on cost assumpƟon of 6.25%, is in balance with the cost to develop the project.

Projects are deemed to be in balance if revenues are within a 3% margin of costs including a threshold return. This 3% tolerance is in recogniƟon of variaƟon between projects, a margin for error in illustraƟve pro forma analyses, the fact that projects would be fully in balance with slightly more bullish revenue assumpƟons or minor changes in cost esƟmates, because some developers may be willing to move forward with slightly lower returns or have slightly lower overhead, there may be some ability to achieve concessions on land costs, and because in our experience developers may be interested in pursuing projects that fall slightly below targeted return thresholds at the predevelopment stage, depending on market condiƟons and other factors.

2) Marginal Feasibility – projects with weaker feasibility that require some improvement in economics to move forward. Projects classified as marginally feasible have development costs plus builder profit that are out of balance with revenues in excess of the 3% margin cited above, but by no more than 7%.

3) Challenged Feasibility – projects that have feasibility challenges and are not likely to move forward without more significant improvements to the pro forma, such as higher prices and rents or lower costs. Projects classified as infeasible / challenged have development costs plus required builder profit that exceed revenues by more than 7%.

The above categories allow characterization of results in a systematic fashion to facilitate simple comparisons across scenarios. A limitation is that projects with economics that are narrowly separated might be placed in different feasibility categories, without capturing that nuance. Additional detail on each scenario can be found in Technical Report 1 Tables 12 through 22.

Figure 27 summarizes the criteria used to place projects into these three feasibility categories.

DRAFT
346
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 25
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
Figure 27. Feasibility Criteria
Feasibility Category For-Sale Feasibility Criteria Rental Feasibility Criteria Feasible Sales revenues are in balance with the
total development cost of the project plus
a threshold developer return (within 3%).

Development costs including land are in
balance with the developer investment
supported by the project’s rental income
(within 3%).

Marginal Feasibility Total development cost plus a threshold developer return exceeds, by 3% to 7%,
the estimated sales revenues generated
by the project.

Development cost including land exceeds,
by 3% to 7%, the developer investment
that can be supported by the project’s
rental income.

Challenged Feasibility Total development cost plus a threshold developer return exceeds estimated sales
revenues by more than 7%.

Development costs including land exceed
the developer investment supported by the
project’s rental income by more than 7%.

Factors that can improve project feasibility over time include increases in prices or rents, more competitive construction pricing, decreases in fees or other requirements, adjustments to land costs, more favorable investment conditions that reduce the cost of capital, or a combination of these factors.

Of course, future changes could also move in the opposite direction and adversely affect feasibility.

Land prices can adjust in response to market or other factors affecting the economics of development projects, and in this way can sometimes help absorb the impact of these changes. However, there are limits on the potential for adjustments to land values to improve the economics as sellers may prefer to hold out until they achieve pricing consistent with their expectations.

F. Feasibility Findings

Figure 28 summarizes feasibility conclusions for the prototypes under current market conditions with no affordable housing obligation: the Base Case scenario. The analysis shows that the single family detached projects are feasible, based on sales prices that are in line with development costs. The attached townhome project has challenged feasibility, as the estimated sales price does not currently support the higher development costs associated with this product type. For townhomes, the current estimated market rate price per square foot is less than the price per square foot being achieved by detached homes; it is the low sales prices that are hindering the feasibility of townhome development rather than disproportionately high development costs. The apartment prototype was also found to have challenged feasibility based on development costs that exceed the developer investment that is supported by existing market rents. The supporting pro forma table for the Base Case scenario is provided in Technical Report 1 Table 12.

DRAFT
347
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 26
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
Figure 28. Feasibility Findings, Base Case, No Affordable Housing Obligation Unit Size
Sales Price/
Developer
Investment
Supported by Rent
Development
Cost
Surplus /
(Gap)
Surplus /
(Gap) as
% of Total
Dev Cost
Feasibility
Conclusion
Low Density SFD 3,400 sf $1,300,000 $1,267,000 $33,000 3% Feasible Medium Density SFD 2,500 sf $950,000 $933,000 $17,000 2% Feasible Medium High Density SFD 1,800 sf $675,000 $664,000 $11,000 2% Feasible Townhome 1,600 sf $550,000 $598,000 ($48,000) -8% Challenged

Apartments 750 sf $339,000 $374,000 ($34,000) -9% Challenged See Technical Report 1 Table 12 for additional information.

For projects that have a surplus of revenues over total development cost plus a threshold builder profit margin, builder margins would either exceed the minimum threshold, higher lot values would be supported, and/or the project would have a greater ability to absorb additional costs. Where a gap is reflected, builder margins may fall under the threshold return and/or concessions on lot cost or other cost efficiencies would need to be identified.

Note that project feasibility would be expected to vary by project based on a range of factors, including site conditions, location within the City, developer return requirements, unit types and density, and many more. This is particularly true in Rocklin where soil conditions can impact horizontal development costs significantly. While the analysis suggests that single family detached projects are generally feasible and multifamily attached projects have challenged feasibility, this should not be interpreted as universally true within the City. For example, it may be the case that certain developers are willing to move forward on multifamily projects in the current climate due to the specific factors in place for their project and their funding return requirements.

G. Scenario Testing

The pro forma model summarized above was used to evaluate the ability of new residenƟal development projects in Rocklin to sustain a range of potenƟal inclusionary housing requirements, including the following scenarios:
 On-Site Affordable Units, with 5%, 10%, and 15% affordable units at affordability levels ranging from Very Low to Moderate Income.
o Affordable pricing at Very Low (50% AMI), Low (70% of AMI) and Moderate (100% AMI) o Affordable rents at Very Low (50% AMI), and Low (60% of AMI)  In-Lieu Fee Scenarios including:
- Fees sufficient for the City to provide gap financing for offsite affordable units equal to 5% to 15% of the units in the market rate project.6

6 These scenarios assume that the City provides funding for units in a 100% affordable tax-credit financed rental project. For purposes of this analysis, City-funded gap financing is defined as the difference between development costs and the sum of: 4% tax credit proceeds, supported mortgage debt and deferred developer fee, and is assumed to average $134,000 per affordable unit. In many cases, additional funding is secured, which reduces the DRAFT
348
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 27
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
- Fees of $5 and $10 per square foot to be applied to the market rate units.

The pro forma model is also used to calculate the fee levels that would be equivalent to the burden of providing on-site affordable units, also known as the compliance cost. Results of the scenario tesƟng are summarized in Figure 29 and Figure 30, with addiƟonal detail for each scenario provided in Technical Report 1 Tables 13 through 22.

Figure 29. Feasibility Results, For Sale Units: Scenario Testing For Sale Prototypes
Low Density
SFD
Medium
Density SFD
Medium
High
Density SFD Townhome
Base Case - No Inclusionary Obligation Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged 5% Onsite at Low Income Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged 10% Onsite at Moderate Income Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged 10% Onsite at Low Income Marginal Marginal Marginal Challenged 10% Onsite at Very Low Income Marginal Marginal Marginal Challenged 15% Onsite at Low Income Challenged Challenged Challenged Challenged

In-Lieu Fee @ $5 psf Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged In-Lieu Fee @ $10 psf Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged

In-Lieu Fee @ 5% Offsite (City-Funded Units) Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged In-Lieu Fee @ 10% Offsite (City-Funded Units) Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged In-Lieu Fee @ 15% Offsite (City-Funded Units) Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged See Technical Report 1 Tables 12 through 22 for more informaƟon. See Technical Report 1 Table 23 for calculaƟon of the in-lieu fees based on City-Funded Units.

Figure 30. Feasibility Results, Rental Units: Scenario Testing Apartments
Base Case - No Inclusionary Obligation Challenged
5% Onsite at Low Income Challenged
10% Onsite at Low Income Challenged
10% Onsite at Very Low Income Challenged
15% Onsite at Low Income Challenged

In-Lieu Fee @ $5 psf Challenged
In-Lieu Fee @ $10 psf Challenged

In-Lieu Fee @ 5% Offsite (City-Funded Units) Challenged In-Lieu Fee @ 10% Offsite (City-Funded Units) Challenged In-Lieu Fee @ 15% Offsite (City-Funded Units) Challenged See Technical Report 1 Tables 12 through 22 for more informaƟon. See Technical Report 1 Table 23 for calculaƟon of the in-lieu fees based on City-Funded Units.

amount of needed city funding. However, additional funding sources are not assumed for this analysis because they are competitively allocated and not readily available for each project. See Technical Report 1 Table 23 and Technical Report 4 for more information.

DRAFT
349
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 28
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
The scenario tesƟng suggests that single family detached prototypes can support potenƟal onsite obligaƟons of 5% at Low Income or 10% at Moderate Income. Lower affordability targets, such as 10% Low Income or 10% at Very Low Income, reduce project feasibility into the Marginal category for most detached prototypes. A 15% onsite obligaƟon challenges feasibility for all of the prototypes. The analysis finds that the in-lieu fees tested are feasible for the three single family detached prototypes.

The townhome project and the apartment project have challenged feasibility in the Base Case 100% market rate scenario. Therefore, affordable housing obligaƟons further impair feasibility.

H. Compliance Cost Analysis

The cost of complying with alternaƟve affordable housing requirements was expressed as a cost per net square foot of livable area within the project. The purpose is to assist in understanding the relaƟve effects of various alternaƟves on the economics of residenƟal development projects. For scenarios modeling an onsite obligaƟon, the idenƟfied dollar per square foot cost of providing affordable units within the project is referred to as the equivalent in-lieu fee or the compliance costs. The calculaƟon is shown for each onsite scenario on Technical Report 1 Tables 13 through 17. The calculaƟon is based on the net impact to the surplus or gap in the pro forma from seƫng aside a share of units at affordable prices or rents. The surplus/gap from the onsite scenario is compared to the surplus/gap from the Base Case scenario to esƟmate the impact on the project.

The term “cost” is used, although technically the impact of an affordability restricƟon is forgone rent revenue or sales proceeds. Costs are higher when there is a larger difference between market rate and affordable prices or rents. Note that for the townhome prototype and the apartment prototype, the analysis likely understates actual compliance costs, as sales prices and rents for those product types will likely be higher when those projects become feasible.

Figure 31 and Figure 32 present the results of the compliance cost analysis for for-sale and rental projects.

DRAFT
350
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 29
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
Figure 31. Compliance Cost Analysis, For Sale Prototypes

Low Density Single
Family Detached
Medium Density
Single Family
Detached
Medium High
Density Single
Family Detached Townhome
Square Feet Per Unit 3,400 sf 2,500 sf 1,800 sf 1,600 sf psf per unit psf per unit psf per unit psf per unit
5% Onsite at Low $13.44 $45,700 $12.38 $31,000 $10.86 $19,500 $8.94 $14,300 10% Onsite at Moderate $20.06 $68,200 $15.98 $40,000 $10.11 $18,200 $4.87 $7,800 10% Onsite at Low $26.91 $91,500 $24.80 $62,000 $21.66 $39,000 $17.88 $28,600 10% Onsite at Very Low $29.15 $99,100 $27.67 $69,200 $25.42 $45,800 $22.11 $35,400 15% Onsite at Low $40.41 $137,400 $37.22 $93,100 $32.46 $58,400 $26.88 $43,000

In-Lieu Fee @ $5 psf $5.00 $17,000 $5.00 $12,500 $5.00 $9,000 $5.00 $8,000 In-Lieu Fee @ $10 psf $10.00 $34,000 $10.00 $25,000 $10.00 $18,000 $10.00 $16,000

In-Lieu Fee @ 5% Offsite $1.97 $6,700 $2.68 $6,700 $3.72 $6,700 $4.19 $6,700 In-Lieu Fee @ 10% Offsite $3.94 $13,400 $5.36 $13,400 $7.44 $13,400 $8.38 $13,400 In-Lieu Fee @ 15% Offsite $5.91 $20,100 $8.04 $20,100 $11.17 $20,100 $12.56 $20,100 See Technical Report 1 Tables 12 through 22 for more informaƟon. See Technical Report 1 Table 23 for calculaƟon of the in-lieu fees based on City-Funded Offsite Units.

Figure 32. Compliance Cost Analysis, Apartments
Apartments
Square Feet Per Unit 975 sf
psf per unit
5% Onsite at Low Income $11.92 $11,600
10% Onsite at Low Income $23.84 $23,200
10% Onsite at Very Low $28.66 $27,900
15% Onsite at Low $35.65 $34,800

In-Lieu Fee @ $5 psf $5.00 $4,875
In-Lieu Fee @ $10 psf $10.00 $9,750

In-Lieu Fee @ 5% Offsite (City Funded Units) $6.87 $6,700 In-Lieu Fee @ 10% Offsite (City Funded Units) $13.74 $13,400 In-Lieu Fee @ 15% Offsite (City Funded Units) $20.62 $20,100 See Technical Report 1 Tables 12 through 22 for more informaƟon. See Technical Report 1 Table 23 for calculaƟon of the in-lieu fees based on City-Funded Offsite Units.

The compliance cost analysis can be used to understand the relaƟve cost of onsite obligaƟons compared to in-lieu fee levels. For single family detached units, the compliance cost analysis suggests that the onsite obligaƟons tested are more costly to the developer than the in-lieu fees tested. An onsite obligaƟon of 5% at Low is approximately equivalent to an in-lieu fee of $13 per square foot for the largest unit, and less costly for the smaller units. Note that developers tend to select fee payment over onsite units when the opƟons are roughly comparable.

DRAFT
351
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 30
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
I. PotenƟal Development Project Responses to New Requirement

There are a variety of ways development projects could potenƟally respond to a new or significantly increased requirement, just as projects adapt to fluctuaƟons in home prices, rents, construcƟon costs and other factors. A minor change in costs may not result in a substanƟve adjustment to the economics of projects and may not lead to material effects, while a more substanƟve change might elicit one or more of the following possible outcomes:

 Adjustments to Land Costs – Developers purchase development sites at values that will allow for financially feasible projects. When a housing fee or inclusionary housing requirement is in place, developers “price in” the requirement when evaluaƟng a project’s economics and negoƟaƟng the purchase price for development sites. When affordable housing fees or inclusionary requirements are increased, it is possible that downward pressure on land costs could result as developers adjust what they can afford to pay for land. This downward pressure on land prices can, to some degree, bring costs back into beƩer balance with the overall economics supported by projects. While adjustments to land costs are possible, several factors limit the extent to which adjustments can occur. ExisƟng uses on a site that generate income or alternaƟve land uses that compete for a site will tend to dampen the potenƟal for downward adjustments to land price. Landowners have expectaƟons regarding the value of their property and may hold the property off the market rather than accept a less aƩracƟve price, especially if the property is generaƟng income, or it may take Ɵme for pricing expectaƟons to adjust. For larger developments with substanƟal infrastructure requirements, a reducƟon in the value supported by the residenƟal units affects the resources available to fund infrastructure and constrains the ability to absorb reduced land values while maintaining a viable financing plan for required infrastructure.

 Improving Market CondiƟons Sustain Feasibility – When prices and rents are rising, it can help absorb the cost of a new requirement and allow projects to move forward despite an added cost.

 Narrower Range of Market CondiƟons where Projects Are Feasible– If a new requirement makes projects significantly more challenging, projects may only move forward under a narrower range of market condiƟons, or in the extreme case, not at all. For example, following a downturn in the market, once condiƟons begin to improve again and new development projects start to move forward, a significant new requirement could increase the length of Ɵme for projects to begin moving again. In effect, projects may wait for market condiƟons to support somewhat higher market prices or rents before they move forward. In the extreme case, projects may not develop at all if requirements are too high for any market condiƟon the jurisdicƟon is likely to see.

 ShiŌ in Development to Other CommuniƟes – If a new requirement makes it substanƟally more costly to build in the City of Rocklin relaƟve to other nearby communiƟes, projects in nearby communiƟes may be feasible before projects in Rocklin are. This could result in other communiƟes absorbing a larger share of new residenƟal development compared to the Rocklin.

DRAFT
352
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 31
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
Changes that represent a Ɵny fracƟon of the overall development cost of a project may not have a material effect. For more substanƟve changes, a combinaƟon of all the above adjustments may occur, or changes may be weighted toward one type of adjustment or another, depending on condiƟons specific to the jurisdicƟon. For example, a community or neighborhood where market condiƟons are strong and supply is very limited may see new requirements absorbed mainly through adjustments to land values, while a community where market condiƟons are not as strong and potenƟal purchasers of new units tend to be more cost sensiƟve may be more likely to see projects shiŌ toward other jurisdicƟons or move forward under a narrower set of market condiƟons.

IV. AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS

Understanding affordable housing requirements in neighboring jurisdicƟons can provide helpful context when considering new requirements for the City of Rocklin. KMA assembled a summary overview of affordable housing requirements applicable to residenƟal development in seven local jurisdicƟons. The jurisdicƟons include the City of Sacramento, Roseville, Loomis, Folsom, Elk Grove, Placer County and Rancho Cordova. The summary provides the basic requirements (affordable units onsite, affordable housing impact fees, etc.) and alternaƟve compliance opƟons. Some programs are structured as affordable housing impact fees, while some are inclusionary programs with or without in-lieu fee opƟons, and others are implemented through General Plan/Housing Element requirements.

In general, the neighboring jurisdicƟons require the following:

 Affordable Housing Impact Fees
o The City of Sacramento has an affordable impact fee program with a 10% at Low onsite opƟon. The base fee is $3.56 per square foot. An update to the program is underway. o The City of Elk Grove has an impact fee equal to $6,354 per unit for single-family projects (1 to 2 units) and $3,812 per unit for mulƟfamily projects (3 or more units).

 Onsite ObligaƟons with In-Lieu Fees
o The City of Folsom requires for sale projects to set aside 10% of units at Very Low and Low prices but allows projects to pay an in-lieu fee of $3.00 per square foot by right. UnƟl January 2026, the City’s in-lieu fee was set at 1% of the lowest market sales price in the project.
o The Town of Loomis recently adopted an inclusionary program with a 10% onsite requirement. For sale projects are required to provide 10% of units at Low and rental projects 5% at Very Low and 5% at Low. The town allows in-lieu fee payments only for projects with 5 to 9 units, and for fracƟonal units. The town has not yet adopted an in-lieu fee, but the Planning Commission has recommended a fee of $17 per square foot for for-sale projects and $22 per square foot for rental.
o Placer County has a 10% onsite requirement for for-sale and rental projects. The income targets vary by whether the project is part of a Specific or Master Plan. Projects with fewer DRAFT
353
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 32
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
than 100 units are allowed to pay an in-lieu fee of $2.73 per square foot, by right. The County recently completed a study to support potenƟal updates to its program.

 Other Affordable Housing Requirements
o The City of Roseville does not have an inclusionary housing program. The City has a General Plan Goal that 10% of all new housing units will be affordable to moderate, low and very low income households. The goal is implemented through the City’s Specific Plans, which assign affordable housing obligaƟons on a parcel-by-parcel basis. In-lieu fees are occasionally allowed and are calculated on a case-by-case basis. Off-site construcƟon within high-density rental tax credit projects is a permiƩed alternaƟve to onsite affordable units. o The City of Rancho Cordova has a Housing Element Policy that requires new residenƟal projects within the newly developing areas of the City (generally in the large, vacant areas south of Highway 50) to include an Affordable Housing Plan for the project that idenƟfies the project’s plan for providing affordable housing. These areas are typically high resource and promote inclusion of affordable housing in high opportunity areas. Compliance opƟons include onsite affordable units, land dedicaƟon, rehab of exisƟng units, or in-lieu fees.

Technical Report 1 Table 24 provides addiƟonal informaƟon regarding the provisions of each program, including:
 PopulaƟon from the US Census and the California Department of Finance.  Year adopted or most recently updated.
 Program requirements including whether the program requires onsite units, a fee payment, offsite units, or a choice. While some ciƟes technically offer a choice, the fee payment is oŌen significantly less costly than onsite units, suggesƟng that most projects are likely to pay the fee.  Minimum project size. Many programs exempt small projects, either from providing onsite units (allowing fee payment instead of units) or from any housing obligaƟon. The minimum project size is presented by unit tenure and is shown separately for fee payment and build requirements.  Onsite Requirement / OpƟon. Percent of units required and income level of the affordable units.  Impact / In-lieu Fee. Current fee levels and how the fees are assessed.  Deed RestricƟon Term. The length of the deed restricƟon for the inclusionary units by tenure.  Other Compliance OpƟons. AlternaƟve compliance opƟons such as off-site units and dedicaƟng land for affordable housing. Some programs require City/County approval of these opƟons, while others allow them by right.

The review of local programs idenƟfied the following:
 Many local programs have a 10% onsite opƟon or requirement, including Sacramento, Folsom, Loomis, and Placer County. Roseville’s program also establishes a 10% goal.

DRAFT
354
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 33
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
 When units are provided onsite, Loomis and Folsom require a mix of Very Low and Low income units. Roseville and Placer County require a mix of Very Low, Low and Moderate income units.

Sacramento’s onsite opƟon requires units at Low Income.  Fees in the area are most oŌen assessed per square foot of market rate units, including Sacramento, Folsom, Placer County, and the proposed Loomis fee. Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova assess fees on a flat rate per market rate unit, while Roseville bases its fee determinaƟon per affordable unit owed.
 Fees in the local jurisdicƟons are primarily in the $3.00 range, with the excepƟon of the proposed fee in Loomis and the case-by-case fees in Roseville.7  Programs with onsite requirements allow for alternaƟve compliance opƟons including land dedicaƟon and offsite construcƟon. AddiƟonal compliance opƟons allowed in some jurisdicƟons include acquisiƟon and rehabilitaƟon of affordable units, credits, preservaƟon of exisƟng units and custom proposals. Most require approval from the jurisdicƟon.

The informaƟon is summarized from ordinances, guidelines, staff reports, fee resoluƟons and a discussion with Roseville city staff For more detailed informaƟon, please consult the source documents or city/county staff.

7 Roseville does not have an inclusionary housing program but establishes affordability requirements for specific plan areas. The City allows in-lieu fees in limited cases, and the fee is negotiated based on an affordability gap analysis. Off-site construction within high-density rental tax credit projects is a permitted alternative to onsite affordable units.

DRAFT
355
Technical Report 1 Table 1
Summary of Single Family Detached Densities and Lot Sizes Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Project Density Average Lot Size Lot Size Range Notes

1. Low Density (Up to 3.4 dua)
Granite Lake Estates Units 2-4 1.5 17,238 12,500 - 49,268 Whitney Ranch 5.0 10,750 7,593 - 18,471
Vista Oaks, Overall 1.08 >8,000 sf Large open space parcels reduce density.

The Lake at Crowne Pointe 1.93
The Woods at Crowne Pointe 2.5
Edgefield Place, Low Density 3.2

2. Medium Density (3.5 to 8.4 dua)
Tribute Pointe (1) 4.7
Tribute Pointe (2) 4.1
Wrenwood 6.4
Edgefield Place (1), Medium Density 3.8
Edgefield Place (2), Medium Density 7.3
Timbercove 8 3,784 - 4,075 2,700 - 5,451 Average varies for interior and corner lots.

3. Medium High Density (8.5 - 15.4 dua)
Westhaven at Whitney Ranch 12 2,342 1,850 - 5,347 Mixed Use Land Use Westwind 12 3,630 2,925 - 5,258
Source: City of Rocklin.

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File Name: \\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; 2/24/2026; hgr

DRAFT 356
Technical Report 1 Table 2
Recent and Proposed Higher Density Residential Projects Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Analysis
City of Rocklin
Unit Type High Density Residential Single Family Attached Townhomes
Single Family Attached
Townhomes MF Apartment Townhomes Apartments (Detached
and Duplexes) Apartments Apartments Apartments Apartments Apartments Apartments Apartments Project Name Whitney Walk The Residences at West
Oaks
South Whitney Townhomes Terraces at Stanford Ranch II Estia West Oaks Apartments & Townhomes
Stanford Ranch 6.8
Apartments
LoneTree Apartments and
Townhomes, Phase I
Lonetree Apartments Phase
II
South Grove Street
Apartments
Placer Creek Apartments University Apartments
Location S. Whitney Walk & Sunset
Blvd
S. West Oaks Blvd S. Whitney Blvd Stanford Ranch Rd University District. Sunset Blvd & University Ave
6351 West Oaks Blvd W Oaks Blvd & Lonetree Blvd Lonetree Blvd & W. Oaks Blvd
W. Oaks Blvd 5345 South Grove Street University Ave & Whitney Ranch Pkwy
University Ave & Highway
65 & Sunset Blvd
Developer Parish & Associates Brentwood Development USA Investment Associates Golden State Lumber Towne Development of Sacramento, Inc.

Black Iris Properties Blue Mountain General
Contracting
Tekin & Associates, LLC Tekin & Associates, LLC RK Properties and Development
Cole Partners USA Properties Fund
Status Proposed 2025 Selling Approved Leasing Approved 2021 Approved 2023 Proposed 2024 Approved 2021 Proposed 2025 Approved 2021 Approved 2023 Gross Project Site Size
(Residential)

12.9 acres 1.1 acres 1.6 acres 9.2 acres 20 acres 15.9 acres 6.8 acres 10 acres 7 acres 2.7 gr. acres 10.0 acres 12.7 acres No. of Units (du) 170 du 16 du 20 du 119 du 181 du 371 du 165 du 237 du 160 du 78 du 254 du 324 du Density (du/ac) 13.2 dua 14.5 dua 12.3 dua 12.9 dua 9.1 dua 23.4 dua 24.3 dua 22.7 dua 24.2 dua 28.8 dua 25.4 dua 25.5 dua Unit Size Range Single Family:
3 BR: 1,593- 1,788 sf
Duplexes:
2 BR: 1,230- 1,520 sf
3 BR: 1,767 sf
3 BR: 2,140- 2,219 3 BR: 2,077- 2,549 sf
4 BR: 2,689 sf
(includes 2-car garages)
1 BR: 1,023 sf
2 BR: 1,530 sf
3 BR: 1,489 sf
4 BR: 1,850 sf
1 BR: 709 sf
2 BR: 1,083 sf
Not available. Studio: 470 sf
1 BR: 805 sf
2 BR: 983- 1,098 sf
3 BR: 1,186 sf
1 BR: 825 - 1,150
2 BR: 1,118 - 1,301 sf
3 BR: 1,465 sf
Not available. Studio: 430 sf
1 BR: 690 sf
2 BR: 980 sf
Studio: 576 sf
1 BR: 730- 852 sf
2 BR: 1,035- 1,066 sf
1 BR: 722 sf
2 BR: 994 sf
3 BR: 1,240 sf
Average Unit Size
(italics = estimated)
1,613 sf 2,061 sf 2,355 sf Not available. 930 sf Not available. 969 sf 1,153 sf Not available. 821 sf 886 sf 993 sf Bedroom Mix (SF includes garage)
Studio 5% 3% 4% 5%
1-Bedrooms 40% 37% 25% 28% 32% 47% 43% 23%
2-Bedrooms 60% 43% 52% 51% 49% 52% 52%
3-Bedrooms 100% 90% 15% 11% 21% 16% 25%
4-Bedrooms 10%
5-Bedrooms
Avg No. Bedrooms 3.0 BRs 3.1 BRs 1.6 BRs 1.7 BRs 0.6 BRs 2.0 BRs 1.8 BRs 1.4 BRs 1.5 BRs 2.0 BRs Building Type Two and three-story buildings
Mixed of duplexes and
detached units.
3-story building + roof deck,
with 2-car garages
3-story buildings 2-story buildings. Single-story apartment homes, mix of duplexes
and detached units.
15 3-story bldgs, 2 4-story
bldgs. Tuck-under garages in
some apt bldgs, all TH units.
3-story buildings 3-story buildings w/mix of
apt units and townhome
units
3-story buildings w/mix of
apt units and townhome
units
3-story buildings with surface
parking, carports
6 3-story buildings, with
detached garages, carports,
surface pkg.
12 3-story buildings
w/surface parking.

Parking 2.7 sp/unit
2 garage sp/unit

2.3 sp/unit.
2 garage sp/unit.
5 guest spaces.

2.5 sp/unit.
2 garage sp/unit.
10 guest spaces
Individual direct access garages
(1-car for 1BR, 2-car for
2,3,4BR) surface parking

2.2 sp/unit proposed.

Covered, uncovered,
garage. 12 EV charging
spaces.

2.2 sp/unit provided.

1.5 surface sp/unit,

0.7 garage sp/unit.

Surface pkg. Carports. 2.12
sp/unit provided.
1 surface sp/unit,

1.1 covered sp/unit,

0.03 accessible sp/unit.

2.08 sp/unit provided. Mix of
covered, garage, and
uncovered.

Townhome units have
attached garages. Some apt
garages, some carports.

2.3 sp/unit provided. Mix of
garages, carports and
uncovered surface parking.

Carports, uncovered surface
parking.
2 sp/unit provided.

0.3 garage sp/unit,

0.7 carport sp/unit,
1 surface sp/unit.

Rocklin requires 2.1
sp/unit. State Density
Bonus requires 1.4 sp/unit.

Project provides 1.8
sp/unit.

Uncovered surface parking.

Notes (Sunset Hills Townhomes)
Submittal indicates density of

16.7 dua.

Lot sizes: min 1,885 for SF
and 2,054 for MF
"Flex room" on ground floor
can be used for 4th BR or
den.
20 units approved; reduced
to 16 units.

Selling from $625,000 -
$774,000
Originally proposed as MF
(rental) THs. 1 BR from $2,425,
2 BR from $3,085,
3 BR from $2,995,
4 BR from $3,600.
10% or 18 units will be
affordable units at 80%
AMI (policy 3.4).

Note that applicant
recently proposed adding
19 units to project.

Project sets aside 0.72 acres
for open space (23 dua
overall).
116 apartment units and 124
MF townhome units
(rentals).

Unit size ranges are based
on averages
17 units will be affordable
units to very low-income
(50% AMI).

Project is using State
Density Bonus Law.

Update: Project may
convert to 100%
affordable.

Average unit size based on
weighted avg. that assumes
there is an even split of 2 and
3 BRs in duplexes
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File Name: \\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; 2/24/2026; hgr

DRAFT
357
Technical Report 1 Table 3
Market Rate Residential Prototypes
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Low Density Single Family
Detached
Medium Density Single Family
Detached
Medium High Density Single
Family Detached Townhome Apartments
Example Projects Granite Lake Estates Units 2-4 Edgefield Place Westhaven at Whitney Ranch West Oaks Whitney Ranch Unit 49 Tribute Pointe Westwind Stanford Ranch 6.8 Vista Oaks Timbercove University Apartments
The Lake at Crowne Pointe LoneTree Phase I and II
The Woods at Crowne Pointe Placer Creek Apartments
South Grove Street Apts
Density (dwelling units/acre) 3 dua 5 dua 12 dua 18 dua 25 dua Number of Stories 1-2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 3 stories Average Unit Size 3,400 sf 2,500 sf 1,800 sf 1,600 sf 975 sf Bedroom Mix 50% 4 BR
50% 5 BR
25% 3 BR
75% 4 BR
100% 3 BR 100% 3 BR 35% 1 BR
50% 2 BR
15% 3 BR
Average No. of Bedrooms 4.50 BR 3.75 BR 3.0 BR 3.0 BR 1.8 BR Parking Type Attached Garages Attached Garages Attached Garages Attached Garages Surface, Carports Average Parking Spaces 2-car garages 2-car garages 2-car garages 2-car garages 2.1 sp/unit Sales Price/Rent $1,300,000 $950,000 $675,000 $550,000 $2,750 per square foot $382 $380 $375 $344 $2.82
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File Name: \\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; Prototypes ; hgr

DRAFT
358
Technical Report 1 Table 4
Rents in Apartment Projects, Built 2000-2025
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Units Square Feet
Asking
Rent/Mo Rent / SF
Rocklin Ranch Apartments Built in 2003. Two-story wood frame. 1.2 pkg sp/unit. Density: 16 dua. 6601 Blue Oaks Blvd
One Bedroom 136 750 $2,049 $2.73
Two Bedroom 220 1,065 $2,363 $2.22
Weighted Average 356 945 $2,243 $2.37
The Oaks Apartments Built in 2002. Two-story. Density: 9 dua. 2301 Sammy Way
One Bedroom 16 678 $1,688 $2.49
Two Bedroom 32 848 $1,914 $2.26
Three Bedroom 16 1,076 $2,116 $1.97
Weighted Average 64 863 $1,908 $2.21
Sierra Gateway Apartments Built in 2023. Three-story masonry apts. 2 pkg sp/unit. Density: 19 dua. 5180 Rocklin Rd
One Bedroom 122 715 $2,190 $3.06
Two Bedroom 73 1,050 $2,748 $2.62
Weighted Average 195 840 $2,399 $2.86
Montessa at Whitney Ranch Built in 2008. Three-story steel. 2.4 pkg sp/unit. Density: 17 dua. 1150 Whitney Ranch Pky
One Bedroom 9 831 $2,109 $2.54
Two Bedroom 144 1,080 $2,421 $2.24
Three Bedroom 18 1,265 $2,954 $2.34
Weighted Average 171 1,086 $2,461 $2.26
Rocklin Sunset Townhomes Built in 2009. Two-story wood frame. 1.1 pkg sp/unit. Density: 14 dua. 2500 Chalmette Ct
Three Bedroom 52 1,651 $2,745 $1.66
Weighted Average 52 1,651 $2,745 $1.66
Granite Creek Built in 2002. Two-story wood frame. 1.6 pkg sp/unit. Density: 12 dua. 1501 Cobble creek Cir
One Bedroom 34 761 $2,005 $2.63
Two Bedroom 46 999 $2,203 $2.21
Weighted Average 80 898 $2,119 $2.36
The Winsted Built in 2001. Two-story wood frame. 1.8 pkg sp/unit. Density: 17 dua. 101 Coppervale Cir
One Bedroom 128 803 $2,027 $2.52
Two Bedroom 72 1,051 $2,274 $2.16
Three Bedroom 8 1,247 $2,606 $2.09
Weighted Average 208 906 $2,135 $2.36
Garnet Creek Apartments Built in 2018. Three-story wood frame. Density: 26 dua. 5002 Jewel St
One Bedroom 100 795 $2,170 $2.73
Two Bedroom 144 1,160 $2,467 $2.13
Three Bedroom 16 1,370 $2,634 $1.92
Weighted Average 260 1,033 $2,363 $2.29
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File Name: \\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; 2/24/2026; hgr

DRAFT 359
Technical Report 1 Table 4
Rents in Apartment Projects, Built 2000-2025
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Units Square Feet
Asking
Rent/Mo Rent / SF
Stanford Heights Apartments Built in 2000. Two-story wood frame. 1.2 pkg sp/unit. Density: 16 dua. 5801 Little Rock Rd
One Bedroom 32 718 $1,756 $2.45
Two Bedroom 94 970 $2,109 $2.17
Three Bedroom 44 1,111 $2,359 $2.12
Weighted Average 170 959 $2,107 $2.20
The Terraces at Stanford Ranch Built in 2006. Two-story wood frame. 1.2 pkg sp/unit. 3339 Marlee Way
One Bedroom 12 994 $2,386 $2.40
Two Bedroom 28 1,469 $2,646 $1.80
Three Bedroom 86 1,473 $2,874 $1.95
Four Bedroom 6 1,781 $3,230 $1.81
Weighted Average 132 1,443 $2,797 $1.94
The Terraces at Stanford Ranch II Built in 2024. Two-story wood frame. Density: 16 dua . 6122 Plaza Loop
One Bedroom 34 1,025 $2,374 $2.32
Two Bedroom 21 1,530 $3,094 $2.02
Three Bedroom 60 1,500 $3,002 $2.00
Four Bedroom 4 1,850 $3,776 $2.04
Weighted Average 119 1,381 $2,865 $2.07
The Meridian at Stanford Ranch Built in 2000. Three-story wood frame. 0.8 pkg sp/unit. Density: 16 dua. 2121 Sunset Blvd
One Bedroom 292 802 $2,074 $2.59
Two Bedroom 160 1,057 $2,378 $2.25
Weighted Average 452 893 $2,182 $2.44
Broadstone at Stanford Ranch Built in 2003. Two-story wood frame. 1.34 pkg sp/unit. Density: 16 dua. 2301 Sunset Blvd
One Bedroom 58 770 $1,880 $2.44
Two Bedroom 116 1,156 $2,295 $1.98
Three Bedroom 12 1,329 $2,642 $1.99
Weighted Average 186 1,047 $2,188 $2.09
The James Built in 2017. One-story wood frame. Density: 12 dua. 6201 W Oaks Blvd
One Bedroom 44 691 $2,077 $3.01
Two Bedroom 56 997 $2,231 $2.24
Three Bedroom 18 1,374 $2,684 $1.95
Weighted Average 118 940 $2,243 $2.38
Source: CoStar.

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File Name: \\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; 2/24/2026; hgr

DRAFT 360
Technical Report 1 Table 5
Rents in Newer Apartment Projects, Built 2017-2025
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Units Square Feet
Asking
Rent/Mo Rent / SF
The Terraces at Stanford Ranch II Built in 2024. Two-story wood frame townhome style w/garages. 16 dua . 6122 Plaza Loop
One Bedroom 34 1,025 $2,374 $2.32
Two Bedroom 21 1,530 $3,094 $2.02
Three Bedroom 60 1,500 $3,002 $2.00
Four Bedroom 4 1,850 $3,776 $2.04
Weighted Average 119 1,381 $2,865 $2.07
Sierra Gateway Apartments Built in 2023. Three-story masonry apts w/tuck under pkg. 2 pkg sp/unit. 19 dua. 5180 Rocklin Rd
One Bedroom 122 715 $2,190 $3.06
Two Bedroom 73 1,050 $2,748 $2.62
Weighted Average 195 840 $2,399 $2.86
Garnet Creek Apartments Built in 2018. Three-story wood frame. 26 dua. 5002 Jewel St
One Bedroom 100 795 $2,170 $2.73
Two Bedroom 144 1,160 $2,467 $2.13
Three Bedroom 16 1,370 $2,634 $1.92
Weighted Average 260 1,033 $2,363 $2.29
The James Built in 2017. One-story wood frame. 12 dua.
6201 W Oaks Blvd
One Bedroom 44 691 $2,077 $3.01
Two Bedroom 56 997 $2,231 $2.24
Three Bedroom 18 1,374 $2,684 $1.95
Weighted Average 118 940 $2,243 $2.38
Source: CoStar. May 2025. "DUA" = dwelling units per acre.

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File Name: \\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; 2/24/2026; hgr

DRAFT 361
Technical Report 1 Table 6
New Homes for Sale, May 2025
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Square Feet Lot Size Sales Price Price / SF
Whitney Ranch (Master Plan)
Edgefield Place Detached. (JMC Homes)
Three Bedroom 1,962 $819,990 $418
Three Bedroom 2,042 $839,990 $411
Four Bedroom 2,243 $919,990 $410
Four Bedroom + Bonus 3,110 $1,014,990 $326
Five Bedroom + Bonus 3,184 $1,069,990 $336
Weighted Average 2,508 6,050 $942,990 $376
Tribute Pointe Detached. (JMC Homes)
Three Bedroom 2,201 $989,990 $450
Three Bedroom + Study 2,405 $1,239,990 $516
Four Bedroom + Study 2,741 $1,149,990 $420
Four Bedroom + Bonus 3,270 $1,189,990 $364
Five Bedroom + Bonus 3,538 $1,449,990 $410
Weighted Average 2,831 5,000 $1,213,990 $429
Westhaven Detached. Small Lot. (KB Home)
Three Bedroom 1,570 $571,990 $364
Three Bedroom 1,688 $591,990 $351
Three Bedroom 1,787 $608,990 $341
Three Bedroom + Loft 1,882 $630,990 $335
Weighted Average 1,731 1,850 $605,990 $350
Westwind Detached. Small Lot. (JMC Homes)
Three Bedroom 1,203 $534,990 $445
Three Bedroom 1,343 $562,990 $419
Four Bedroom 1,692 $639,990 $378
Three Bedroom + Bonus, Den 2,054 $664,990 $324
Weighted Average 1,573 2,700 $610,740 $388
Wrenwood Detached. (JMC Homes)
Three Bedroom 1,441 $599,990 $416
Three Bedroom 1,541 $619,990 $402
Four Bedroom 1,616 $639,990 $396
Four Bedroom 1,990 $719,990 $362
Four Bedroom 2,156 $829,990 $385
Three Bedroom + Bonus 2,356 $759,990 $323
Three Bedroom + Bonus, Study 2,580 $809,990 $314
Weighted Average 1,954 4,400 $721,419 $369
Crowne Pointe (Master Plan)
The Lake Detached. (Tim Lewis Communities)
Three Bedroom + Study 3,042 $1,333,028 $438
Three Bedroom + Study, Bonus 3,453 $1,275,958 $370
Five Bedroom + Study, Teen 3,872 $1,301,023 $336
Five Bedroom + Bonus, Parlor 4,194 $1,378,910 $329
Weighted Average 3,640 9,375 $1,332,230 $366
The Woods Detached. (Tim Lewis Communities)
Four Bedroom 2,459 $1,034,684 $421
Four Bedroom + Office 2,716 $1,080,230 $398
Four Bedroom + Bonus 2,843 $1,105,932 $389
Five Bedroom + Bmt, Bns, Off, Gm 3,486 $1,188,546 $341
Six Bedroom + Bmt, Bns, Off, Gm 4,080 $1,203,400 $295
Weighted Average 3,116 7,700 $1,137,558 $365
Other
Residences at West Oaks Attached. Townhome. (Brentwood Development) Three Bedroom 2,107 $774,000 $367
Four Bedroom 2,171 $624,950 $288
Weighted Average 2,139 n/a $724,475 $339
Source: The Gregory Group. Sales prices shown are net of incentives.

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File Name: \\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; 2/24/2026; hgr

DRAFT 362
Technical Report 1 Table 7
Recent Sales of Homes Built Since 2020 (Sold Since January 2024) Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Development Address Beds Baths Square Feet Lot Size Year Built Sales Price Sale Date Dias Ln (CEC Homes)
4182 Dias Ln 4 4 2,744 17,834 2023 $1,125,000 02/13/2025 4184 Dias Ln 4 4 2,759 17,744 2023 $1,075,000 09/11/2024 4186 Dias Ln 5 4 3,008 17,830 2023 $1,235,000 06/04/2024 4180 Dias Ln 4 3 2,791 14,883 2022 $975,000 01/16/2024
Edgefield Place (JMC Homes)
4100 Peters Way 10,009 $840,000 01/03/2025
4133 Peters Way 10,152 $1,060,000 10/16/2024
4146 Creek Bank Ct 3 2 2,042 8,229 2022 $900,000 08/27/2024 4157 Creek Bank Ct 3 2 2,042 9,044 2022 $799,000 07/30/2024 4127 Peters Way 10,710 $1,070,000 07/29/2024
4102 Peters Way 9,970 $1,135,000 07/25/2024
4104 Peters Way 11,251 $1,153,500 07/19/2024
4103 Peters Way 4 3 8,418 $1,122,000 07/05/2024
4115 Peters Way 10,397 $1,010,000 06/20/2024
4105 Peters Way 8,479 $990,000 06/12/2024
4113 Peters Way 10,294 $1,020,000 05/29/2024
4109 Peters Way 10,051 $1,120,000 05/22/2024
4107 Peters Way 9,844 $1,030,000 05/17/2024
4111 Peters Way 10,182 $960,000 05/16/2024
4135 Peters Way 9,998 $930,000 05/09/2024
4123 Peters Way 10,788 $1,070,000 05/03/2024
4129 Peters Way 10,588 $1,040,000 04/15/2024
4121 Peters Way 10,741 $1,093,000 04/12/2024
4131 Peters Way 10,564 $1,060,000 04/02/2024
4120 Peters Way 5 4 3,184 9,401 2023 $1,080,000 04/02/2024 4114 Peters Way 5 5 3,232 9,709 2023 $1,000,000 03/21/2024 4108 Peters Way 5 5 3,232 10,230 2023 $1,017,000 03/14/2024 4117 Peters Way 4 3 2,243 10,520 2023 $930,000 03/07/2024 4119 Peters Way 4 3 2,243 10,644 2023 $900,000 03/01/2024 4110 Peters Way 5 5 3,232 10,056 2023 $1,015,500 03/01/2024 4106 Peters Way 5 4 3,303 11,318 2023 $1,110,000 02/14/2024 4116 Peters Way 5 4 3,184 9,610 2023 $1,065,000 02/12/2024 4126 Peters Way 5 4 3,184 9,412 2023 $1,080,000 02/07/2024 4112 Peters Way 5 4 3,303 9,883 2023 $1,110,000 02/02/2024 Lake at Crowne Point II (Tim Lewis)
5920 Secret Preserve Ct 5 4 3,872 2023 $1,194,000 10/25/2024 5930 Secret Preserve Ct 4 4 3,890 2023 $1,229,000 10/25/2024 4792 Crowne Point Ct 5 4 3,872 10,423 2023 $1,259,500 10/23/2024 5940 Secret Preserve Ct 4 4 3,466 2023 $1,282,500 02/26/2024 5950 Secret Preserve Ct 5 5 3,872 2023 $1,455,000 01/04/2024 5970 Secret Preserve Ct 3,042 2023 $1,397,000 01/04/2024 Oak Crest (Toll Brothers)
4220 Grand Elm Ln 4 4 3,590 10,454 2020 $1,600,000 05/06/2025 4305 Red Maple Ct 4 4 3,361 12,083 2020 $1,650,000 04/10/2025 4308 Red Maple Ct 5 5 4,192 9,876 2020 $1,950,000 03/06/2025 4222 Knotty Pine Ct 5 5 4,192 12,171 2020 $1,760,000 02/14/2024 901 Fallen Timber Ct 5 5 4,470 13,699 2021 $1,700,000 02/13/2024 4306 Red Maple Ct 4 4 3,590 11,441 2020 $1,410,000 01/12/2024 Prominence (JMC)
405 Goat Hill Ct 5 4 2,925 18,450 2022 $1,370,000 02/28/2025 2317 Ranch View Dr 3 3 2,911 7,888 2023 $1,150,000 08/21/2024 2322 Ranch View Ct 5 5 4,001 9,674 2023 $1,350,000 06/07/2024 2325 Ranch View Ct 5 5 3,877 10,105 2020 $1,550,000 06/03/2024 2316 Ranch View Dr 5 5 4,001 10,709 2023 $1,180,000 03/14/2024 2319 Ranch View Ct 3 3 2,911 8,111 2021 $1,300,000 02/29/2024 Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File Name: \\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; 2/24/2026; hgr

DRAFT 363
Technical Report 1 Table 7
Recent Sales of Homes Built Since 2020 (Sold Since January 2024) Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Development Address Beds Baths Square Feet Lot Size Year Built Sales Price Sale Date Rocklin Meadows (New Home Company)
5691 Brookshire Ct 5 3 3,287 10,863 2023 $1,010,000 09/13/2024 5861 Brookshire Dr 3 3 5,104 10,015 2023 $1,025,000 04/18/2024 5877 Brookshire Dr 5 5 3,309 12,752 2022 $1,320,000 04/12/2024 5671 Brookshire Ct 3 3 5,104 12,354 2023 $1,000,000 03/29/2024 5934 Brookshire Dr 3 3 5,104 11,315 2023 $1,179,000 01/26/2024 Skyline (Toll Brothers)
4058 Whitney Vista Ln 4 4 3,590 12,470 2022 $1,825,000 03/03/2025 3906 Skyline Dr 4 4 3,590 11,983 2020 $1,940,000 10/16/2024 4071 Whitney Vista Ln 5 6 4,680 12,271 2022 $1,750,000 08/05/2024 4025 Whitney Vista Ln 4 4 3,837 12,359 2022 $1,950,000 07/19/2024 4048 Whitney Vista Ln 4 4 3,837 11,999 2022 $1,600,000 06/30/2024 4012 Whitney Vista Ln 5 5 4,238 12,791 2021 $1,875,000 05/13/2024 3913 Skyline Dr 5 5 4,238 12,015 2021 $1,810,000 03/03/2024 Summit, Tim Lewis
3335 Jamboree Ct 3 2 2,351 6,840 2021 $1,045,000 04/11/2025 3470 Hidden Ranch Loop 4 4 3,108 6,050 2021 $1,025,000 11/18/2024 3439 Hidden Ranch Loop 4 4 3,447 6,137 2020 $1,075,000 08/15/2024 3338 Jamboree Ct 4 4 3,108 7,442 2021 $1,140,000 03/08/2024 3325 Jamboree Dr 4 3 2,806 8,349 2023 $974,000 02/16/2024 Timbercove (TRI Pointe)
4319 White Fir Loop 3 3 1,895 3,464 2021 $646,000 04/08/2025 3610 Silver Pine Ln 3 3 1,656 2,624 2022 $590,000 04/02/2025 4308 White Fir Loop 3 3 2,371 3,359 2022 $672,000 03/24/2025 3515 Jeffrey Pine Ln 3 3 2,197 2,575 2021 $580,000 11/06/2024 4333 White Fir Loop 3 3 2,371 3,410 2021 $659,000 08/09/2024 3713 Red Fir Ln 4 3 2,300 2,924 2021 $660,000 05/22/2024 4456 Sierra Pine Way 3 3 2,020 5,440 2021 $650,000 04/01/2024 4458 Sierra Pine Way 3 3 2,197 4,607 2021 $650,000 01/31/2024 Tribute Pointe at Whitney Ranch (JMC)
1208 Buck Ridge Dr 8,285 $1,100,000 04/16/2025
1224 Buck Ridge Dr 3 4 2,405 7,770 2023 $970,000 04/03/2025 1220 Buck Ridge Dr 3,877 9,163 2023 $1,245,000 01/16/2025 1130 Brook Trail Ct 7,500 $1,376,000 11/18/2024
1216 Buck Ridge Dr 9,364 $1,070,000 11/08/2024
1226 Buck Ridge Dr 3 3 2,201 6,694 2023 $930,000 10/25/2024 1219 Buck Ridge Dr 4 3 2,925 10,495 2023 $1,330,000 09/17/2024 1212 Buck Ridge Dr 8,234 $1,170,000 08/20/2024
1120 Brook Trail Ct 8,241 $1,400,000 08/06/2024
1217 Buck Ridge Dr 4,001 11,402 2023 $1,470,000 08/01/2024 1110 Brook Trail Ct 10,289 $1,350,500 07/17/2024
1211 Buck Ridge Dr 2,201 7,302 2023 $990,000 06/26/2024 1232 Buck Ridge Ct 3 4 2,405 8,996 2022 $935,000 06/03/2024 1131 Brook Trail Ct 2,405 8,669 2023 $1,050,000 04/18/2024 1215 Buck Ridge Dr 3,538 10,883 2023 $1,300,000 04/17/2024 1150 Brook Trail Ct 5 5 4,001 9,210 2023 $1,505,000 04/01/2024 1233 Buck Ridge Ct 3 4 2,201 6,656 2023 $925,000 03/26/2024 1141 Brook Trail Ct 3,538 8,669 2023 $1,100,000 03/07/2024 1151 Brook Trail Ct 4 4 3,270 9,500 2022 $1,150,000 02/26/2024 1235 Buck Ridge Ct 3 4 2,405 7,145 2023 $950,000 01/22/2024 Village by the Ponds Townhomes (Riverland)
3908 Wickman Loop 3 3 1,669 2,110 2021 $510,000 01/28/2025 5401 Finn Ln 3 3 1,669 2,485 2020 $543,000 08/02/2024
3801 Anders Way 3 3 1,669 3,015 2020 $505,000 03/04/2024 Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File Name: \\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; 2/24/2026; hgr

DRAFT 364
Technical Report 1 Table 7
Recent Sales of Homes Built Since 2020 (Sold Since January 2024) Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Development Address Beds Baths Square Feet Lot Size Year Built Sales Price Sale Date Wrenwood at Whitney Ranch (JMC)
490 Red Sand Ct 4 4 2,580 5,244 2022 $845,000 01/09/2025 601 Buffalo Trail Ct 4 3 1,990 4,956 2023 $690,000 06/21/2024 3480 Dutch Canyon Dr 3,975 $690,000 06/18/2024
2903 Crows Nest Ct 3 2 1,676 4,640 2021 $685,000 06/13/2024 511 Desert Bloom Ct 3 2 1,441 6,601 2022 $639,000 06/10/2024 3476 Dutch Canyon Dr 6,010 $740,000 05/21/2024
3482 Dutch Canyon Dr 3,976 $620,000 05/16/2024
3478 Dutch Canyon Dr 4,009 $620,000 05/15/2024
491 Red Sand Ct 3 3 2,356 4,806 2023 $820,000 05/02/2024 3484 Dutch Canyon Dr 4,246 $620,000 04/17/2024
501 Red Sand Rd 3 4 2,580 3,956 2023 $840,000 04/15/2024 609 Buffalo Trail Ct 4 3 1,990 3,937 2023 $680,000 04/11/2024 600 Buffalo Trail Ct 5,144 $690,000 04/04/2024
2804 Iron Tie Ct 2,356 4,657 2023 $750,000 04/03/2024
608 Buffalo Trail Ct 3 2 1,441 4,115 2023 $600,000 03/29/2024 3612 Ramhorn Ridge Dr 4 3 1,616 4,330 2023 $720,000 03/19/2024 2800 Iron Tie Ct 2,156 5,358 2023 $730,000 03/19/2024
604 Buffalo Trail Ct 3 2 1,514 4,024 2023 $620,000 03/18/2024 613 Buffalo Trail Ct 4 3 2,156 3,937 2023 $730,000 03/15/2024 605 Buffalo Trail Ct 3 2 1,514 3,937 2023 $620,000 03/08/2024 2806 Iron Tie Ct 2,356 4,585 2023 $730,000 03/04/2024
612 Buffalo Trail Ct 3 2 1,441 4,116 2023 $600,000 02/23/2024 492 Red Sand Ct 3 3 2,356 5,845 2023 $820,000 02/21/2024 617 Buffalo Trail Ct 3 2 1,514 4,317 2023 $610,000 02/12/2024 2801 Iron Tie Ct 4 4 2,580 5,245 2023 $790,000 02/09/2024 2803 Iron Tie Ct 4 4 2,580 6,941 2023 $850,000 01/31/2024 2805 Iron Tie Ct 3 3 2,356 6,706 2023 $750,000 01/31/2024 503 Red Sand Rd 3 2 1,441 4,145 2023 $650,000 01/17/2024 494 Red Sand Ct 3 4 2,580 7,548 2023 $840,000 01/16/2024 616 Buffalo Trail Ct 4 3 1,616 4,853 2023 $630,000 01/16/2024 2808 Iron Tie Ct 4 4 2,580 4,678 2023 $750,000 01/16/2024 2802 Iron Tie Ct 4 4 2,580 4,693 2023 $797,500 01/16/2024 2810 Iron Tie Ct 3 3 2,356 5,223 2023 $750,000 01/08/2024 625 Buffalo Trail Ct 4 3 1,616 4,262 2023 $620,000 01/05/2024 621 Buffalo Trail Ct 3 2 1,514 4,063 2023 $610,000 01/04/2024 495 Red Sand Ct 3 3 2,356 4,823 2023 $820,000 01/03/2024 Other Developments
806 Broken Bit Ct 4 3 2,540 9,148 2021 $869,000 05/09/2025 2276 Ranch View Dr 5 5 3,877 9,338 2021 $1,225,000 04/28/2025 5526 Lost Ave 4 3 2,570 10,059 2020 $875,000 04/25/2025 4602 Ring Neck Ln 3 3 2,159 2,805 2021 $639,500 03/20/2025 833 Clementine Dr 3 2 1,681 4,474 2020 $700,000 02/07/2025 840 Clementine Dr 4 3 2,202 4,792 2020 $735,000 11/18/2024 1213 Starflower Ln 3 3 1,966 3,299 2020 $605,000 11/14/2024 2820 Boxcar Dr 3 2 1,432 4,779 2020 $635,000 10/29/2024 4011 Della Ct 4 3 2,805 8,276 2023 $1,049,000 09/10/2024 5315 Aguilar Rd 4 3 2,553 11,210 2021 $735,000 08/14/2024 2952 Laredo Dr 4 4 2,911 9,459 2021 $950,000 07/08/2024 3218 Hoot Owl Loop 4 4 2,837 9,911 2020 $1,185,000 07/08/2024 1042 Sagittaria Cir 3 3 1,966 2,780 2020 $600,000 07/08/2024 2933 Shady Acres Loop 6,534 $825,000 04/26/2024
2590 Clubhouse Dr W 3 4 4,019 15,334 2022 $1,900,000 04/09/2024 1407 Cheetah St 3 2 1,444 3,740 2020 $550,000 02/01/2024 1056 Sagittaria Cir 3 3 1,966 2,961 2020 $599,000 01/24/2024 4001 Nellia Ct 2,574 11,394 2022 $890,000 01/16/2024
MEDIAN, All Sales 4.0 3.0 2,580 8,384 2023 $990,000
AVERAGE, All Sales 3.8 3.5 2,785 8,085 2022 $1,010,225
Source: Corelogic, 5/27/2025
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File Name: \\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; 2/24/2026; hgr

DRAFT 365
Technical Report 1 Table 8
Affordable Sales Price Calculations
Inclusionary Housing Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Unit Size (Bedroom) 3-Bedroom 4-Bedroom 5-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 4-Bedroom Household Size 4-person HH 5-person HH 6-person HH 4-person HH 5-person HH Placer County 2025 Median Income $120,800 $130,450 $140,150 $120,800 $130,450 Home Price at 110% of AMI $132,880 $143,495 $154,165 $132,880 $143,495 % for Housing Costs 35% 35% 35% 35% 35%
Available for Housing Costs $46,508 $50,223 $53,958 $46,508 $50,223 (Less) Property Taxes ($5,965) ($6,362) ($6,758) ($5,888) ($6,336) (Less) HOA ($900) ($1,200) ($1,500) ($2,640) ($2,760)
(Less) Utilities ($4,572) ($5,244) ($5,904) ($3,360) ($3,828) (Less) Homeowners' Insurance ($559) ($596) ($633) ($551) ($593) (Less) Mortgage Insurance ($2,097) ($2,237) ($2,376) ($2,070) ($2,228) Income Available for Mortgage $32,416 $34,585 $36,786 $31,999 $34,478 Supported Mortgage $419,500 $447,600 $476,000 $414,100 $446,200 Down Payment @10% $46,600 $49,700 $52,900 $46,000 $49,600 Home Price @110% AMI $466,100 $497,300 $528,900 $460,100 $495,800 Low Income at 70% of AMI $84,560 $91,315 $98,105 $84,560 $91,315 % for Housing Costs 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%
Available for Housing Costs $25,368 $27,395 $29,432 $25,368 $27,395 (Less) Property Taxes ($2,880) ($3,046) ($3,200) ($2,816) ($3,021) (Less) HOA ($900) ($1,200) ($1,500) ($2,640) ($2,760)
(Less) Utilities ($4,572) ($5,244) ($5,904) ($3,360) ($3,828) (Less) Homeowners' Insurance ($270) ($285) ($300) ($264) ($283) (Less) Mortgage Insurance ($1,013) ($1,071) ($1,125) ($990) ($1,062) Income Available for Mortgage $15,734 $16,548 $17,403 $15,298 $16,441 Supported Mortgage $203,600 $214,100 $225,200 $198,000 $212,800 Down Payment @10% $22,600 $23,800 $25,000 $22,000 $23,600 Home Price @70% AMI $226,200 $237,900 $250,200 $220,000 $236,400 Very Low Income at 50% of AMI $60,400 $65,225 $70,075 $60,400 $65,225 % for Housing Costs 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%
Available for Housing Costs $18,120 $19,568 $21,023 $18,120 $19,568 (Less) Property Taxes ($1,830) ($1,907) ($1,984) ($1,766) ($1,882) (Less) HOA ($900) ($1,200) ($1,500) ($2,640) ($2,760)
(Less) Utilities ($4,572) ($5,244) ($5,904) ($3,360) ($3,828) (Less) Homeowners' Insurance ($171) ($179) ($186) ($165) ($176) (Less) Mortgage Insurance ($644) ($671) ($698) ($621) ($662) Income Available for Mortgage $10,003 $10,367 $10,751 $9,567 $10,260 Supported Mortgage $129,400 $134,200 $139,100 $123,800 $132,800 Down Payment @10% $14,400 $14,900 $15,500 $13,800 $14,800 Home Price @50% AMI $143,800 $149,100 $154,600 $137,600 $147,600 Monthly Expense Assumptions
- HOA $75 $100 $125 $220 $230
- Utilities (1)
$381 $437 $492 $280 $319
Common Assumptions
- Mortgage Interest Rate 6.68% Freddie Mac 30-year fixed rate, weekly average rate, August 2024 - August 2025. - Down Payment 10.00% KMA assumption.
- Property Taxes (% of sales price) 1.28% Source: Corelogic - Homeowners' Insurance (% of sales price) 0.12% Estimate based on sampling of estimates for Rocklin homes. - Mortgage Insurance (2) 0.50% loans up to $726,200

0.70% loans over $726,200
(1) Utility allowances per Placer County Housing Authority (2025). (2) Based on FHA mortgage insurance premium schedule.

Single Family Units Attached
_________________________________________________________ Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename: \\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; Aff prices

DRAFT
366
Technical Report 1 Table 9
Affordable Rents
Inclusionary Housing Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Unit Size Studio 1-Bedroom Unit 2-Bedroom Unit 3-Bedroom Unit Household Size 1-person HH 2-person HH 3-person HH 4-person HH HCD Income Limits, 2025 (1)
Median Income $84,550 $96,650 $108,700 $120,800
Low Income @ 60% AMI $50,730 $57,990 $65,220 $72,480
Very Low Income @50% AMI $42,275 $48,325 $54,350 $60,400 Gross Rents @30% of Income
Median Income $2,114 $2,416 $2,718 $3,020
Low Income @ 60% AMI $1,268 $1,450 $1,631 $1,812
Very Low Income @50% AMI $1,057 $1,208 $1,359 $1,510
- Utilities (per month) (2)
$80 $96 $134 $172
Rents after Utility Allowance
Median Income $2,034 $2,320 $2,584 $2,848
Low Income @ 60% AMI $1,188 $1,354 $1,497 $1,640
Very Low Income @50% AMI $977 $1,112 $1,225 $1,338
Notes:
(1) California Department of Housing and Community Development 2025 Income Limits for Placer County (2) Assumes tenant pays for electricity, gas heating and cooking, air conditioning and gas hot water heating. U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development 2025 Utility Allowance Schedule for Placer County _________________________________________________________ Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename: \\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; Aff Rents

DRAFT
367
Technical Report 1 Table 10
Affordability of Market Rate Units
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Affordability of Market Rate Units
Low Density Single
Family Detached
Medium Density
Single Family
Detached
Medium High
Density Single
Family Detached
Townhome Apartments
Estimated Sales Price / Rent $1,300,000 $950,000 $675,000 $550,000 $2,750 No. of Bedrooms 4.5 br 3.75 br 3.0 br 3.0 br 1.8 br
Avg. Size 3,400 sf 2,500 sf 1,800 sf 1,600 sf 975 sf
Avg. Price Per Square Foot $382 $380 $375 $344 $2.82
Household Income Required to Afford Home1
$302,000 $224,000 $162,000 $136,000 $115,000
Median Income (weighted by no. BRs) $135,300 $128,050 $120,800 $120,800 $106,300 Percent of AMI Required to Afford New Unit 223% 175% 134% 113% 108% Affordable Sales Prices / Rents
Moderate (110% AMI) $513,100 $489,500 $466,100 $460,100 $2,797 /mo Low Income (70% AMI) $244,050 $234,975 $226,200 $220,000 Low Income (60% AMI) $1,468 /mo
Very Low Income (50% AMI) $151,850 $147,775 $143,800 $137,600 $1,202 /mo

1. Assumes 20% downpayment. See Residential Nexus Analysis Technical Report 2 Tables 1-5 for calculations. _________________________________________________________ Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename: \\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; Income Req new units

DRAFT
368
Technical Report 1 Table 11 Working Draft
Summary of Residential Land Sales in Rocklin
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Analysis
City of Rocklin
Since March 2020
Property Address Sale Price Sale Date
Land
Area AC
Price Per AC
Land
Per SF
Land
Gross
Density Price per Lot Zoning Off-Sites Proposed Use/Notes 4545 Pacific St $2,330,000 5/7/2021 7.38 $315,718 $7 8.67 $36,406 PD-10.5 Utilities, curb/ sidewalk, streets
SFR development (Quarry Row - 64 units)
Dominguez Rd $6,264,000 8/5/2020 26.90 $232,862 $5 7.40 $31,477 M-2 Utilities, curb/ sidewalk, streets
199 Patio style SFR's; Master Planned Community
(Sierra Pines); Construction expected to finish in 1-2
yrs. Avg lot 3-4k.
960 Wildcat Blvd $6,020,000 5/15/2024 6.20 $970,968 $22 6.94 $140,000 Utilities, curb/ sidewalk, streets
Currently a 2,248 sf neighborhood welcome center
on the site. 43 SFD lots. JMC Homes
3309 Jamboree Dr $6,623,000 1/5/2021 6.61 $1,002,045 $23 5.60 $179,000 R1 Not specified 37 SFR parcels 300 Bronco Ln $6,086,000 7/1/2020 6.17 $986,915 $23 5.51 $179,000 R1 Utilities, curb/ sidewalk, streets
Finished lots. Single-family development; Phase of
Master Planned Community (Whitney Ranch). 34
parcels.
4101 Hardrock Ct $5,650,000 3/31/2022 4.48 $1,261,159 $29 4.91 $256,818 RD-4 Not specified Hold for development; Most likely single-family development site. Winding Land Estates. 22 parcels.

Grand Elm Ln $4,830,000 11/3/2020 5.00 $966,000 $22 4.60 $210,000 Utilities, curb/ sidewalk, streets
Single-family development, 23 parcels
2 Whitney Ranch Pk $2,100,000 8/5/2020 2.30 $914,760 $21 4.36 $210,000 PD Not specified SFR; Buyer has a community development in the same area
1 Whitney Ranch Pk $4,925,000 7/29/2020 5.00 $985,000 $23 4.20 $234,524 PD Utilities, curb/ sidewalk, streets
21 SFR's
Ranch View Dr $6,107,000 3/25/2021 7.97 $766,249 $18 3.89 $197,000 PD Utilities, curb/ sidewalk, streets
31 SFR Lots
1 Greenbrae Rd $1,800,000 5/14/2021 14.72 $122,283 $3 1.83 $66,667 RS-AG-B-10 Utilities, curb/ sidewalk, streets
27 SFR lots (Rocklin Meadows)
3922 Los Cerros Ln $2,190,500 6/19/2020 38.70 $56,602 $1 0.21 $273,813 R16 PD Utilities, curb/ sidewalk, streets
2 parcels for common areas (36 acres) and 8 finish-
grade residential lots. Los Cerros Subdivision.

Whitney Ranch Pky $11,050,000 8/18/2023 21.90 $504,566 $12 Not specified. Anthem Whitney Ranch. Sold by school district.

Multifamily
Whitney & Sunset B $6,000,000 1/14/2022 14.11 $425,230 $10 PD-R Not specified Apartment Units- Condo, Medical, MultiFamily, Office 1032 Sagittaria Cir $3,050,000 12/30/2022 9.18 $332,244 $8 PD-C Not specified Raw land Seq Of Bass Pro Driv $6,000,000 Active 34.00 $176,471 $4 PD-C, OA, PD-3.5 to 8.4 Not specified MultiFamily, Sloping Raw Land 5691 Lonetree Blvd $3,554,496 Under Contract 6.80 $522,720 $12 MU-24+ Not specified Commercial, MultiFamily, Raw Land 5345 Grove St1 $1,175,000 6/2024 2.75 $427,273 $10 28.36 $15,064 Not specified Apartments (South Grove Street) - 78 units. Was entitled for townhomes when sold. New entitlements
after sale.

Individual Finished Lots Sold2
4109 Hardrock $315,000 4/21/2025 0.18 $1,749,955 $40 7,841 sf finished lot in Winding Lane Estates. Utilities at curbside.
4111 Hardrock $310,000 5/30/2025 0.16 $1,958,463 $45 6,895 sf finished lot in Winding Lane Estates. Utilities at curbside.

1. Source: Zillow, City of Rocklin.

2. Source: Zillow.

Sources: Costar 5/25/25, City of Rocklin, development submittals.

Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

File Name: \\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; 2/24/2026; hgr

DRAFT 369
Technical Report 1 Table 12
Financial Feasibility of Prototypes: No Inclusionary Obligation Inclusionary Housing Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Market Rate Living Area Net SF 3,400 sf 2,500 sf 1,800 sf 1,600 sf 975 sf Average Number of Bedrooms 4.50 bedrooms 3.75 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms 3.00 bedrooms 1.8 bedrooms Density 3 du/acre 5 du/acre 12 du/acre 18 du/acre 25 du/acre Avg Lot Size 11,000 sf 7,000 sf 3,000 sf
Revenue For Sale For Rent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per NSF Per Unit Percent Market Units 100% 100% $382 $1,300,000 100% $380 $950,000 100% $375 $675,000 100% $344 $550,000 100% $34 $33,000 100% Very Low Income @ 50% AMI 0% $45 $151,850 0% $59 $147,775 0% $80 $143,800 0% $86 $137,600 0% $15 $14,424 0% Low Income @ 60% AMI 0% $18 $17,616 0%
Low Income@ 70% AMI 0% $72 $244,050 0% $94 $234,975 0% $126 $226,200 0% $138 $220,000 0% $0 0% Mod @ 110% AMI 0% $151 $513,100 0% $196 $489,500 0% $259 $466,100 0% $288 $460,100 0% $0 0% Average Gross Sales Price $382 $1,300,000 100% $380 $950,000 100% $375 $675,000 100% $344 $550,000 100% $34 $33,000 100% <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($12) ($42,300) -3% ($12) ($30,900) -3% ($12) ($21,900) -3% ($11) ($17,900) -3% Other Income: $1,200 Revenue Net of Sales Expense $370 $1,257,700 97% $368 $919,100 97% $363 $653,100 97% $333 $532,100 97% Vac/OpExp: ($13,020) NOI: $21,180
ROC: 6.25%
Supported Investment: $338,900
Land and Lot Development % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC
Site Acquisition $43 $145,200 13% $42 $104,500 13% $24 $43,600 8% $18 $29,000 6% $18 $17,400 5% Site and Intracts $90 $305,000 28% $77 $192,000 24% $74 $134,000 23% $56 $89,500 17% $39 $38,300 10% Subtotal Lot Cost $132 $450,200 41% $119 $296,500 37% $99 $177,600 31% $74 $118,500 23% $57 $55,700 15% Home Construction
Direct Construction $110 $374,000 34% $120 $300,000 37% $131 $236,000 41% $165 $264,000 50% $200 $195,000 52% Fees & Permits $28 $94,400 9% $32 $80,200 10% $37 $67,100 12% $37 $59,600 11% $49 $47,600 13% (Less) Aff. Unit Fee Rdctn. $0 $0 0% $0 $0 0% $0 $0 0% $0 $0 0% $0 $0 0% Other Indirects 5.0% directs $6 $18,700 2% $6 $15,000 2% $7 $11,800 2% $8 $13,200 3% 16% dir/site $38 $37,300 10% Financing $18 $60,000 5% $18 $44,300 5% $18 $31,500 5% $18 $28,800 5% $30 $29,000 8% Overhead/G&A 5% mkt sales $19 $65,000 6% $19 $47,500 6% $19 $33,800 6% $17 $27,500 5% 4% dir/site $10 $9,300 2% Warranty/Insurance 1% mkt sales $4 $13,000 1% $4 $9,500 1% $4 $6,800 1% $3 $5,500 1% Marketing 1.5% mkt sales $6 $19,500 2% $6 $14,300 2% $6 $10,100 2% $5 $8,300 2% Subtotal Unit Construction $190 $644,600 59% $204 $510,800 63% $221 $397,100 69% $254 $406,900 77% $326 $318,200 85% Total Development Cost $322 $1,094,800 100% $323 $807,300 100% $319 $574,700 100% $328 $525,400 100% $383 $373,900 100% Net Sales Revenue $370 $1,257,700 $368 $919,100 $363 $653,100 $333 $532,100 $348 $338,900 <Less> Development Cost ($322) ($1,094,800) ($323) ($807,300) ($319) ($574,700) ($328) ($525,400) ($383) ($373,900) <Less> Net Builder Profit 10% sales ($38) ($130,000) ($38) ($95,000) ($38) ($67,500) ($34) ($55,000) included above % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % TDC Surplus / (Gap) $10 $32,900 3% $7 $16,800 2% $6 $10,900 2% ($30) ($48,300) -8% ($36) ($35,000) -9% Yield on Cost: 5.66%
Feasibility Finding Challenged
Figure 25
Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged
Figure 25
Low Density Single Family Detached Medium Density Single Family Detached
Medium High Density Single Family
Detached
Townhome Apartments
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; Base Case

DRAFT 370
Technical Report 1 Table 13
Financial Feasibility of Prototypes: 5% Onsite Obligation, Low Income Inclusionary Housing Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Market Rate Living Area Net SF 3,400 sf 2,500 sf 1,800 sf 1,600 sf 975 sf Average Number of Bedrooms 4.50 bedrooms 3.75 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms 3.00 bedrooms 1.8 bedrooms Density 3 du/acre 5 du/acre 12 du/acre 18 du/acre 25 du/acre Avg Lot Size 11,000 sf 7,000 sf 3,000 sf
Revenue For Sale For Rent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per NSF Per Unit Percent Market Units 95% 95% $382 $1,300,000 95.0% $380 $950,000 95.0% $375 $675,000 95.0% $344 $550,000 95.0% $34 $33,000 95.0% Very Low Income @ 50% AMI 0% $45 $151,850 0.0% $59 $147,775 0.0% $80 $143,800 0.0% $86 $137,600 0.0% $15 $14,424 0.0% Low Income @ 60% AMI 5% $18 $17,616 5.0%
Low Income@ 70% AMI 5% $72 $244,050 5.0% $94 $234,975 5.0% $126 $226,200 5.0% $138 $220,000 5.0% $0 0.0% Mod @ 110% AMI 0% $151 $513,100 0.0% $196 $489,500 0.0% $259 $466,100 0.0% $288 $460,100 0.0% $0 0.0% Average Gross Sales Price $367 $1,247,203 100% $366 $914,249 100% $363 $652,560 100% $333 $533,500 100% $33 $32,231 100% <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($12) ($40,500) -3% ($12) ($29,700) -3% ($12) ($21,200) -3% ($11) ($17,300) -3% Other Income: $1,200 Revenue Net of Sales Expense $355 $1,206,703 97% $354 $884,549 97% $351 $631,360 97% $323 $516,200 97% Vac/OpExp: ($12,980) NOI: $20,451
ROC: 6.25%
Supported Investment: $327,200
Land and Lot Development % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC
Site Acquisition $43 $145,200 13.3% $42 $104,500 12.9% $24 $43,600 7.6% $18 $29,000 5.5% $18 $17,400 4.7% Site and Intracts $90 $305,000 27.9% $77 $192,000 23.8% $74 $134,000 23.3% $56 $89,500 17.0% $39 $38,300 10.2% Subtotal Lot Cost $132 $450,200 41.1% $119 $296,500 36.7% $99 $177,600 30.9% $74 $118,500 22.6% $57 $55,700 14.9% Home Construction
Direct Construction $110 $374,000 34.2% $120 $300,000 37.2% $131 $236,000 41.1% $165 $264,000 50.2% $200 $195,000 52.2% Fees & Permits $28 $94,400 8.6% $32 $80,200 9.9% $37 $67,100 11.7% $37 $59,600 11.3% $49 $47,600 12.7% (Less) Aff. Unit Fee Rdctn. $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% ($0) ($80) 0.0% Other Indirects 5.0% directs $6 $18,700 1.7% $6 $15,000 1.9% $7 $11,800 2.1% $8 $13,200 2.5% 16% dir/site $38 $37,300 10.0% Financing $18 $60,000 5.5% $18 $44,300 5.5% $18 $31,500 5.5% $18 $28,800 5.5% $30 $29,000 7.8% Overhead/G&A 5% mkt sales $19 $65,000 5.9% $19 $47,500 5.9% $19 $33,800 5.9% $17 $27,500 5.2% 4% dir/site $10 $9,300 2.5% Warranty/Insurance 1% mkt sales $4 $13,000 1.2% $4 $9,500 1.2% $4 $6,800 1.2% $3 $5,500 1.0% Marketing 1.5% mkt sales $6 $19,500 1.8% $6 $14,300 1.8% $6 $10,100 1.8% $5 $8,300 1.6% Subtotal Unit Construction $190 $644,600 58.9% $204 $510,800 63.3% $221 $397,100 69.1% $254 $406,900 77.4% $326 $318,120 85.1% Total Development Cost $322 $1,094,800 100.0% $323 $807,300 100.0% $319 $574,700 100.0% $328 $525,400 100.0% $383 $373,820 100.0% Net Sales Revenue $355 $1,206,703 $354 $884,549 $351 $631,360 $323 $516,200 $336 $327,200 <Less> Development Cost ($322) ($1,094,800) ($323) ($807,300) ($319) ($574,700) ($328) ($525,400) ($383) ($373,820) <Less> Net Builder Profit 10% sales ($37) ($124,700) ($37) ($91,400) ($36) ($65,300) ($33) ($53,400) included above % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % TDC Surplus / (Gap) ($4) ($12,798) -1.0% ($6) ($14,151) -1.6% ($5) ($8,640) -1.4% ($39) ($62,600) -10.8% ($48) ($46,620) -12.5% Yield on Cost: 5.47%
Feasibility Finding
Equivalent In-Lieu Fee $13 $45,700 $12 $31,000 $11 $19,500 $9 $14,300 $12 $11,600 Low Density Single Family
Detached
Medium Density Single Family
Detached
Medium High Density Single Family
Detached
Townhome Apartments
Challenged Challenged
Figure 25
Figure 25
Feasible Feasible Feasible
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; 5% Low

DRAFT 371
Technical Report 1 Table 14
Financial Feasibility of Prototypes: 10% Onsite Obligation, Moderate Income (For Sale) Inclusionary Housing Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Market Rate Living Area Net SF 3,400 sf 2,500 sf 1,800 sf 1,600 sf Average Number of Bedrooms 4.50 bedrooms 3.75 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms 3.00 bedrooms Density 3 du/acre 5 du/acre 12 du/acre 18 du/acre
Avg Lot Size 11,000 sf 7,000 sf 3,000 sf
Revenue For Sale Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Market Units 90% $382 $1,300,000 90.0% $380 $950,000 90.0% $375 $675,000 90.0% $344 $550,000 90.0% Very Low Income @ 50% AM 0% $45 $151,850 0.0% $59 $147,775 0.0% $80 $143,800 0.0% $86 $137,600 0.0% Low Income@ 70% AMI 0% $72 $244,050 0.0% $94 $234,975 0.0% $126 $226,200 0.0% $138 $220,000 0.0% Mod @ 110% AMI 10% $151 $513,100 10.0% $196 $489,500 10.0% $259 $466,100 10.0% $288 $460,100 10.0% Average Gross Sales Price $359 $1,221,310 100% $362 $903,950 100% $363 $654,110 100% $338 $541,010 100% <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($12) ($39,700) -3% ($12) ($29,400) -3% ($12) ($21,300) -3% ($11) ($17,600) -3% Revenue Net of Sales Expense $348 $1,181,610 97% $350 $874,550 97% $352 $632,810 97% $327 $523,410 97% Land and Lot Development % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC
Site Acquisition $43 $145,200 13.3% $42 $104,500 12.9% $24 $43,600 7.6% $18 $29,000 5.5% Site and Intracts $90 $305,000 27.9% $77 $192,000 23.8% $74 $134,000 23.3% $56 $89,500 17.0% Subtotal Lot Cost $132 $450,200 41.1% $119 $296,500 36.7% $99 $177,600 30.9% $74 $118,500 22.6% Home Construction
Direct Construction $110 $374,000 34.2% $120 $300,000 37.2% $131 $236,000 41.1% $165 $264,000 50.2% Fees & Permits $28 $94,400 8.6% $32 $80,200 9.9% $37 $67,100 11.7% $37 $59,600 11.3% (Less) Aff. Unit Fee Rdctn. $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% Other Indirects 5.0% directs $6 $18,700 1.7% $6 $15,000 1.9% $7 $11,800 2.1% $8 $13,200 2.5% Financing $18 $60,000 5.5% $18 $44,300 5.5% $18 $31,500 5.5% $18 $28,800 5.5% Overhead/G&A 5% mkt sales $19 $65,000 5.9% $19 $47,500 5.9% $19 $33,800 5.9% $17 $27,500 5.2% Warranty/Insurance 1% mkt sales $4 $13,000 1.2% $4 $9,500 1.2% $4 $6,800 1.2% $3 $5,500 1.0% Marketing 1.5% mkt sales $6 $19,500 1.8% $6 $14,300 1.8% $6 $10,100 1.8% $5 $8,300 1.6% Subtotal Unit Construction $190 $644,600 58.9% $204 $510,800 63.3% $221 $397,100 69.1% $254 $406,900 77.4% Total Development Cost $322 $1,094,800 100.0% $323 $807,300 100.0% $319 $574,700 100.0% $328 $525,400 100.0% Net Sales Revenue $348 $1,181,610 $350 $874,550 $352 $632,810 $327 $523,410 <Less> Development Cost ($322) ($1,094,800) ($323) ($807,300) ($319) ($574,700) ($328) ($525,400) <Less> Net Builder Profit 10% sales ($36) ($122,100) ($36) ($90,400) ($36) ($65,400) ($34) ($54,100) % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit Surplus / (Gap) ($10) ($35,290) -2.9% ($9) ($23,150) -2.6% ($4) ($7,290) -1.1% ($35) ($56,090) -9.7% Feasibility Finding
Equivalent In-Lieu Fee $20 $68,200 $16 $40,000 $10 $18,200 $5 $7,800 Figure 25
Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged
Figure 25
Low Density Single Family
Detached
Medium Density Single Family
Detached
Medium High Density Single Family
Detached
Townhome
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; 10% Mod

DRAFT 372
Technical Report 1 Table 15
Financial Feasibility of Prototypes: 10% Onsite Obligation at Low Income Inclusionary Housing Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Market Rate Living Area Net SF 3,400 sf 2,500 sf 1,800 sf 1,600 sf 975 sf Average Number of Bedrooms 4.50 bedrooms 3.75 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms 3.00 bedrooms 1.8 bedrooms Density 3 du/acre 5 du/acre 12 du/acre 18 du/acre 25 du/acre Avg Lot Size 11,000 sf 7,000 sf 3,000 sf
Revenue For Sale For Rent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per NSF Per Unit Percent Market Units 90% 90% $382 $1,300,000 90.0% $380 $950,000 90.0% $375 $675,000 90.0% $344 $550,000 90.0% $34 $33,000 90.0% Very Low Income @ 50% AMI 0% 0% $45 $151,850 0.0% $59 $147,775 0.0% $80 $143,800 0.0% $86 $137,600 0.0% $15 $14,424 0.0% Low Income @ 60% AMI 10% $18 $17,616 10.0%
Low Income@ 70% AMI 10% $72 $244,050 10.0% $94 $234,975 10.0% $126 $226,200 10.0% $138 $220,000 10.0% $0 0.0% Mod @ 110% AMI 0% $151 $513,100 0.0% $196 $489,500 0.0% $259 $466,100 0.0% $288 $460,100 0.0% $0 0.0% Average Gross Sales Price $351 $1,194,405 100% $351 $878,498 100% $350 $630,120 100% $323 $517,000 100% $32 $31,462 100% <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($11) ($38,800) -3% ($11) ($28,600) -3% ($11) ($20,500) -3% ($11) ($16,800) -3% Other Income: $1,200 Revenue Net of Sales Expense $340 $1,155,605 97% $340 $849,898 97% $339 $609,620 97% $313 $500,200 97% Vac/OpExp: ($12,940) NOI: $19,722
ROC: 6.25%
Supported Investment: $315,500
Land and Lot Development % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC
Site Acquisition $43 $145,200 13.3% $42 $104,500 12.9% $24 $43,600 7.6% $18 $29,000 5.5% $18 $17,400 4.7% Site and Intracts $90 $305,000 27.9% $77 $192,000 23.8% $74 $134,000 23.3% $56 $89,500 17.0% $39 $38,300 10.2% Subtotal Lot Cost $132 $450,200 41.1% $119 $296,500 36.7% $99 $177,600 30.9% $74 $118,500 22.6% $57 $55,700 14.9% Home Construction
Direct Construction $110 $374,000 34.2% $120 $300,000 37.2% $131 $236,000 41.1% $165 $264,000 50.2% $200 $195,000 52.2% Fees & Permits $28 $94,400 8.6% $32 $80,200 9.9% $37 $67,100 11.7% $37 $59,600 11.3% $49 $47,600 12.7% (Less) Aff. Unit Fee Rdctn. $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% ($0) ($160) 0.0% Other Indirects 5.0% directs $6 $18,700 1.7% $6 $15,000 1.9% $7 $11,800 2.1% $8 $13,200 2.5% 16% dir/site $38 $37,300 10.0% Financing $18 $60,000 5.5% $18 $44,300 5.5% $18 $31,500 5.5% $18 $28,800 5.5% $30 $29,000 7.8% Overhead/G&A 5% mkt sales $19 $65,000 5.9% $19 $47,500 5.9% $19 $33,800 5.9% $17 $27,500 5.2% 4% dir/site $10 $9,300 2.5% Warranty/Insurance 1% mkt sales $4 $13,000 1.2% $4 $9,500 1.2% $4 $6,800 1.2% $3 $5,500 1.0% Marketing 1.5% mkt sales $6 $19,500 1.8% $6 $14,300 1.8% $6 $10,100 1.8% $5 $8,300 1.6% Subtotal Unit Construction $190 $644,600 58.9% $204 $510,800 63.3% $221 $397,100 69.1% $254 $406,900 77.4% $326 $318,040 85.1% Total Development Cost $322 $1,094,800 100.0% $323 $807,300 100.0% $319 $574,700 100.0% $328 $525,400 100.0% $383 $373,740 100.0% Net Sales Revenue $340 $1,155,605 $340 $849,898 $339 $609,620 $313 $500,200 $324 $315,500 <Less> Development Cost ($322) ($1,094,800) ($323) ($807,300) ($319) ($574,700) ($328) ($525,400) ($383) ($373,740) <Less> Net Builder Profit 10% sales ($35) ($119,400) ($35) ($87,800) ($35) ($63,000) ($32) ($51,700) included above % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % TDC Surplus / (Gap) ($17) ($58,595) -4.8% ($18) ($45,203) -5.0% ($16) ($28,080) -4.4% ($48) ($76,900) -13.3% ($60) ($58,240) -15.6% Yield on Cost: 5.28%
Feasibility Finding
Equivalent In-Lieu Fee $27 $91,500 $25 $62,000 $22 $39,000 $18 $28,600 $24 $23,200 Challenged Challenged
Figure 25
Figure 25
Marginal Marginal Marginal
Low Density Single Family Detached Medium Density Single Family Detached
Medium High Density Single Family
Detached
Townhome Apartments
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; 10% Low

DRAFT 373
Technical Report 1 Table 16
Financial Feasibility of Prototypes: 10% Onsite Obligation at Very Low Income Inclusionary Housing Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Market Rate Living Area Net SF 3,400 sf 2,500 sf 1,800 sf 1,600 sf 975 sf Average Number of Bedrooms 4.50 bedrooms 3.75 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms 3.00 bedrooms 1.8 bedrooms Density 3 du/acre 5 du/acre 12 du/acre 18 du/acre 25 du/acre Avg Lot Size 11,000 sf 7,000 sf 3,000 sf
Revenue For Sale For Rent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per NSF Per Unit Percent Market Units 90% 90% $382 $1,300,000 90.0% $380 $950,000 90.0% $375 $675,000 90.0% $344 $550,000 90.0% $34 $33,000 90.0% Very Low Income @ 50% AMI 10% 10% $45 $151,850 10.0% $59 $147,775 10.0% $80 $143,800 10.0% $86 $137,600 10.0% $15 $14,424 10.0% Low Income @ 60% AMI 0% $18 $17,616 0.0%
Low Income@ 70% AMI 0% $72 $244,050 0.0% $94 $234,975 0.0% $126 $226,200 0.0% $138 $220,000 0.0% $0 0.0% Mod @ 110% AMI 0% $151 $513,100 0.0% $196 $489,500 0.0% $259 $466,100 0.0% $288 $460,100 0.0% $0 0.0% Average Gross Sales Price $349 $1,185,185 100% $348 $869,778 100% $345 $621,880 100% $318 $508,760 100% $32 $31,142 100% <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($11) ($38,500) -3% ($11) ($28,300) -3% ($11) ($20,200) -3% ($10) ($16,500) -3% Other Income: $1,200 Revenue Net of Sales Expense $337 $1,146,685 97% $337 $841,478 97% $334 $601,680 97% $308 $492,260 97% Vac/OpExp: ($12,920) NOI: $19,422
ROC: 6.25%
Supported Investment: $310,800
Land and Lot Development % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC
Site Acquisition $43 $145,200 13.3% $42 $104,500 13.0% $24 $43,600 7.6% $18 $29,000 5.5% $18 $17,400 4.7% Site and Intracts $90 $305,000 27.9% $77 $192,000 23.8% $74 $134,000 23.3% $56 $89,500 17.0% $39 $38,300 10.2% Subtotal Lot Cost $132 $450,200 41.1% $119 $296,500 36.7% $99 $177,600 30.9% $74 $118,500 22.6% $57 $55,700 14.9% Home Construction
Direct Construction $110 $374,000 34.2% $120 $300,000 37.2% $131 $236,000 41.1% $165 $264,000 50.3% $200 $195,000 52.2% Fees & Permits $28 $94,400 8.6% $32 $80,200 9.9% $37 $67,100 11.7% $37 $59,600 11.4% $49 $47,600 12.7% (Less) Aff. Unit Fee Rdctn. ($0) ($420) 0.0% ($0) ($360) 0.0% ($0) ($360) -0.1% ($0) ($360) -0.1% ($0) ($160) 0.0% Other Indirects 5.0% directs $6 $18,700 1.7% $6 $15,000 1.9% $7 $11,800 2.1% $8 $13,200 2.5% 16% dir/site $38 $37,300 10.0% Financing $18 $60,000 5.5% $18 $44,200 5.5% $18 $31,500 5.5% $18 $28,800 5.5% $30 $29,000 7.8% Overhead/G&A 5% mkt sales $19 $65,000 5.9% $19 $47,500 5.9% $19 $33,800 5.9% $17 $27,500 5.2% 4% dir/site $10 $9,300 2.5% Warranty/Insurance 1% mkt sales $4 $13,000 1.2% $4 $9,500 1.2% $4 $6,800 1.2% $3 $5,500 1.0% Marketing 1.5% mkt sales $6 $19,500 1.8% $6 $14,300 1.8% $6 $10,100 1.8% $5 $8,300 1.6% Subtotal Unit Construction $189 $644,180 58.9% $204 $510,340 63.3% $220 $396,740 69.1% $254 $406,540 77.4% $326 $318,040 85.1% Total Development Cost $322 $1,094,380 100.0% $323 $806,840 100.0% $319 $574,340 100.0% $328 $525,040 100.0% $383 $373,740 100.0% Net Sales Revenue $337 $1,146,685 $337 $841,478 $334 $601,680 $308 $492,260 $319 $310,800 <Less> Development Cost ($322) ($1,094,380) ($323) ($806,840) ($319) ($574,340) ($328) ($525,040) ($383) ($373,740) <Less> Net Builder Profit 10% sales ($35) ($118,500) ($35) ($87,000) ($35) ($62,200) ($32) ($50,900) included above % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % TDC Surplus / (Gap) ($19) ($66,195) -5.5% ($21) ($52,363) -5.9% ($19) ($34,860) -5.5% ($52) ($83,680) -14.5% ($65) ($62,940) -16.8% Yield on Cost: 5.20%
Feasibility Finding
Equivalent In-Lieu Fee $29 $99,100 $28 $69,200 $25 $45,800 $22 $35,400 $29 $27,900 Low Density Single Family Detached Medium Density Single Family Detached
Medium High Density Single Family
Detached
Townhome Apartments
Challenged
Figure 25
Marginal Marginal Marginal Challenged
Figure 25
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; 10% VL

DRAFT 374
Technical Report 1 Table 17
Financial Feasibility of Prototypes: 15% Onsite Obligation at Low Income Inclusionary Housing Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Market Rate Living Area Net SF 3,400 sf 2,500 sf 1,800 sf 1,600 sf 975 sf Average Number of Bedrooms 4.50 bedrooms 3.75 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms 3.00 bedrooms 1.8 bedrooms Density 3 du/acre 5 du/acre 12 du/acre 18 du/acre 25 du/acre Avg Lot Size 11,000 sf 7,000 sf 3,000 sf
Revenue For Sale For Rent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per NSF Per Unit Percent Market Units 85% 85% $382 $1,300,000 85.0% $380 $950,000 85.0% $375 $675,000 85.0% $344 $550,000 85.0% $34 $33,000 85.0% Very Low Income @ 50% AMI 0% 0% $45 $151,850 0.0% $59 $147,775 0.0% $80 $143,800 0.0% $86 $137,600 0.0% $15 $14,424 0.0% Low Income @ 60% AMI 15% $18 $17,616 15.0%
Low Income@ 70% AMI 15% $72 $244,050 15.0% $94 $234,975 15.0% $126 $226,200 15.0% $138 $220,000 15.0% $0 0.0% Mod @ 110% AMI 0% $151 $513,100 0.0% $196 $489,500 0.0% $259 $466,100 0.0% $288 $460,100 0.0% $0 0.0% Average Gross Sales Price $336 $1,141,608 100% $337 $842,746 100% $338 $607,680 100% $313 $500,500 100% $31 $30,692 100% <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($11) ($37,100) -3% ($11) ($27,400) -3% ($11) ($19,700) -3% ($10) ($16,300) -3% Other Income: $1,200 Revenue Net of Sales Expense $325 $1,104,508 97% $326 $815,346 97% $327 $587,980 97% $303 $484,200 97% Vac/OpExp: ($12,900) NOI: $18,992
ROC: 6.25%
Supported Investment: $303,900
Land and Lot Development % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC
Site Acquisition $43 $145,200 13.3% $42 $104,500 12.9% $24 $43,600 7.6% $18 $29,000 5.5% $18 $17,400 4.7% Site and Intracts $90 $305,000 27.9% $77 $192,000 23.8% $74 $134,000 23.3% $56 $89,500 17.0% $39 $38,300 10.2% Subtotal Lot Cost $132 $450,200 41.1% $119 $296,500 36.7% $99 $177,600 30.9% $74 $118,500 22.6% $57 $55,700 14.9% Home Construction
Direct Construction $110 $374,000 34.2% $120 $300,000 37.2% $131 $236,000 41.1% $165 $264,000 50.2% $200 $195,000 52.2% Fees & Permits $28 $94,400 8.6% $32 $80,200 9.9% $37 $67,100 11.7% $37 $59,600 11.3% $49 $47,600 12.7% (Less) Aff. Unit Fee Rdctn. $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% $0 $0 0.0% ($0) ($240) -0.1% Other Indirects 5.0% directs $6 $18,700 1.7% $6 $15,000 1.9% $7 $11,800 2.1% $8 $13,200 2.5% 16% dir/site $38 $37,300 10.0% Financing $18 $60,000 5.5% $18 $44,300 5.5% $18 $31,500 5.5% $18 $28,800 5.5% $30 $29,000 7.8% Overhead/G&A 5% mkt sales $19 $65,000 5.9% $19 $47,500 5.9% $19 $33,800 5.9% $17 $27,500 5.2% 4% dir/site $10 $9,300 2.5% Warranty/Insurance 1% mkt sales $4 $13,000 1.2% $4 $9,500 1.2% $4 $6,800 1.2% $3 $5,500 1.0% Marketing 1.5% mkt sales $6 $19,500 1.8% $6 $14,300 1.8% $6 $10,100 1.8% $5 $8,300 1.6% Subtotal Unit Construction $190 $644,600 58.9% $204 $510,800 63.3% $221 $397,100 69.1% $254 $406,900 77.4% $326 $317,960 85.1% Total Development Cost $322 $1,094,800 100.0% $323 $807,300 100.0% $319 $574,700 100.0% $328 $525,400 100.0% $383 $373,660 100.0% Net Sales Revenue $325 $1,104,508 $326 $815,346 $327 $587,980 $303 $484,200 $312 $303,900 <Less> Development Cost ($322) ($1,094,800) ($323) ($807,300) ($319) ($574,700) ($328) ($525,400) ($383) ($373,660) <Less> Net Builder Profit 10% sales ($34) ($114,200) ($34) ($84,300) ($34) ($60,800) ($31) ($50,100) included above % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % TDC Surplus / (Gap) ($31) ($104,493) -8.6% ($31) ($76,254) -8.6% ($26) ($47,520) -7.5% ($57) ($91,300) -15.9% ($72) ($69,760) -18.7% Yield on Cost: 5.08%
Feasibility Finding
Equivalent In-Lieu Fee $40 $137,400 $37 $93,100 $32 $58,400 $27 $43,000 $36 $34,800 Low Density Single Family Detached Medium Density Single Family Detached
Medium High Density Single Family
Detached
Townhome Apartments
Challenged
Figure 25
Challenged Challenged Challenged Challenged
Figure 25
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; 15% Low

DRAFT 375
Technical Report 1 Table 18
Financial Feasibility of Prototypes: In-Lieu Fee Equal to $5 Per Square Foot Inclusionary Housing Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Market Rate Living Area Net SF 3,400 sf 2,500 sf 1,800 sf 1,600 sf 975 sf Average Number of Bedrooms 4.50 bedrooms 3.75 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms 3.00 bedrooms 1.8 bedrooms Density 3 du/acre 5 du/acre 12 du/acre 18 du/acre 25 du/acre Avg Lot Size 11,000 sf 7,000 sf 3,000 sf
Revenue For Sale For Rent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per NSF Per Unit Percent Market Units 100% 100% $382 $1,300,000 100.0% $380 $950,000 100.0% $375 $675,000 100.0% $344 $550,000 100.0% $34 $33,000 100.0% Very Low Income @ 50% AMI 0% $45 $151,850 0.0% $59 $147,775 0.0% $80 $143,800 0.0% $86 $137,600 0.0% $15 $14,424 0.0% Low Income @ 60% AMI 0% $18 $17,616 0.0%
Low Income@ 70% AMI 0% $72 $244,050 0.0% $94 $234,975 0.0% $126 $226,200 0.0% $138 $220,000 0.0% $0 0.0% Mod @ 110% AMI 0% $151 $513,100 0.0% $196 $489,500 0.0% $259 $466,100 0.0% $288 $460,100 0.0% $0 0.0% Average Gross Sales Price $382 $1,300,000 100% $380 $950,000 100% $375 $675,000 100% $344 $550,000 100% $34 $33,000 100% <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($12) ($42,300) -3% ($12) ($30,900) -3% ($12) ($21,900) -3% ($11) ($17,900) -3% Other Income: $1,200 Revenue Net of Sales Expense $370 $1,257,700 97% $368 $919,100 97% $363 $653,100 97% $333 $532,100 97% Vac/OpExp: ($13,020) NOI: $21,180
ROC: 6.25%
Supported Investment: $338,900
Land and Lot Development % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC
Site Acquisition $43 $145,200 13.0% $42 $104,500 12.7% $24 $43,600 7.5% $18 $29,000 5.4% $18 $17,400 4.6% Site and Intracts $90 $305,000 27.4% $77 $192,000 23.4% $74 $134,000 22.9% $56 $89,500 16.8% $39 $38,300 10.1% Subtotal Lot Cost $132 $450,200 40.5% $119 $296,500 36.1% $99 $177,600 30.4% $74 $118,500 22.2% $57 $55,700 14.7% Home Construction
Direct Construction $110 $374,000 33.6% $120 $300,000 36.6% $131 $236,000 40.4% $165 $264,000 49.4% $200 $195,000 51.4% Fees & Permits $28 $94,400 8.5% $32 $80,200 9.8% $37 $67,100 11.5% $37 $59,600 11.2% $49 $47,600 12.6% In-Lieu Fee @ $5 psf $5 $17,000 1.5% $5 $12,500 1.5% $5 $9,000 1.5% $5 $8,000 1.5% $5 $4,875 1.3% Other Indirects 5.0% directs $6 $18,700 1.7% $6 $15,000 1.8% $7 $11,800 2.0% $8 $13,200 2.5% 16% dir/site $38 $37,300 9.8% Financing $18 $61,000 5.5% $18 $45,000 5.5% $18 $32,000 5.5% $18 $29,300 5.5% $30 $29,400 7.8% Overhead/G&A 5% mkt sales $19 $65,000 5.8% $19 $47,500 5.8% $19 $33,800 5.8% $17 $27,500 5.2% 4% dir/site $10 $9,300 2.5% Warranty/Insurance 1% mkt sales $4 $13,000 1.2% $4 $9,500 1.2% $4 $6,800 1.2% $3 $5,500 1.0% Marketing 1.5% mkt sales $6 $19,500 1.8% $6 $14,300 1.7% $6 $10,100 1.7% $5 $8,300 1.6% Subtotal Unit Construction $195 $662,600 59.5% $210 $524,000 63.9% $226 $406,600 69.6% $260 $415,400 77.8% $332 $323,475 85.3% Total Development Cost $327 $1,112,800 100.0% $328 $820,500 100.0% $325 $584,200 100.0% $334 $533,900 100.0% $389 $379,175 100.0% Net Sales Revenue $370 $1,257,700 $368 $919,100 $363 $653,100 $333 $532,100 $348 $338,900 <Less> Development Cost ($327) ($1,112,800) ($328) ($820,500) ($325) ($584,200) ($334) ($533,900) ($389) ($379,175) <Less> Net Builder Profit 10% sales ($38) ($130,000) ($38) ($95,000) ($38) ($67,500) ($34) ($55,000) included above % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % TDC Surplus / (Gap) $4 $14,900 1.2% $1 $3,600 0.4% $1 $1,400 0.2% ($36) ($56,800) -9.6% ($41) ($40,275) -10.6% Yield on Cost: 5.59%
Feasibility Finding Challenged
Figure 25
Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged
Low Density Single Family
Detached
Medium Density Single Family
Detached
Medium High Density Single Family
Detached
Townhome Apartments
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; Fee $5 SF

DRAFT 376
Technical Report 1 Table 19
Financial Feasibility of Prototypes: In-Lieu Fee Equal to $10 Per Square Foot Inclusionary Housing Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Market Rate Living Area Net SF 3,400 sf 2,500 sf 1,800 sf 1,600 sf 975 sf Average Number of Bedrooms 4.50 bedrooms 3.75 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms 3.00 bedrooms 1.8 bedrooms Density 3 du/acre 5 du/acre 12 du/acre 18 du/acre 25 du/acre Avg Lot Size 11,000 sf 7,000 sf 3,000 sf
Revenue For Sale For Rent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per NSF Per Unit Percent Market Units 100% 100% $382 $1,300,000 100.0% $380 $950,000 100.0% $375 $675,000 100.0% $344 $550,000 100.0% $34 $33,000 100.0% Very Low Income @ 50% AMI 0% $45 $151,850 0.0% $59 $147,775 0.0% $80 $143,800 0.0% $86 $137,600 0.0% $15 $14,424 0.0% Low Income @ 60% AMI 0% $18 $17,616 0.0%
Low Income@ 70% AMI 0% $72 $244,050 0.0% $94 $234,975 0.0% $126 $226,200 0.0% $138 $220,000 0.0% $0 0.0% Mod @ 110% AMI 0% $151 $513,100 0.0% $196 $489,500 0.0% $259 $466,100 0.0% $288 $460,100 0.0% $0 0.0% Average Gross Sales Price $382 $1,300,000 100% $380 $950,000 100% $375 $675,000 100% $344 $550,000 100% $34 $33,000 100% <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($12) ($42,300) -3% ($12) ($30,900) -3% ($12) ($21,900) -3% ($11) ($17,900) -3% Other Income: $1,200 Revenue Net of Sales Expense $370 $1,257,700 97% $368 $919,100 97% $363 $653,100 97% $333 $532,100 97% Vac/OpExp: ($13,020) NOI: $21,180
ROC: 6.25%
Supported Investment: $338,900
Land and Lot Development % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC
Site Acquisition $43 $145,200 12.8% $42 $104,500 12.5% $24 $43,600 7.3% $18 $29,000 5.3% $18 $17,400 4.5% Site and Intracts $90 $305,000 27.0% $77 $192,000 23.0% $74 $134,000 22.6% $56 $89,500 16.5% $39 $38,300 10.0% Subtotal Lot Cost $132 $450,200 39.8% $119 $296,500 35.6% $99 $177,600 29.9% $74 $118,500 21.9% $57 $55,700 14.5% Home Construction
Direct Construction $110 $374,000 33.1% $120 $300,000 36.0% $131 $236,000 39.8% $165 $264,000 48.7% $200 $195,000 50.7% Fees & Permits $28 $94,400 8.3% $32 $80,200 9.6% $37 $67,100 11.3% $37 $59,600 11.0% $49 $47,600 12.4% In-Lieu Fee @ $10 psf $10 $34,000 3.0% $10 $25,000 3.0% $10 $18,000 3.0% $10 $16,000 3.0% $10 $9,750 2.5% Other Indirects 5.0% directs $6 $18,700 1.7% $6 $15,000 1.8% $7 $11,800 2.0% $8 $13,200 2.4% 16% dir/site $38 $37,300 9.7% Financing $18 $62,000 5.5% $18 $45,700 5.5% $18 $32,500 5.5% $19 $29,700 5.5% $31 $29,800 7.8% Overhead/G&A 5% mkt sales $19 $65,000 5.7% $19 $47,500 5.7% $19 $33,800 5.7% $17 $27,500 5.1% 4% dir/site $10 $9,300 2.4% Warranty/Insurance 1% mkt sales $4 $13,000 1.1% $4 $9,500 1.1% $4 $6,800 1.1% $3 $5,500 1.0% Marketing 1.5% mkt sales $6 $19,500 1.7% $6 $14,300 1.7% $6 $10,100 1.7% $5 $8,300 1.5% Subtotal Unit Construction $200 $680,600 60.2% $215 $537,200 64.4% $231 $416,100 70.1% $265 $423,800 78.1% $337 $328,750 85.5% Total Development Cost $333 $1,130,800 100.0% $333 $833,700 100.0% $330 $593,700 100.0% $339 $542,300 100.0% $394 $384,450 100.0% Net Sales Revenue $370 $1,257,700 $368 $919,100 $363 $653,100 $333 $532,100 $348 $338,900 <Less> Development Cost ($333) ($1,130,800) ($333) ($833,700) ($330) ($593,700) ($339) ($542,300) ($394) ($384,450) <Less> Net Builder Profit 10% sales ($38) ($130,000) ($38) ($95,000) ($38) ($67,500) ($34) ($55,000) included above % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % TDC Surplus / (Gap) ($1) ($3,100) -0.2% ($4) ($9,600) -1.0% ($5) ($8,100) -1.2% ($41) ($65,200) -10.9% ($47) ($45,550) -11.8% Yield on Cost: 5.51%
Feasibility Finding Challenged
Figure 25
Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged
Low Density Single Family
Detached
Medium Density Single Family
Detached
Medium High Density Single Family
Detached
Townhome Apartments
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; Fee $10 SF

DRAFT 377
Technical Report 1 Table 20
Financial Feasibility of Prototypes: In-Lieu Fee Equal to 5% Offsite (City-Funded Units) Inclusionary Housing Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Market Rate Living Area Net SF 3,400 sf 2,500 sf 1,800 sf 1,600 sf 975 sf Average Number of Bedrooms 4.50 bedrooms 3.75 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms 3.00 bedrooms 1.8 bedrooms Density 3 du/acre 5 du/acre 12 du/acre 18 du/acre 25 du/acre Avg Lot Size 11,000 sf 7,000 sf 3,000 sf
Revenue For Sale For Rent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per NSF Per Unit Percent Market Units 100% 100% $382 $1,300,000 100.0% $380 $950,000 100.0% $375 $675,000 100.0% $344 $550,000 100.0% $34 $33,000 100.0% Very Low Income @ 50% AMI 0% $45 $151,850 0.0% $59 $147,775 0.0% $80 $143,800 0.0% $86 $137,600 0.0% $15 $14,424 0.0% Low Income @ 60% AMI 0% $18 $17,616 0.0%
Low Income@ 70% AMI 0% $72 $244,050 0.0% $94 $234,975 0.0% $126 $226,200 0.0% $138 $220,000 0.0% $0 0.0% Mod @ 110% AMI 0% $151 $513,100 0.0% $196 $489,500 0.0% $259 $466,100 0.0% $288 $460,100 0.0% $0 0.0% Average Gross Sales Price $382 $1,300,000 100% $380 $950,000 100% $375 $675,000 100% $344 $550,000 100% $34 $33,000 100% <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($12) ($42,300) -3% ($12) ($30,900) -3% ($12) ($21,900) -3% ($11) ($17,900) -3% Other Income: $1,200 Revenue Net of Sales Expense $370 $1,257,700 97% $368 $919,100 97% $363 $653,100 97% $333 $532,100 97% Vac/OpExp: ($13,020) NOI: $21,180
ROC: 6.25%
Supported Investment: $338,900
Land and Lot Development % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC
Site Acquisition $43 $145,200 13.2% $42 $104,500 12.8% $24 $43,600 7.5% $18 $29,000 5.4% $18 $17,400 4.6% Site and Intracts $90 $305,000 27.7% $77 $192,000 23.6% $74 $134,000 23.0% $56 $89,500 16.8% $39 $38,300 10.0% Subtotal Lot Cost $132 $450,200 40.9% $119 $296,500 36.4% $99 $177,600 30.5% $74 $118,500 22.3% $57 $55,700 14.6% Home Construction
Direct Construction $110 $374,000 33.9% $120 $300,000 36.8% $131 $236,000 40.6% $165 $264,000 49.6% $200 $195,000 51.2% Fees & Permits $28 $94,400 8.6% $32 $80,200 9.8% $37 $67,100 11.5% $37 $59,600 11.2% $49 $47,600 12.5% In-Lieu Fee @ 5% Offsite $2 $6,700 0.6% $3 $6,700 0.8% $4 $6,700 1.2% $4 $6,700 1.3% $7 $6,700 1.8% Other Indirects 5.0% directs $6 $18,700 1.7% $6 $15,000 1.8% $7 $11,800 2.0% $8 $13,200 2.5% 16% dir/site $38 $37,300 9.8% Financing $18 $60,400 5.5% $18 $44,600 5.5% $18 $31,900 5.5% $18 $29,200 5.5% $30 $29,500 7.7% Overhead/G&A 5% mkt sales $19 $65,000 5.9% $19 $47,500 5.8% $19 $33,800 5.8% $17 $27,500 5.2% 4% dir/site $10 $9,300 2.4% Warranty/Insurance 1% mkt sales $4 $13,000 1.2% $4 $9,500 1.2% $4 $6,800 1.2% $3 $5,500 1.0% Marketing 1.5% mkt sales $6 $19,500 1.8% $6 $14,300 1.8% $6 $10,100 1.7% $5 $8,300 1.6% Subtotal Unit Construction $192 $651,700 59.1% $207 $517,800 63.6% $225 $404,200 69.5% $259 $414,000 77.7% $334 $325,400 85.4% Total Development Cost $324 $1,101,900 100.0% $326 $814,300 100.0% $323 $581,800 100.0% $333 $532,500 100.0% $391 $381,100 100.0% Net Sales Revenue $370 $1,257,700 $368 $919,100 $363 $653,100 $333 $532,100 $348 $338,900 <Less> Development Cost ($324) ($1,101,900) ($326) ($814,300) ($323) ($581,800) ($333) ($532,500) ($391) ($381,100) <Less> Net Builder Profit 10% sales ($38) ($130,000) ($38) ($95,000) ($38) ($67,500) ($34) ($55,000) included above % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % TDC Surplus / (Gap) $8 $25,800 2.1% $4 $9,800 1.1% $2 $3,800 0.6% ($35) ($55,400) -9.4% ($43) ($42,200) -11.1% Yield on Cost: 5.56%
Feasibility Finding
Low Density Single Family
Detached
Medium Density Single Family
Detached
Medium High Density Single Family
Detached
Townhome Apartments
Challenged
Figure 25
Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; Fee 5% Offsite

DRAFT 378
Technical Report 1 Table 21
Financial Feasibility of Prototypes: In-Lieu Fee Equal to 10% Offsite (City-Funded Units) Inclusionary Housing Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Market Rate Living Area Net SF 3,400 sf 2,500 sf 1,800 sf 1,600 sf 975 sf Average Number of Bedrooms 4.50 bedrooms 3.75 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms 3.00 bedrooms 1.8 bedrooms Density 3 du/acre 5 du/acre 12 du/acre 18 du/acre 25 du/acre Avg Lot Size 11,000 sf 7,000 sf 3,000 sf
Revenue For Sale For Rent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per NSF Per Unit Percent Market Units 100% 100% $382 $1,300,000 100.0% $380 $950,000 100.0% $375 $675,000 100.0% $344 $550,000 100.0% $34 $33,000 100.0% Very Low Income @ 50% AMI 0% $45 $151,850 0.0% $59 $147,775 0.0% $80 $143,800 0.0% $86 $137,600 0.0% $15 $14,424 0.0% Low Income @ 60% AMI 0% $18 $17,616 0.0%
Low Income@ 70% AMI 0% $72 $244,050 0.0% $94 $234,975 0.0% $126 $226,200 0.0% $138 $220,000 0.0% $0 0.0% Mod @ 110% AMI 0% $151 $513,100 0.0% $196 $489,500 0.0% $259 $466,100 0.0% $288 $460,100 0.0% $0 0.0% Average Gross Sales Price $382 $1,300,000 100% $380 $950,000 100% $375 $675,000 100% $344 $550,000 100% $34 $33,000 100% <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($12) ($42,300) -3% ($12) ($30,900) -3% ($12) ($21,900) -3% ($11) ($17,900) -3% Other Income: $1,200 Revenue Net of Sales Expense $370 $1,257,700 97% $368 $919,100 97% $363 $653,100 97% $333 $532,100 97% Vac/OpExp: ($13,020) NOI: $21,180
ROC: 6.25%
Supported Investment: $338,900
Land and Lot Development % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC
Site Acquisition $43 $145,200 13.1% $42 $104,500 12.7% $24 $43,600 7.4% $18 $29,000 5.4% $18 $17,400 4.5% Site and Intracts $90 $305,000 27.5% $77 $192,000 23.4% $74 $134,000 22.8% $56 $89,500 16.6% $39 $38,300 9.9% Subtotal Lot Cost $132 $450,200 40.6% $119 $296,500 36.1% $99 $177,600 30.2% $74 $118,500 22.0% $57 $55,700 14.3% Home Construction
Direct Construction $110 $374,000 33.7% $120 $300,000 36.5% $131 $236,000 40.1% $165 $264,000 48.9% $200 $195,000 50.2% Fees & Permits $28 $94,400 8.5% $32 $80,200 9.8% $37 $67,100 11.4% $37 $59,600 11.0% $49 $47,600 12.3% In-Lieu Fee @ 10% Offsite $4 $13,400 1.2% $5 $13,400 1.6% $7 $13,400 2.3% $8 $13,400 2.5% $14 $13,400 3.5% Other Indirects 5.0% directs $6 $18,700 1.7% $6 $15,000 1.8% $7 $11,800 2.0% $8 $13,200 2.4% 16% dir/site $38 $37,300 9.6% Financing $18 $60,800 5.5% $18 $45,000 5.5% $18 $32,300 5.5% $19 $29,600 5.5% $31 $30,100 7.7% Overhead/G&A 5% mkt sales $19 $65,000 5.9% $19 $47,500 5.8% $19 $33,800 5.7% $17 $27,500 5.1% 4% dir/site $10 $9,300 2.4% Warranty/Insurance 1% mkt sales $4 $13,000 1.2% $4 $9,500 1.2% $4 $6,800 1.2% $3 $5,500 1.0% Marketing 1.5% mkt sales $6 $19,500 1.8% $6 $14,300 1.7% $6 $10,100 1.7% $5 $8,300 1.5% Subtotal Unit Construction $194 $658,800 59.4% $210 $524,900 63.9% $229 $411,300 69.8% $263 $421,100 78.0% $341 $332,700 85.7% Total Development Cost $326 $1,109,000 100.0% $329 $821,400 100.0% $327 $588,900 100.0% $337 $539,600 100.0% $398 $388,400 100.0% Net Sales Revenue $370 $1,257,700 $368 $919,100 $363 $653,100 $333 $532,100 $348 $338,900 <Less> Development Cost ($326) ($1,109,000) ($329) ($821,400) ($327) ($588,900) ($337) ($539,600) ($398) ($388,400) <Less> Net Builder Profit 10% sales ($38) ($130,000) ($38) ($95,000) ($38) ($67,500) ($34) ($55,000) included above % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % TDC Surplus / (Gap) $6 $18,700 1.5% $1 $2,700 0.3% ($2) ($3,300) -0.5% ($39) ($62,500) -10.5% ($51) ($49,500) -12.7% Yield on Cost: 5.45%
Feasibility Finding
Low Density Single Family
Detached
Medium Density Single Family
Detached
Medium High Density Single Family
Detached
Townhome Apartments
Challenged
Figure 25
Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; Fee 10% Offsite

DRAFT 379
Technical Report 1 Table 22
Financial Feasibility of Prototypes: In-Lieu Fee Equal to 15% Offsite (City-Funded Units) Inclusionary Housing Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
Market Rate Living Area Net SF 3,400 sf 2,500 sf 1,800 sf 1,600 sf 975 sf Average Number of Bedrooms 4.50 bedrooms 3.75 bedrooms 3.0 bedrooms 3.00 bedrooms 1.8 bedrooms Density 3 du/acre 5 du/acre 12 du/acre 18 du/acre 25 du/acre Avg Lot Size 11,000 sf 7,000 sf 3,000 sf
Revenue For Sale For Rent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per SF Per Unit Percent Per NSF Per Unit Percent Market Units 100% 100% $382 $1,300,000 100.0% $380 $950,000 100.0% $375 $675,000 100.0% $344 $550,000 100.0% $34 $33,000 100.0% Very Low Income @ 50% AMI 0% $45 $151,850 0.0% $59 $147,775 0.0% $80 $143,800 0.0% $86 $137,600 0.0% $15 $14,424 0.0% Low Income @ 60% AMI 0% $18 $17,616 0.0%
Low Income@ 70% AMI 0% $72 $244,050 0.0% $94 $234,975 0.0% $126 $226,200 0.0% $138 $220,000 0.0% $0 0.0% Mod @ 110% AMI 0% $151 $513,100 0.0% $196 $489,500 0.0% $259 $466,100 0.0% $288 $460,100 0.0% $0 0.0% Average Gross Sales Price $382 $1,300,000 100% $380 $950,000 100% $375 $675,000 100% $344 $550,000 100% $34 $33,000 100% <Less> Sales, Closing 3.25% sales ($12) ($42,300) -3% ($12) ($30,900) -3% ($12) ($21,900) -3% ($11) ($17,900) -3% Other Income: $1,200 Revenue Net of Sales Expense $370 $1,257,700 97% $368 $919,100 97% $363 $653,100 97% $333 $532,100 97% Vac/OpExp: ($13,020) NOI: $21,180
ROC: 6.25%
Supported Investment: $338,900
Land and Lot Development % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC % TDC
Site Acquisition $43 $145,200 13.0% $42 $104,500 12.6% $24 $43,600 7.3% $18 $29,000 5.3% $18 $17,400 4.4% Site and Intracts $90 $305,000 27.3% $77 $192,000 23.2% $74 $134,000 22.5% $56 $89,500 16.4% $39 $38,300 9.7% Subtotal Lot Cost $132 $450,200 40.3% $119 $296,500 35.8% $99 $177,600 29.8% $74 $118,500 21.7% $57 $55,700 14.1% Home Construction
Direct Construction $110 $374,000 33.5% $120 $300,000 36.2% $131 $236,000 39.6% $165 $264,000 48.3% $200 $195,000 49.3% Fees & Permits $28 $94,400 8.5% $32 $80,200 9.7% $37 $67,100 11.3% $37 $59,600 10.9% $49 $47,600 12.0% In-Lieu Fee @ 15% Offsite $6 $20,100 1.8% $8 $20,100 2.4% $11 $20,100 3.4% $13 $20,100 3.7% $21 $20,100 5.1% Other Indirects 5.0% directs $6 $18,700 1.7% $6 $15,000 1.8% $7 $11,800 2.0% $8 $13,200 2.4% 16% dir/site $38 $37,300 9.4% Financing $18 $61,200 5.5% $18 $45,400 5.5% $18 $32,700 5.5% $19 $30,000 5.5% $31 $30,700 7.8% Overhead/G&A 5% mkt sales $19 $65,000 5.8% $19 $47,500 5.7% $19 $33,800 5.7% $17 $27,500 5.0% 4% dir/site $10 $9,300 2.4% Warranty/Insurance 1% mkt sales $4 $13,000 1.2% $4 $9,500 1.1% $4 $6,800 1.1% $3 $5,500 1.0% Marketing 1.5% mkt sales $6 $19,500 1.7% $6 $14,300 1.7% $6 $10,100 1.7% $5 $8,300 1.5% Subtotal Unit Construction $196 $665,900 59.7% $213 $532,000 64.2% $232 $418,400 70.2% $268 $428,200 78.3% $349 $340,000 85.9% Total Development Cost $328 $1,116,100 100.0% $331 $828,500 100.0% $331 $596,000 100.0% $342 $546,700 100.0% $406 $395,700 100.0% Net Sales Revenue $370 $1,257,700 $368 $919,100 $363 $653,100 $333 $532,100 $348 $338,900 <Less> Development Cost ($328) ($1,116,100) ($331) ($828,500) ($331) ($596,000) ($342) ($546,700) ($406) ($395,700) <Less> Net Builder Profit 10% sales ($38) ($130,000) ($38) ($95,000) ($38) ($67,500) ($34) ($55,000) included above % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % of TDC + Profit % TDC Surplus / (Gap) $3 $11,600 0.9% ($2) ($4,400) -0.5% ($6) ($10,400) -1.6% ($44) ($69,600) -11.6% ($58) ($56,800) -14.4% Yield on Cost: 5.35%
Feasibility Finding
Low Density Single Family
Detached
Medium Density Single Family
Detached
Medium High Density Single Family
Detached
Townhome Apartments
Challenged
Figure 25
Feasible Feasible Feasible Challenged
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; Fee 15% Offsite

DRAFT 380
Technical Report 1 Table 23
In-Lieu Fee Calculation for Offsite, City-Funded Affordable Units Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Analysis
City of Rocklin Working Draft
I. Affordability Gap, City Funded Tax Credit Units1 $199,000 $121,000 $81,000 $134,000 II. F
ee Per Market Rate Unit
5% Obligation ( = 5% * average gap per affordable unit) $6,700 10% Obligation ( = 10% * average gap per affordable unit) $13,400 15% Obligation ( = 15% * average gap per affordable unit) $20,100 1 See Technical Report 4.

Extremely Low Very Low Low
Average Gap Per
Affordable Unit
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename:\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Rocklin Inclusionary Housing Analysis 2.24; Att 1 Tab 23

DRAFT 381
Technical Report 1 Table 24
Affordable Housing Requirements Survey
City of Sacramento City of Roseville Town of Loomis City of Folsom City of Elk Grove Placer County City of Rancho Cordova 526,669 166,214 6,809 84,782 179,694 112,788 (unincorporated) 80,598 Adopted 2000; Updated 2015 1988 Adopted 2022 Updated 2026 Adopted 2013 2020 (update in progress) Fee w/ onsite option Onsite Onsite For sale units only - onsite requirement w/ fee option.

Fee per unit. Onsite
For In-lieu/Impact Fee 1 5 units 1 8
For Build Requirement n/a 10 units n/a 100
For In-lieu/Impact Fee 1 5 units 10 units 1 8
For Build Requirement n/a 10 units n/a n/a 100
Projects providing at least 10%
affordable units are exempt
from the HIF
FS: 10% (4% VL, 4% L, 2% Mod)
R: 10% (5% Low, 5% VL)
R: 10% (5% VL and 5% Low)
FS: 10% Low FS: 10% (3% VL and 7% Low) none
FS: Specific/ Master Plan: 10%
(4% VL, 4% L, 2% Mod) All Other:
10% Mod
R:

Specific/ Master Plan:10% (4%
VL, 4% L, 2% Mod). All Other:
10% (4% VL, 6% L)
Income Levels for Pricing Low @ 80% AMI R: VL @ 50%, Low @ 60% AMI FS: Low @ 70% AMI
35% of Low @ 80% AMI, VL @
50% AMI
n/a Not specified.

Impact / In-Lieu Fee 1-2 units <20 dua: $3.56 psf
Multi-units <40 dua: $3.56 psf
Housing Incentive Zn: $1.54 psf
High density or converted units:
$0
(June 2025 rates)
Case-by-case based on affordable units
owed.

Not yet adopted. For fractional
units only (including projects w/5-
9 units). In 2025, Planning
Commission recommended that
Town Council approve an in-lieu
fee of $17 psf for for-sale and $22
psf for rental projects.
$3.00 psf Single Family (1-2 units):
$6,354 / mkt unit
Multi-family (3+ units): $3,812
/ mkt unit
$2.73 psf Negotiated Development
Agreement fees range from $2,488
to $7,303 per unit. Deed Restriction Term 30 years R: 55 years FS: 5 years
FS: 20 years / R: 30 years n/a 55 years
Other Compliance Options None specified. Acq/rehab, Off-site units, Preservation of at-risk units. Other
proposals approved by Town
Council.

Off-site units, Credits, Land
dedication, Acq/rehab, other
proposals approved by City
Council.

Equivalency proposals may be
submitted with alternative
compliance actions.

Comments City has had the 10% Affordable
Housing Goal since inception and has
produced over 4,100 units.

In 2025, Planning Commission
recommended that Town Council
consider allowing projects up to 50
units to pay the in-lieu fee.

Fee deferrals and modified
development standards available
for on-site units.

Residential projects with 50% of
units smaller than 1,600 sf are
exempt. Mixed use projects with
>70% residential are exempt.

Infill sites and sites located in
"transit priority area" are
exempt.

Incentives available include fee
waivers and priority processing.

Abbreviations: FS - For Sale, R - Rental, Mod - Moderate Income, L - Low Income, VL - Very Low Income psf - per square foot, dua - dwelling units per acre
Population Data for cities from US Census and unincorporated county populations from CA Dept. of Finance.

Chart data from City / County websites, Housing Elements, Municipal Codes, etc.

Notes: This chart presents an overview, and as a result, terms are simplified. For use other than general comparison, please consult the code and staff of the jurisdiction.

The City of Roseville does not have a
city-wide inclusionary housing policy
but has a General Plan Goal that 10%
of all new housing units will be
affordable to moderate, low and very
low income households. The goal is
implemented through the City’s
Specific Plans, which assign affordable
housing obligations on a parcel-by-
parcel basis.

The City has a Housing Element
Policy that requires new residential
projects within the newly
developing areas of the City
(generally in the large, vacant areas
south of Highway 50) to include an
Affordable Housing Plan for the
project that identifies the project’s
plan for providing affordable
housing. These areas are typically
high resource and promote
inclusion of affordable housing in
high opportunity areas. Compliance
options include onsite affordable
units, land dedication, rehab of
existing units, or in-lieu fees.

Population
Minimum Project Size - For Sale
Year Adopted / Updated
Minimum Project Size - Rental
Onsite Requirement/Option
Base Obligation
No rental req. unless receive City
funding
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Filename: \\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\Comparison Chart - Other Jurisdictions 2.26; att 1 tab 25; 2/2/2026;hgr

DRAFT
382
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 61
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
TECHNICAL REPORT 2: RESIDENTIAL NEXUS STUDY

DRAFT
383
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 62
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following Technical Report summarizes an analysis of the linkages between market rate residential development in Rocklin and the future demand for additional affordable housing. The analysis has been prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) for the City of Rocklin (City) in accordance with a contractual agreement.

It is important to note, that per current legislation and case law, a nexus study is not required to undertake either of the following actions:

1. To impose inclusionary housing obligations on market rate residential projects; or

2. To impose an option to pay a fee in lieu of providing affordable units in market rate residential projects (in-lieu fees).

KMA prepared the following residential nexus study for these purposes:

1. This nexus study methodology provides a contextual comparison to the financial feasibility analysis, which was also conducted by KMA as part of our contractual agreement contract with the City.

2. This nexus study may also be used in support of fees charged for fractional unit inclusionary obligations.

A. ResidenƟal Nexus Study

The purpose of a residential nexus study is to demonstrate and quantify the impact of new market rate residential development on the demand for affordable housing. The underlying nexus concept is that newly constructed market rate residential units represent net new households in Rocklin. These households generate new income in Rocklin that will be used to consume goods and services. This increased consumption translates into new jobs – a share of which are low paying. These new households with low paying jobs require housing, which results in the new demand for affordable units in Rocklin.

New jobs – a share of which are low paying
↓
New lower income households that need housing
↓
New demand for affordable units in Rocklin

DRAFT
384
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 63
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
B. Methodology and Models Used

The Residential Nexus Study is performed using two models that can be described as follows:

The IMPLAN (IMpact Analysis for PLANning) model is an industry-accepted, commercially available model developed over 40 years ago to quantify the impacts of changes in a local economy, including the employment impacts created by changes in personal income.

The KMA Jobs-Housing Nexus model, which was initially developed over 25 years ago to analyze the income structure of job growth, is used to determine the household income of new employee households.

C. Nexus Study Results

The following table identifies the inclusionary obligations derived from the Residential Nexus Study.

Figure 33: Maximum ResidenƟal Linkage Fee
Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3 Prototype 4 Prototype 5

Low Density
Detached
Medium Density
Detached
Medium High
Density Detached
Single Family
Attached Apartments
30% of Median Income 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3%
50% of Median Income 7.2% 5.9% 4.9% 4.1% 3.4%
80% of Median Income 7.0% 5.9% 4.9% 4.2% 3.5%
subtotal to 80% AMI 14.8% 12.3% 10.2% 8.7% 7.1%

120% of Median Income 5.1% 4.4% 3.6% 3.2% 2.7%
Total (0-120% AMI) 19.9% 16.6% 13.8% 11.8% 9.7%

D. Data Sources and QualificaƟons

The analyses in this report have been prepared using the best and most recent data available. Local and current data was used whenever possible. Sources such as the United States Census (Census), the American Community Survey of the Census (ACS), and California Employment Development Department (EDD) data were used extensively. Other sources and analyses are noted when used in the text and footnotes. The data sources and uses are those that provide a reasonable basis to support the nexus between jobs and housing.

While we believe all sources utilized are sufficiently accurate for the purposes of the analyses, we cannot guarantee their accuracy. KMA assumes no liability for information from these and other sources.

DRAFT
385
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 64
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
II. THE RESIDENTIAL NEXUS STUDY

A. IntroducƟon

This section outlines the nexus concept and some of the key issues surrounding the linking of new market rate residential development to the demand for affordable residential units in Rocklin. The Residential Nexus Study provides the City with contextual support of on-site obligations.

B. The Nexus Concept

At its most simplified level, the underlying nexus concept is that newly constructed units represent net new households in the Rocklin. These households generate income that is new to the community, and that income will be used to purchase goods and services. This new consumption can be translated into an increase in the number of jobs required to fulfill the additional demand for goods and services. A portion of the new jobs will be at lower compensation levels, which in turn relates to employee households that cannot afford to rent or buy market rate units. This results in the need for additional affordable housing units.

C. Use of this ResidenƟal Nexus Study

This Residential Nexus Study has been prepared for the limited purpose of determining the nexus support for imposing an inclusionary housing obligation. We caution against using this study, or any impact study for that matter, for purposes beyond the intended use.

D. Methodology and Models Used

The Residential Nexus Study is performed using two models. The IMPLAN and KMA Jobs-Housing Nexus models are described below.

IMPLAN Model

The IMPLAN model is an industry-accepted, commercially available model developed over 40 years ago.

The IMPLAN model was first used to quantify the impacts of changes in a local economy, including the employment impacts created by changes in personal income. The IMPLAN model plays the following role in this Residential Nexus Study:

1. The estimated net new personal income available for expenditures for the households residing in the market-rate residential units is input into the IMPLAN model;

2. Using this income information, the IMPLAN model estimates a distribution of expenditures; and

3. The IMPLAN model produces a quantification of new jobs generated by industry type. The IMPLAN model estimates the jobs generated at establishments that serve new residents in the following ways:
a. Jobs that serve new residents directly, such as supermarkets, banks and schools; DRAFT
386
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 65
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
b. Jobs generated by increased demand at firms that service or supply these establishments, such as wholesalers, janitorial contractors, accounting firms, and any jobs down the service/supply chain from direct jobs; and
c. Jobs generated when the new employees spend their wages in the local economy and generate additional jobs.

KMA Jobs-Housing Nexus Model

The results of the IMPLAN analysis are input into the KMA Jobs-Housing Nexus model. This model was initially developed over 25 years ago to analyze the income structure of job growth, and it is used to estimate the following:

1. The household income of the employees doing the identified jobs; and

2. The income category of the housing needed by the employee households.

This information is presented for the following household income categories:

Figure 34. Summary of Affordability Categories
Income Category Percent of Median
Income Range
(Four-Person Household)
Extremely Low Income 0% to 30% of Median $0 to $38,600
Very Low Income Above 30% to 50% of Median $38,601 to $64,300 Low Income Above 50% to 80% of Median $64,301 to $102,900 Moderate Income Above 80% to 120% of Median $102,901 to $144,950

The linkages can be illustrated using the following simplified example:

1. An analysis of the housing market provides the average sales price or rent of market rate units.

2. The household incomes for the new residents are estimated based on the average sales price or rent of the units. Specifically, the estimates are based on the assumptions regarding the share of income spent on housing-related expenses.

3. The household’s estimated gross income is adjusted to a net amount available for expenditures.

4. The new households will purchase or consume a range of goods and services (e.g., at locations such as a supermarket or a restaurant).

5. The increase in purchases in the local economy will in turn generate support for increased employment at an array of different compensation levels.

6. A portion of the jobs will provide insufficient compensation for the employee households to afford market rate housing in Rocklin.

E. Underlying AssumpƟons Related to Net New Demand for Housing

An underlying assumption of the Residential Nexus Study is that households that buy or rent new units represent net new households in Rocklin. If homebuyers/renters have relocated from elsewhere in the DRAFT
387
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 66
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
local area, vacancies have been created that will be filled. If existing units are removed to redevelop a site to higher density, then there could be a need for recognition of the existing households in that all new units might not represent new households, depending on the program design and number of units removed relative to new units.

Since the analysis addresses net new households in Rocklin and the impacts generated by their consumption expenditures, the Residential Nexus Study quantifies net new demands for affordable units to accommodate new worker households. As such, the impact results do not address nor in any way include existing deficiencies in the community’s supply of affordable housing.

F. Geographic Area of Impact

The purpose of the Residential Nexus Study is to estimate the affordable housing demand generated in Rocklin. However, some impacts will be experienced elsewhere in Placer County and beyond. The IMPLAN model computes the jobs generated within Placer County and sorts out those that occur beyond the Placer County boundaries. The KMA Jobs-Housing Nexus Model analyzes the income structure of jobs and their corresponding employee households, without assumptions as to where the employee households live.

In summary, the KMA residential nexus analysis quantifies all job impacts occurring within Placer County and related housing needs. Job impacts, like most types of impacts, occur irrespective of jurisdictional boundaries. And like other types of impact analyses, such as traffic studies, impacts beyond jurisdictional boundaries are experienced, are relevant, and are important. See the “Addendum: Factors Related to the Nexus Concept” at the end of this study for further discussion on this topic.

III. RESIDENTIAL NEXUS STUDY METHODOLOGY

The Residential Nexus Study is organized into the following components:

1. A discussion of the residential prototypes, and the estimated household incomes of the homebuyers and renters.

2. A description of the IMPLAN model that is used in the Residential Nexus Study to translate household income into the estimated number of jobs in retail, restaurants and other sectors serving new residents.

3. An identification of the linkage between employment growth associated with new market rate residential development and the need for affordable housing units in each of the four income categories.

4. The supportable inclusionary housing obligation.

5. A quantification of the nexus or mitigation cost based on the cost of delivering affordable units to new employee households in each of the four income categories.

DRAFT
388
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 67
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
A. Market Survey and ResidenƟal Prototypes

The first step of the nexus study is to identify residential protypes that are representative of new market rate residential development that is currently occurring or anticipated to occur in the near to mid-term future in Rocklin. In Spring 2025, KMA undertook a residential market study of projects that were recently constructed in Rocklin. The market study is documented in Technical Report 1.

The KMA market study is focused on the sales prices and rents of new market rate residential development rather than the sales prices and rents of older housing stock. New market rate residential development refers to new residential units added to the market, which house new households.8 The main objective is to establish current sales prices or rents per unit and per square foot for the various residential project types recently developed, or expected to be developed in the near term in Rocklin.

It is important to note that the analysis of the residential prototypes is intended to reflect average or typical residential projects to be developed in Rocklin rather than any specific project. It should be expected that specific projects would vary to some degree from the residential prototypes.

Based on this market survey, KMA developed the following residential prototypes to be analyzed in the Residential Nexus Study:

Figure 35. ResidenƟal Prototypes
Low Density
Detached
Medium Density
Detached
Medium High
Density Detached
Single Family
Attached Apartments
Avg. Unit Size 3,400 SF 2,500 SF 1,800 SF 1,600 SF 975 SF Avg. No. of Bedrooms 4.50 3.75 3.00 3.00 1.80
RepresentaƟve Density 3 du/acre 5 du/acre 12 du/acre 18 du/acre 25 du/acre Avg. Sales Price $1,300,000 $950,000 $675,000 $550,000 $2,750 Per Square Foot $382 /SF $380 /SF $375 /SF $344 /SF $2.82 /SF

This information serves as the basis for the input to the IMPLAN model described in the following section of this study. This is the starting point of the chain of linkages that connect new market rate residential development to incremental demand for affordable residential units.

B. Income of the Homebuyer Household

The next step in the Residential Nexus Study is to estimate the income of the buying or renting households in the residential prototypes.

8 Significant rehabilitation would only be considered new development if it adds sufficient square footage to support a new household.

DRAFT
389
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 68
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx

1. Ownership Units
To estimate the incomes of homebuyers, KMA analyzed recent home sales from CoreLogic. In addition, KMA reviewed Freddie Mac’s portfolio of mortgages originated for the purchase of primary residences within Rocklin.9 The Freddie Mac data pertains to the fourth quarter of 2024, the most recent period available at the time the information was accessed.

KMA then applied the following representative lending terms:

1. The downpayment is set at 20% of purchase price for both the Single Family Detached and Single Family Attached prototypes.

2. The mortgage is based on a 30-year fully amortizing loan at a 6.68% interest rate. This reflects the average over the prior one-year period. 10

In addition to the mortgage, housing costs include homeowners’ insurance, homeowner association dues, utility/maintenance costs, and property taxes. Estimates for each are identified in Technical Report 2 - Appendix A - Tables 1 - 4. These additional costs are considered along with the mortgage payment as part of housing expenses for purposes of determining mortgage eligibility11 The analysis estimates gross household income for homebuyers based on the assumption that total housing costs represent, on average, approximately 35% of gross income. The assumption that housing expenses represent 35% of gross income is reflective of the local average for new purchase loans4F and is consistent with criteria used by lenders to determine mortgage eligibility.12

2. Apartment Units
Household income for renter households is estimated based on the assumption that housing costs, including rent and utilities, represent on average 30% of gross household income. KMA selected the 30% factor for the following reasons:

1. KMA aimed to apply a conservative assumption in the estimation of the new residents’ incomes.

2. Many renter households will choose to spend less than 30% of their income on rent where possible, since the unit is not viewed as an investment with value enhancement potential.

3. The 30% factor is consistent with State and Federal affordability standards.

9 The Freddie Mac information is presented in a three-digit zip code format. KMA extrapolated the zip codes that make up Rocklin.
10 Based on the Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey weekly average rates for the West Region for 30- year fixed rate mortgages during the period from August 2024 through August 2025. 11 Housing expenses are combined with other debt payments such as credit cards and auto loans to compute a Debt To Income (DTI) ratio which is a key criteria used for determining mortgage eligibility. 12 The average debt to income ratio for the zip codes inclusive of Rocklin was approximately 40%. However, this ratio includes other forms of debt such as student loans, credit cards, and auto loans. This suggests that a ratio limited only to housing expenses would be less than 40%. Application of a 35% ratio is also consistent with the California Health and Safety Code standard for relating income to housing costs for ownership units.

DRAFT
390
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 69
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
The estimate for gross household income for the apartment prototype can be found in Technical Report 2 - Appendix A - Table 5.

3. EsƟmated Gross Household Incomes
The estimated gross household incomes of the homebuyers or renter households of the residential prototypes are calculated in Technical Report 2 - Appendix A – Tables 1 - 5. The results are summarized in the following table:

Figure 36. EsƟmated Gross Household Incomes

Low Density
Detached
Medium Density
Detached
Medium High
Density Detached
Single Family
Attached Apartments
Gross Household Income $302,000 $224,000 $162,000 $136,000 $115,000

4. Income Available for Expenditures
The input into the IMPLAN model used in this analysis is the net income available for expenditures. To arrive at income available for expenditures, gross income must be adjusted for Federal and State income taxes, contributions to Social Security and Medicare, savings, and payments on household debt. Per KMA correspondence with the producers of the IMPLAN model (IMPLAN Group LLC), other taxes including sales tax, gas tax, and property tax are handled internally within the model as part of the analysis of expenditures.

For input into the IMPLAN model, the percentage of income available for expenditures is set prior to deducting any housing-related costs. This is done to maintain consistency with the IMPLAN model, which defines housing costs as expenditures. The IMPLAN model addresses the fact that expenditures on housing do not generate employment to the degree other expenditures such as retail or restaurants do, but some limited maintenance and property management employment is generated.

5. DeducƟons to Gross Household Income
The income available for expenditures is estimated based on a review of data from the Internal Revenue Service, the California Franchise Tax Board tax tables, and the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis data. The assumptions applied in the analysis are as follows:

1. Per the Internal Revenue Service, the applicable Federal tax rates are as follows:
a. Owner households earning above $200,000 per year pay an average of 16% of gross income for Federal taxes.
b. Owner households earning between $100,000 and $200,000 per year pay an average of 11% of gross income for Federal taxes.
c. Renter households earning between $100,000 and $200,000 per year pay an average of 11% of gross income for Federal Taxes.

DRAFT
391
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 70
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx

2. Per the California Franchise Tax Board, State taxes are esƟmated at approximately 3% to 6% of gross income.

3. The employee share of the FICA payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare is set at the lesser of 7.65% of gross income or $176,100, which is the ceiling on income subject to Social Security taxes.

4. Savings and repayment of household debt must also be factored into the esƟmate of the amount of income available for expenditures. Savings includes various Individual ReƟrement Account (IRA) and 401(k) type programs, as well as non-reƟrement household savings and investments.

Debt repayment includes auto loans, credit cards, and all other non-mortgage debt. An 8% rate is used in this analysis for households earning between $100,000 and $225,000 and a 12% rate is used for households earning above $225,000. These rates are based on the average over the past 20 years computed from the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis and data published by the NaƟonal Bureau of Economic Research.13

After taking the preceding deductions into account, the income available for expenditures is estimated to be between 58% and 70% of gross income for the five prototypes. Technical Report 2 - Appendix A – Table 6 presents this calculation.

6. Expenditures for Input to IMPLAN
A summary of the estimates of income available for expenditures is presented in the following table:

Figure 37. Income Available for Expenditures
Low Density
Detached
Medium Density
Detached
Medium High
Density Detached
Single Family
Attached Apartments
Gross Household Income $302,000 $224,000 $162,000 $136,000 $115,000 % Income for Expenditures 58% 63% 69% 70% 70%
Occupancy 100% 100% 100% 100% 95%
Household Income Available for Expenditure
One Unit $175,200 $141,100 $111,800 $95,200 $76,500
100 Units [input to IMPLAN] $17,520,000 $14,110,000 $11,180,000 $9,520,000 $7,650,000

The nexus analysis is conducted on 100-unit building modules for ease of presentation and to avoid awkward fractions. Technical Report 2 - Appendix A – Tables 7 and 8 summarize the conclusions of this section, and calculate the household income for the 100-unit building modules. The resulting expenditure amounts are input into the IMPLAN model.

13 “Wealth Inequality in the United States Since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data,“ October 2014.

DRAFT
392
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 71
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
C. The IMPLAN Model

Consumer spending by residents of new housing units will create jobs, particularly in sectors such as retail and restaurants, which are closely connected to the expenditures of residents. The IMPLAN model is an economic analysis tool that is widely used to quantify these new jobs by industry sector.

1. IMPLAN Model DescripƟon
The IMPLAN model is an economic analysis software package now commercially available through the IMPLAN Group, LLC. IMPLAN was originally developed by the United States Forest Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. The model has been in use since 1979 and has been refined over time. It has become a widely used tool for analyzing economic impacts for a broad range of applications from major construction projects to natural resource programs.

IMPLAN is based on an input-output accounting of commodity flows within an economy from producers to intermediate and final consumers. The model establishes a matrix of supply chain relationships between industries, and also between households and the producers of household goods and services.

Assumptions about the portion of inputs or supplies for a given industry likely to be met by local suppliers and the portion supplied from outside the region or study area are derived internally within the model using data on the industrial structure of the region.

The output or result of the model is generated by tracking changes in purchases for final use or final demand as they filter through the supply chain. Industries that produce goods and services for final demand or consumption must purchase inputs from other producers. These producers in turn purchase goods and services. The model tracks these relationships through the economy to the point where leakages from the region stop the cycle. This allows the user to identify how a change in demand for one industry will affect a list of over 400 other industry sectors. The projected response of an economy to a change in final demand can be viewed in terms of economic output, employment, or income.

Data sets are available for each county and state, so the model can be tailored to the specific economic conditions of the region being analyzed. This analysis utilizes the data set for Placer County. As will be discussed, much of the employment impact is in local-serving sectors, such as retail, eating and drinking establishments, and medical services. A significant portion of these jobs will be located in the local community. In addition, the employment impacts will extend throughout Placer County and beyond based on where jobs are located. Rocklin is part of the larger Sacramento region’s economy, and impacts will likewise extend throughout the region.

2. ApplicaƟon of the IMPLAN Model to EsƟmate Job Growth The IMPLAN model was applied to link household income to household expenditures to job growth. The IMPLAN model distributes spending among various types of goods and services (industry sectors) based on data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Benchmark Input-Output study to estimate the number of jobs that are generated.

DRAFT
393
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 72
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
Job creation, driven by increased demand for products and services, was projected for each of the industries that will serve the new households. The estimated employment that would be generated by this new household spending is shown in Technical Report 2 – Appendix A – Table 9, and summarized in the following table:

Figure 38. Jobs Generated Per 100 Units

Low Density
Detached
Medium Density
Detached
Medium High
Density Detached
Single Family
Attached Apartments
Annual Household
Expenditures (100 Units) $17,520,000 $14,110,000 $11,180,000 $9,520,000 $7,650,000 Total Jobs Generated 86.2 69.4 54.8 46.2 37.1

Technical Report 2 - Appendix A – Table 9 provides a detailed summary of jobs generated by industry.

The table shows projected jobs sorted by industry category. The Consumer Expenditure Survey published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks expenditure patterns by income level. IMPLAN utilizes this data to reflect the pattern by income bracket.

Estimated employment is shown for each IMPLAN industry sector representing 1% or more of total employment. The jobs that are generated are heavily retail jobs, jobs in restaurants and other eating establishments, and in services that are provided locally. The jobs counted in the IMPLAN model cover all jobs, full- and part-time, similar to the Census and all reporting agencies, unless otherwise indicated.

IV. THE KMA JOBS-HOUSING NEXUS MODEL

This section presents a summary of the analysis linking job growth associated with residential development, based on the output of the IMPLAN model, to the estimated number of housing units required in each of the four income categories. The results are presented for each of the three residential prototypes.

A. Analysis Approach and Framework

The analysis approach is to examine the job growth for industries related to consumer spending by residents in the 100-unit modules. Then, through a series of linkage steps, the number of employees is converted to households and housing units by income category. The findings are expressed in terms of numbers of affordable units per 100 market rate units.

The analysis addresses the affordable unit demand associated with single family detached dwelling units, single family attached dwelling units, and apartments in Rocklin. The table below shows the 2025 Area Median Income (AMI), as well as the income limits for the four categories that were evaluated. The income categories used in the analysis are based on the income limits published by HCD and HUD.

DRAFT
394
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 73
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
Figure 39. 2025 Household Income Limits for Placer County Household Size (Persons)
Household Income Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 +
Extremely Low (Under 30% AMI) $27,050 $30,900 $34,750 $38,600 $41,700 $44,800 Very Low (30%-50% AMI) $45,050 $51,450 $57,900 $64,300 $69,450 $74,600 Low (50%-80% AMI) $72,050 $82,350 $92,650 $102,900 $111,150 $119,400 Moderate (80%-120% AMI) $101,450 $115,950 $130,450 $144,950 $156,550 $168,150

Median (100% of Median) $84,550 $96,650 $108,700 $120,800 $130,450 $140,150 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development.

The KMA Jobs-Housing Nexus Model is conducted using a model that KMA developed and has applied to similar evaluations in many other jurisdictions. The model inputs are all local data to the extent possible, and are fully documented in the following description.

1. Analysis Steps
The analysis provided by the KMA model is presented in seven steps. A description of each step of the analysis follows.

Step 1 – EsƟmate of Total New Employees (Technical Report 2 – Appendix A – Table 10)

The analysis commences with estimates of the total number of employees associated with the new market rate units. The employees were estimated based on the number of jobs estimated by the IMPLAN model.

Step 2 – Changing Industries Adjustment and Net New Employees (Technical Report 2 – Appendix A – Table 10)

The local economy, like that of the United States as a whole, is constantly evolving. In the Sacramento- Roseville-Arden-Arcade Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), over the past 20 years, employment in various sectors of the economy has declined. However, jobs lost over the last decade in these declining sectors were replaced by job growth in other industry sectors.

Long-term declines in employment experienced in some sectors of the economy mean that some of the jobs created in burgeoning industries are being filled by employees that have been displaced from another industry and who are presumed to already be housed locally. Recognizing that employees added in the community are not necessarily net new employees, this step in the analysis makes an adjustment to take these declines, changes, and shifts within all sectors of the economy into account.

To assist in making the adjustment, KMA analyzed data published by the EDD annually for the Sacramento-Roseville-Arden-Arcade MSA for the 20 year period between 2004 and 2023. Over this period, approximately 24,900 jobs were lost in declining industry sectors while growing and stable industries added 225,400 jobs over the same period. The decline was largely focused in the DRAFT
395
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 74
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
manufacturing, information, and finance sectors. The figures are used to establish the ratio between jobs lost in declining industries to jobs gained in growing and stable industries at 10%.14 In effect, this adjustment assumes that 10% of new jobs are filled by a worker downsized from a declining industry and who already lives locally.

The discount for changing industries represents a conservative assumption because many displaced workers may exit the workforce entirely by retiring. Development of new workspace buildings will typically occur only to the extent that there is positive net demand after re-occupancy of buildings vacated by businesses in declining sectors of the economy. To the extent buildings are reoccupied, the discount for changing industries is unnecessary because new buildings would represent net new growth in employment.

The 10% adjustment is conservative in that it is mainly necessary to cover a special case in which buildings vacated by declining industries cannot be readily occupied by other uses due to their special purpose nature, because of obsolescence, or because they are torn down or converted to a residential use.

Step 3 – Adjustment from Employees to Employee Households (Technical Report 2 – Appendix A – Table 10)

This step converts the number of employees to the number of employee households, recognizing that there is, on average, more than one employee per household. Thus, the number of housing units in demand for new employees must be reduced to reflect this fact.

The workers per household characteristic provides the link between the number of employees and the number of households associated with the net new employees. Worker households are defined as those households with one or more persons with work-related income, including the self-employed, as reported in the 2018-2022 ACS. In other words, worker households are distinguished from total households in that the universe of worker households does not include elderly or other households in which members are retired or do not work for other reasons. Student households and unemployed households on public assistance are also excluded from the definition of worker households. If the overall average number of workers per household were used, it would have produced a greater demand for housing units.

The number of workers per household in a given geographic area is a function of household size, labor force participation rate, and employment availability, as well as other factors. According to the 2018- 2022 ACS, the average number of workers per worker household in Placer County was 1.76. Since workers employed in Rocklin live all over Placer County and beyond, the County average is used in the analysis.

Step 4 – OccupaƟonal DistribuƟon of Employees (Technical Report 2 – Appendix A – Table 10)

The occupational breakdown of employees is the first step in the process of estimating income levels.

The output from the IMPLAN model provides the number of employees by industry sector. The IMPLAN

14 The 10% ratio is calculated as 24,900 jobs lost in declining sectors divided by 225,400 jobs gained in growing and stable sectors = 11% (rounded to 10%).

DRAFT
396
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 75
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
output is paired with data from the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2024 Occupational Employment Survey (OES) to estimate the occupational composition of employees for each industry sector.

Step 4a – TranslaƟon from IMPLAN Industry Codes to NAICS Industry Codes

The output of the IMPLAN model is jobs by industry sector using IMPLAN’s own industry classification system, which consists of 528 industry sectors. The OES occupation data uses the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Estimates of jobs by IMPLAN sector must be translated into estimates by NAICS code for consistency with the OES data.

The NAICS system is organized into industry codes ranging from two- to six-digits. Two-digit codes are the broadest industry categories and six-digit codes are the most specific. Within a two-digit NAICS code, there may be several three-digit codes and within each three-digit code, several four-digit codes, etc. A chart published by IMPLAN relates each IMPLAN industry sector with one or more NAICS codes, with matching NAICS codes ranging from the two-digit level to the five-digit level. For purposes of the nexus analysis, all employment estimates must be aggregated to the four, or in some cases, five-digit NAICS code level to align with OES data which is organized by four and five-digit NAICS code. For some industry sectors, an allocation is necessary between more than one NAICS code. Where required, allocations are made proportionate to total employment from the OES.

Step 4b – Apply OES Data to EsƟmate OccupaƟonal DistribuƟon

Employment estimates by four and five-digit NAICS code from step 4a are paired with data on occupational composition within each industry from the OES to generate an estimate of employment by detailed occupational category. Technical Report 2 – Appendix A – Table 10 identifies the breakdown by major occupation category. Information on detailed occupational categories is provided in Technical Report 2 - Appendix B. The three largest occupational categories are food preparation and serving (approximately 15%) office and administrative support (approximately 12%), and sales and related (approximately 12%). Step 4 of Technical Report 2 – Appendix A – Table 10 indicates the percentage and number of employee households by occupation associated with 100 market rate units.

Step 5 – EsƟmates of Employee Households MeeƟng the Affordable Income DefiniƟons (Technical Report 2 - Appendix A – Tables 11A – 11D)

In this step, occupations are translated to employee incomes based on recent Placer County wage and salary information from the EDD.15

For each occupational category shown in Technical Report 2 - Appendix A – Table 10, the OES data provides a distribution of specific occupations within the category. For example, within the Food Preparation and Serving Category, there are Supervisors, Cooks, Bartenders, Waiters and Waitresses, Dishwashers, etc. In total there are over 100 detailed occupation categories included in the analysis as

15 The wage and salary information is presented in Technical Report 2 – Appendix B.

DRAFT
397
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 76
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
shown in the Technical Report 2 – Appendix B tables. Each of these over 100 occupation categories has a different distribution of wages which was obtained from EDD and is specific to workers in Placer County as of 2025.

Employee income is then translated into an estimate of household income using ratios between individual employee income and household income derived from Census data. Ratios reflect an analysis of data for the workforce in the Sacramento Area with annual household incomes under $250,000.

Households with income of $250,000 or more are not included to avoid a disproportionate influence on averages by a small percentage of households with incomes well over levels addressed in this analysis.

Figure 40. Ratio of Household Income to Individual Worker Income Individual Worker Income
One Worker
Households
Two Worker
Households
Three or More
Workers
$25,000 to $30,000 2.25 3.10 4.41
$30,000 to $40,000 2.20 2.68 3.65
$40,000 to $50,000 1.89 2.30 3.02
$50,000 to $60,000 1.75 2.14 2.58
$60,000 to $80,000 1.63 1.97 2.19
$80,000 to $100,000 1.55 1.79 1.92
$100,000 to $125,000 1.49 1.66 1.78
$125,000 to $150,000 1.42 1.55 1.58
$150,000 to $250,000 1.33 1.45 1.51
$250,000 and above 1.14

1.23 1.23
Source: KMA analysis of 2019 – 2023 American Community Survey PUMS data for the Sacramento Area

A ratio of 1.0 in Table 9 indicates that the household has no additional income beyond that of the individual worker. A ratio of 2.0 means that total household income is twice what the individual worker earns. With a two-earner household, a ratio of 2.0 indicates each worker in the household earns about the same amount. A ratio above 2.0 would indicate the other worker in the household earns more, on average, while a ratio less than 2.0 indicates the other worker earned less. The ratio between worker income and overall household income decreases as worker pay increases. This is because workers with higher pay are more likely to represent the largest source of household income.

The ratios adjust employee incomes upward even for households with only one worker. This is in consideration of non-wage/salary income sources such as child support, disability, social security income, investment income, and others. Ratios for one-worker households at the lower end of the compensation range tend to be larger, an indication that these workers are more likely to derive a share of household income from non-employment sources such as social security.

For each detailed occupational category, the estimated household incomes are compared to the HCD income criteria summarized in Figure 39 to calculate the percent of worker households that would fall into each income category for each of the possible combinations of household size and number of workers in the household.

DRAFT
398
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 77
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
At the end of Step 5, the nexus analysis has established a matrix indicating the percentages of households that would qualify in the affordable income tiers for every detailed occupational category and every potential combination of household size and number of workers in the household.

Step 6 – DistribuƟon of Household Size and Number of Employees (Technical Report 2 - Appendix A – Tables 11A – 11D)

In this step, household size distribution is estimated using 2018 – 2022 ACS data for Placer County. Data for the County is used since workers are more representative of the larger area in which workers live (the County) than the City of Rocklin. In addition to the distribution of household sizes, the data also accounts for a range in the number of workers in households of various sizes. The following table indicates the percentage distribution utilized in the analysis. Application of these percentage factors accounts for the following:

1. Households have a range in size and a range in number of workers.

2. Larger households generally have more workers than smaller households.

Figure 41. Percent of Households by Size and No. of Workers No. of Persons in
Household
No. of Workers in
Household
Percent of Total
Households
1 1 13.46%
2 1 15.97%
2 16.66%
3 1 7.44%
2 9.17%
3+ 3.47%
4 1 6.62%
2 9.73%
3+ 4.02%
5 1 3.02%
2 4.44%
3+ 1.84%
6 1 1.35%
2 1.99%
3+ 0.82%
Total 100%
Source: 2018-2022 American Community Survey for Placer County

The result of Step 6 is a distribution of working households by number of workers and household size.

DRAFT
399
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 78
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
Step 7 – EsƟmate of Number of Households that Meet Size and Income Criteria (Technical Report 2 – Appendix A – Table 12)

Step 7 is the final step in the calculation of the number of employee households meeting the size and income criteria for the four income categories. The calculation methodology can be described as follows:

1. The percentage of employee households that would meet the income criteria at each potential household size and number of employees combination (Step 5), is combined with the probability of an employee household having a given household size and number of employees combination (Step 6).

2. The result is the estimated percentages of households that fall into each income category.

3. The estimated percentages are then multiplied by the estimated total number of households from Step 3 to arrive at the estimated number of households in each income category.

Technical Report 2 – Appendix A – Table 12 shows the results produced by the KMA Jobs-Housing Nexus model. The results are presented for each of the four income categories.

2. Summary of Findings
Technical Report 2 – Appendix A – Table 12 presents the number of households generated in each income category, and the total number of households earning more than 120% of the AMI.

The findings in Technical Report 2 – Appendix A – Table 12 are summarized below. The table shows the total demand for affordable housing units for the 100 market rate units. 16

Figure 42. ResidenƟal Unit Demand Impacts - Per 100 Market Rate Units Household Income Category
(Percentage of AMI)
Low Density
Detached
Medium Density
Detached
Medium High
Density Detached
Single Family
Attached Apartments
Extremely Low (0%-30% AMI) 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3
Very Low (30%-50% AMI) 7.8 6.3 5.2 4.4 3.5
Low (50%-80% AMI) 9.0 7.2 5.8 4.8 3.9
Moderate (80%-120% AMI) 7.4 6.0 4.7 3.9 3.2
Total, Less than 120% AMI 24.8 20.0 16.1 13.4 10.8
Greater than 120% AMI 19.3 15.6 12.0 10.2 8.2
Total, New Households 44.1 35.5 28.0 23.6 19.0
Totals may not sum due to rounding.

As shown in the preceding table, housing demand is distributed across the four affordable income categories with the greatest number of households in the Very Low (above 30% to 50% of AMI) and Low (above 50% to 80% of AMI) income categories.

16 The estimates are rounded to the nearest tenth. The sum of the column may not add to the total due to the rounding of each individual number.

DRAFT
400
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 79
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
The finding that jobs associated with consumer spending tend to be low-paying jobs where the employees will require housing affordable at the low income levels (Extremely Low to Moderate) is not surprising. As noted above, direct consumer spending results in employment that is concentrated in lower paid occupations including food preparation, administrative, and retail sales.

B. Nexus-Supported Inclusionary Housing Percentages

The following table summarizes the affordable unit demand per 100 market rate units. These estimates are then utilized to derive inclusionary housing percentages based on the nexus study methodology.

Figure 43: Affordable Unit Demand Per 100 Market Rate Units Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3 Prototype 4 Prototype 5

Low Density
Detached
Medium Density
Detached
Medium High
Density Detached
Single Family
Attached Apartments
30% of Median Income 1 Units 0 Units 0 Units 0 Units 0 Units 50% of Median Income 8 Units 7 Units 6 Units 5 Units 4 Units 80% of Median Income 17 Units 14 Units 11 Units 9 Units 8 Units 120% of Median Income 25 Units 20 Units 16 Units 13 Units 11 Units

C. Total Affordable Housing Nexus Costs

This section takes the conclusions from the previous section on the number of households in the Extremely Low, Very Low, Low and Moderate Income categories generated by the development of market rate units and estimates the total cost of assistance required to make housing affordable. This section puts a cost on the units at each income category to produce the “total affordable housing nexus cost.” This is done for each of the residential prototypes. These fee estimates may be used to support fee requirements imposed on fractional unit inclusionary obligations.

1. Affordability Gap Analysis
A key component of the Residential Nexus Study is the size of the gap between what households can afford and the cost of producing new housing in Rocklin; this is known as the “affordability gap.” The assumption is that Rocklin will assist in the development of affordable units at development cost levels based on similar development projects in the surrounding areas.

KMA conducted an affordability gap analysis, which is presented in Technical Report 4. For the purposes of the affordability gap analysis, it was assumed that the City would provide assistance for new affordable tax-credit financed rental units for households earning up through Low Income and new ownership units for Moderate Income households.

DRAFT
401
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 80
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
Figure 44. Affordability Gaps
Extremely Low Income ($199,000)
Very Low Income ($121,000)
Low Income ($81,000)
Moderate Income ($89,900)
See Technical Report 4.

2. Total Affordable Housing Nexus Costs
To summarize, previous steps in the Residential Nexus Study estimated the following:

1. The demand for affordable housing units created by the market rate development of the five residential prototypes; and

2. The affordability gaps associated with providing housing for the various income categories.

The total nexus cost per market rate unit is equal to the affordability gap times the number of affordable units demanded per new market rate unit.

The resulting total affordable housing nexus cost is presented in Technical Report 2 – Appendix A – Table 13, and summarized as follows:

The results per square foot of building area are as follows: 17

Figure 46. Maximum Legally Supportable ResidenƟal Linkage Fee Per Square Foot of ResidenƟal Building Area Low Density
Detached
Medium Density
Detached
Medium High
Density Detached
Single Family
AƩached Apartments
Unit Size (Sq Ft) 3,400 SF 2,500 SF 1,800 SF 1,600 SF 975 SF Extremely Low (0%-30% AMI) $0.30 $0.40 $0.40 $0.40 $0.50 Very Low (30%-50% AMI) $2.80 $3.00 $3.50 $3.30 $4.30
Low (50%-80% AMI) $2.10 $2.30 $2.60 $2.40 $3.20
Moderate (80%-120% AMI) $2.00 $2.20 $2.30 $2.20 $2.90
Total Nexus Costs $7.20 $7.90 $8.80 $8.30 $10.90
Totals may not sum due to rounding.

17 Findings are presented based on net rentable or sellable square footage.

Figure 45. Calculation of Maximum Supported Fee Per Market-Rate Unit


Maximum
supported fee
per market-rate
unit = ÷
Affordability gap
per affordable
unit

Affordable
units required
per 100
market-rate
units

100 units
DRAFT
402
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 81
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
These total affordable housing nexus costs represent the legal ceiling for any Residential Linkage Fee imposed by the City that is subject to the Mitigation Fee Act. These fee amounts can be used in support of fractional fee requirements.

V. ADDENDUM: FACTORS RELATING TO THE NEXUS CONCEPT

This Addendum provides a discussion of various specific factors and assumptions related to the nexus concepts discussed in this report. This discussion supplements the overview provided in the previous sections of the report.

A. Addressing the Housing Needs of a New PopulaƟon versus the ExisƟng PopulaƟon

In August 2021, the City adopted the Sixth Cycle (2021-20209) Housing Element Update. Based on the Sixth Cycle Housing Element, the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation is set at 3,543 very-low and low income units, which includes 3,062 units attributed to the Sixth Cycle Housing Element and 481 units of unaccommodated need from the 5th Cycle Housing Element (2013-2021).

Furthermore, the Sixth Cycle Housing Element notes that approximately 18% of renter households and 21% of owner households in Rocklin are cost burdened (more than 30% of household income is spent on housing expenses).

This existing housing shortage, especially at the lowest income levels, is manifested in numerous ways, such as residents paying far more than the affordable rent set forth in federal and state guidelines, overcrowding, and other factors that are extensively documented by the Census and other reports.

However, it is important to understand that this nexus study does not address the housing needs of the existing population. Rather, the study focuses exclusively on documenting and quantifying the housing needs of new households where an employee works in a new workplace building.

Local analyses of housing conditions indicate that new housing affordable to lower income households is not being added to the supply in sufficient quantity to meet the needs of new employee households. If significant numbers of units were being added to the supply to accommodate the Extremely Low to Moderate Income groups, or if residential units in Rocklin were experiencing higher than typical long- term vacancy levels, particularly in affordable units, then the need for new units would be questionable.

B. Economic Cycles

In the context of economic downturns such as the Great Recession, the question is sometimes raised as to whether there is excess capacity in the labor force that will be absorbed by existing jobs and employees, thus resulting in fewer net new jobs. In response, it is important to understand that a nexus study of this nature is intended to support the imposition of a one-time fee that addresses the impacts generated over the 40+ year life of a project. Short-term conditions, such as a recession or a vigorous boom period, are not appropriate bases for estimating impacts over the life of a building. These cycles can produce impacts that are higher or lower on a temporary basis.

DRAFT
403
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 82
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
Development of new market rate units tends to be minimal during a recession and generally remains minimal until conditions improve or there is confidence that improved conditions are imminent. When this occurs, the improved economic condition of the households in the local area will absorb the current underutilized capacity of existing employees, employed and unemployed. By the time the new units become occupied, conditions will have likely improved.

C. The Burden of Paying for Affordable Housing

A potential affordable housing program will not place all of the burden for the creation of affordable housing on the Project.

The burden of affordable housing is borne by many sectors of the economy and society. A significant source of affordable housing funding is provided by the Federal government in the form of Tax Credits and Bonds. Additionally, there are other Federal grant and loan programs administered by HUD, and State programs, which are administered by HCD. Much of the State funding is provided by voter approved bond measures paid for by all Californians.

Local governments play a large role in affordable housing. In addition, private sector lenders play an important role, some voluntarily and others less so with the requirements of the Community Reinvestment Act. Then there is the non-profit sector, both sponsors and developers that build much of the affordable housing.

In summary, all levels of government and many private parties, for profit and non-profit, contribute to supplying affordable housing. Market rate developers are not being asked to bear the burden alone, any more than they are assumed to be the only source of demand or cause for needing affordable housing in our communities.

D. Changes in Labor Force ParƟcipaƟon

In the 1960s through the 1980s, there were significant increases in labor force participation, primarily among women. As a result, some of the new workers were entering the labor force and already had local housing. This acts to reduce the demand for housing associated with job growth. In earlier nexus analyses prepared by KMA, we would adjust the analysis to account for this factor. However, increases in participation rates by women have stabilized, and even declined slightly, while labor force participation rates for men have been on a downward trajectory since 1970. As such, an adjustment for increase in labor force participation is no longer warranted in a nexus analysis.

E. CommuƟng

Workers in Rocklin commute from locations throughout the region. Nexus analyses sometimes make a downward adjustment to reflect the fact that an assumed portion of housing needs will be satisfied by other jurisdictions. Such an adjustment is not required for nexus purposes; all housing demand DRAFT
404
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 83
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
generated by a project may be included in the nexus. No adjustment for commuting has been reflected in the study.

F. ConservaƟve AssumpƟons

KMA employed many conservative assumptions in the estimation of the total affordable housing nexus costs. As a result, the total affordable housing nexus costs identified in this study are significantly lower than the amounts that would have been derived if less conservative assumptions had been applied.

These conservative assumptions can be summarized as follows:

1. The annual incomes for workers used in this analysis reflect full-time employment based on EDD’s convention for reporting compensation information. Of course, many workers work less than full time; therefore, the annual compensation estimates used in the analysis are overstated, especially for retail and restaurant uses, which tend to have a high number of part- time employees.

2. The conservative assumptions applied to the affordability gap analysis are:
a. The affordability gaps for Extremely Low and Very Low Income households were estimated based on rents that are affordable to households at the top of each income range. If the mid-point of the income ranges had been used, the affordability gaps would have been larger, which would increase the resulting nexus costs. b. The affordability gap analysis for Extremely Low, Very Low and Low Income households includes Tax-Exempt Multifamily Bonds and 4% Tax Credit financing. The inclusion of these outside leveraging sources reduces the affordability gap that would need to be filled by the City.

VI. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS

This secƟon provides findings language consistent with the requirements of the MiƟgaƟon Fee Act as set forth in Government Code § 66000 et seq. The following secƟons are applicable if it is determined that a fee requirement is subject to the MiƟgaƟon Fee Act. For the purposes of this secƟon, a fee requirement is referred to as a “ResidenƟal Linkage Fee.”

1. Identify the purpose of the fee (66001(a)(1))

The purpose of the ResidenƟal Linkage Fee is to fund construcƟon of affordable housing to miƟgate the increased demand for affordable housing from employment generated from newly developed market rate residenƟal developments.

DRAFT
405
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 84
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx

2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put (66001(a)(2))

ResidenƟal Linkage Fees are used to increase the supply of housing affordable to qualifying Extremely Low, Very Low, Low and Moderate-Income households earning from 0% through 120% of median income.

3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed (66001(a)(3))

The foregoing Residential Nexus Study has demonstrated that there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee, which is to increase the supply of affordable housing in Rocklin, and the development of new market rate residential units which increases the need for affordable housing.

Development of new market rate residential units increases the number of jobs in Rocklin. A share of the new workers in these new jobs will have household incomes that qualify as Extremely Low, Very Low, Low and Moderate Income and result in an increased need for affordable housing.

4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed (66001(a)(4))

The analysis has demonstrated that there is a reasonable relationship between the development of new market rate residential units in Rocklin and the need for additional affordable units. Development of new residential units generates increased spending which creates additional jobs. Three different residential development types were analyzed:

1. Single family detached dwelling units;

2. Single family attached dwelling units; and

3. Apartments.

The number of jobs added in various types of new commercial buildings is documented in Technical Report 2 – Appendix A – Table 9. Based on household income levels for the new workers in these new jobs, a significant share of the need is for housing affordable to Extremely Low, Very Low, Low and Moderate Income levels.

5. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. (66001(b))

There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the needed affordable housing attributable to the new market rate residential development. The nexus analysis has quantified the increased need for affordable units in relation to each type of new market rate residential use being developed and determined maximum fee levels based on the cost of providing the needed affordable housing. Costs reflect the net subsidy required to produce the affordable units based on recent cost information for development of affordable housing in Rocklin. Residential Linkage Fees do not exceed the cost of providing the affordable housing that is attributable to the new development.

DRAFT
406
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 85
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx

6. A fee shall not include the costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities (66001(g))

The nexus analysis quantifies only the net new affordable housing needs generated by new market rate residential development in Rocklin. Existing deficiencies with respect to housing conditions in Rocklin are not considered nor in any way included in the analysis.

VII. AB 602

The legislature enacted AB 602 in 2021, which went into effect on January 1, 2022. AB 602 imposed additional requirements related to impact fees and impact fee nexus studies. The pertinent provisions of AB 602 related to this nexus study are as follows:

1. When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.

This provision requires that, “when applicable,” a level of service analysis should be prepared to impose impact fees for the development of “public facilities.” Per Government Code Section 66000(d), “public facilities” are defined as public improvements, public services, and community amenities. Public facilities typically include assets such as roadways, storm drain systems, parks, trails, facilities, and City buildings.

These types of facilities typically have a measurable level of service such as the number of parks acres per resident, police calls per capita or residents per library.

In contrast, this nexus study justifies the imposition of an impact fee on market rate residential development for the purposes of increasing the City’s future supply of affordable housing. While affordable housing projects are often financed in part with public funds, they are typically privately- owned developments. The users of the affordable housing are limited to residents that occupy each privately owned unit, and not members of the City’s service population at large as would be the case for public facilities such as parks and libraries. Thus, a level of service analysis is not a suitable methodology for assessing affordable housing impact fees.

To our knowledge, the City is not intending to utilize the Residential Linkage Fee revenue for the purposes of constructing publicly owned affordable housing. Since the City intends to use the impact fee revenue to subsidize privately-owned affordable housing projects this provision is not applicable to the Residential Linkage Fee analyzed in this nexus study.

2. If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.

The City does not have an existing Residential Linkage Fee. As such, this provision is not applicable.

DRAFT
407
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 86
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx

3. Unless a local agency makes specific findings under Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(5)(B), a nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed unit of the development.

If the City decides to impose an affordable housing impact fee on market rate residential development, KMA recommends that the impact fee be assessed on a per square footage basis. A per square foot fee structure will comply with this provision of AB 602.

4. Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as part of the nexus study.

Per Government Code Section 53559.1, Rocklin is classified as a large jurisdiction. The City completed a CIP for the six-year period of 2026-2031, which is posted on the City’s website. However, the current CIP does not include any proposed expenditures for affordable housing purposes. If the City imposes a Residential Linkage Fee, KMA recommends that the City include revenue estimates and proposed affordable housing expenditures in the City’s CIP.

DRAFT
408
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 87
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\18\18942\007\001-003.docx
Appendices

Appendix A: ResidenƟal Nexus Study Tables
Appendix B: ResidenƟal OccupaƟon and CompensaƟon Tables

DRAFT
409

APPENDIX A

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS STUDY TABLES

RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS

ROCKLIN, CALIFORNIA
TECHNICAL REPORT 2