Roseville City Council
September 17, 2025

E-2

3. The Bank has duly authorized, executed and delivered the Fiscal Agent Agreement. Assuming the due authorization, execution and delivery thereof by the other parties thereto, the Fiscal Agent Agreement is a legal, valid and binding agreement of the Bank, enforceable in accordance with its terms against the Bank. 4. To our knowledge, no authorization, approval, consent, or order of any governmental agency or regulatory authority having jurisdiction over the Bank that has not been obtained by the Bank is required for the authorization, execution and delivery by the Bank of the Fiscal Agent Agreement or the authentication and delivery of the Bonds by the Bank under the Fiscal Agent Agreement. The opinions set forth above are subject to the following qualifications and exceptions: (a) the opinions are subject to the effect of any applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent transfer, reorganization, moratorium or other similar laws of general application affecting creditors' rights; and (b) the opinions are subject to the effect of general principles of equity, including (without limitation) concepts of materiality, reasonableness, good faith and fair dealing, and other similar doctrines affecting the enforceability of agreements generally (regardless of whether considered in a proceeding in equity or at law). Our opinions expressed above are limited to the laws of the State of California and the federal laws of the United States of America. The foregoing opinions are being furnished to you solely for your benefit and may not be relied upon by, nor may copies be delivered to, any other person without our prior written consent. Very truly yours,

F-1
APPENDIX F CITY OF ROSEVILLE WESTPARK COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1 (PUBLIC FACILITIES) SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS SERIES 2025 CERTIFICATE OF SPECIAL TAX ADMINISTRATOR The undersigned hereby states and certifies: 1. That he/she is an authorized officer of Willdan Financial Services, Inc. (the “Special Tax Administrator”) and as such is familiar with the facts herein certified and is authorized and qualified to certify the same. 2. That the Special Tax Administrator is familiar with the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax (the “Rate and Method”) as set forth in Appendix B to the Official Statement dated [BPA Date], for the City of Roseville Westpark Community Facilities District No. 1 (Public Facilities) (the “Community Facilities District”) Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2025 (the “Bonds”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall be defined as provided in the Rate and Method or the Fiscal Agent Agreement, dated as of ______ 1, 2025 (the “Fiscal Agent Agreement”), between the City and U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, as fiscal agent (the “Fiscal Agent”). 3. That the Special Taxes (net of a 1% administration charge of the County of Placer (the “County Charge”)), if levied in accordance with the Rate and Method and collected will annually yield sufficient revenue to make timely payments of the annual debt service on the Bonds, and projected annual Administrative Expenses related to the levy and collection of the Special Taxes and the expenses of the Fiscal Agent for the Bonds (no representation is made as to the actual amounts that will be collected in future years). 4. That the Annual Special Tax (net of the County Charge), if collected in the maximum amounts permitted pursuant to the Rate and Method on the Closing Date, would generate at least 110% of the Annual Debt Service payable with respect to the Bonds payable from such Special Taxes plus estimated Administrative Expenses equal to a maximum of $_____ for Fiscal Year 2025-26 (subject to inflation at 2.00% for each subsequent Fiscal Year beginning with Fiscal Year 2026-27), assuming the debt service schedule shown in the Official Statement is true and correct. 5. That all information supplied by the Special Tax Administrator for use in the Official Statement is believed to be true and correct, as of the date of the Official Statement and as of the date hereof. 6. That, as of the dates of the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement and as of the date hereof, the information contained in those portions of the Official Statement entitled “SECURITY FOR THE BONDS – Special Taxes, - Special Tax Methodology and – Levy of Annual Special Tax; Maximum Special Tax,” “SPECIAL TAX REVENUE AND VALUE OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE DISTRICT,” “APPENDIX B,” including the tables sourced to the Special Tax Administrator, and the other data provided by the Special Tax Administrator and included in the Official Statement, do not, to our knowledge, contain any untrue statement of a

F-2
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. 7. The Community Facilities District, the City, the Underwriter, and all the professionals involved in the financing are entitled to rely on this Certificate. Dated: [Closing Date] WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES By: Title:

APPENDIX G CITY OF ROSEVILLE WESTPARK COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1 (PUBLIC FACILITIES) SPECIAL TAX REFUNDING BONDS SERIES 2025 FORM OF ISSUE PRICE CERTIFICATE The undersigned, on behalf of Piper Sandler & Co. (“Piper”) hereby certifies as set forth below with respect to the sale and issuance of the above-captioned obligations (the “Bonds”). 1. Sale of the General Rule Maturities. As of the date of this certificate, for each Maturity of the General Rule Maturities, the first price at which at least 10% of such Maturity was sold to the Public is the respective price listed in Schedule A. 2. Initial Offering Price of the Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturities. (a) Piper offered the Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturities to the Public for purchase at the respective initial offering prices listed in Schedule A (the “Initial Offering Prices”) on or before the Sale Date. A copy of the pricing wire or equivalent communication for the Bonds is attached to this certificate as Schedule B. (b) As set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement, Piper has agreed in writing that, (i) for each Maturity of the Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturities, it would neither offer nor sell any of the Bonds of such Maturity to any person at a price that is higher than the Initial Offering Price for such Maturity during the Holding Period for such Maturity (the “hold-the-offering-price rule”), and (ii) any selling group agreement shall contain the agreement of each dealer who is a member of the selling group, and any retail distribution agreement shall contain the agreement of each broker-dealer who is a party to the retail distribution agreement, to comply with the hold-the-offering-price rule. Pursuant to such agreement, no Underwriter (as defined below) has offered or sold any Maturity of the Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturities at a price that is higher than the respective Initial Offering Price for that Maturity of the Bonds during the Holding Period. 3. Defined Terms. (a) General Rule Maturities means those Maturities of the Bonds listed in Schedule A hereto as the “General Rule Maturities.” (b) Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturities means those Maturities of the Bonds listed in Schedule A hereto as the “Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturities.” (c) Holding Period means, with respect to a Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturity, the period starting on the Sale Date and ending on the earlier of (i) the close of the fifth business day after the Sale Date, or (ii) the date on which Piper has sold at least 10% of such Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturity to the Public at prices that are no higher than the Initial Offering Price for such Hold-the-Offering-Price Maturity. (d) Issuer means City of Roseville.

G-2
(e) Maturity means Bonds with the same credit and payment terms. Bonds with different maturity dates, or Bonds with the same maturity date but different stated interest rates, are treated as separate maturities. (f) Public means any person (including an individual, trust, estate, partnership, association, company, or corporation) other than an Underwriter or a related party to an Underwriter. The term “related party” for purposes of this certificate generally means any two or more persons who have greater than 50 percent common ownership, directly or indirectly. (g) Sale Date means the first day on which there is a binding contract in writing for the sale of a Maturity of the Bonds. The Sale Date of the Bonds is [BPA Date]. (h) Underwriter means (i) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract with the Issuer (or with the lead underwriter to form an underwriting syndicate) to participate in the initial sale of the Bonds to the Public, and (ii) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract directly or indirectly with a person described in clause (i) of this paragraph to participate in the initial sale of the Bonds to the Public (including a member of a selling group or a party to a retail distribution agreement participating in the initial sale of the Bonds to the Public). The representations set forth in this certificate are limited to factual matters only. Nothing in this certificate represents Piper’s interpretation of any laws, including specifically Sections 103 and 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations thereunder. The undersigned understands that the foregoing information will be relied upon by the Issuer with respect to certain of the representations set forth in the Certificates as to Arbitrage and with respect to compliance with the federal income tax rules affecting the Bonds, and by Jones Hall LLP in connection with rendering its opinion that the interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes, the preparation of the Internal Revenue Service Form 8038-G, and other federal income tax advice that it may give to the Issuer from time to time relating to the Bonds. Dated: [Closing Date] PIPER SANDLER & CO. By:

G-3
SCHEDULE A SALE PRICES OF THE GENERAL RULE MATURITIES AND INITIAL OFFERING PRICES OF THE HOLD-THE-OFFERING-PRICE MATURITIES (Attached)

G-4
SCHEDULE B PRICING WIRE OR EQUIVALENT COMMUNICATION (Attached)

City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 9/17/2025
Item #: VIII.16
File #: 0101-02
Item ID: 2025-602

Title: Direction on City Council Compensation
Contact: Joseph Speaker 916-774-5325 [email protected]

SUMMARY
Staff recommends City Council provide direction on a possible Charter amendment related to authorizing the voters to adjust City Council compensation—which was most recently increased 25 years ago to $600/month ($650 for the mayor)—including proposed language.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends City Council provide direction on a possible Charter amendment related to authorizing the voters to adjust City Council compensation—which was most recently increased 25 years ago to $600/month ($650 for the mayor)—including proposed language.

BACKGROUND
The City of Roseville is a “full service” city (meaning it has its own utilities, police, fire, parks, libraries, etc.) with a Council-Manager form of government, in which responsibilities are vested in the City Council and the City Manager. In this form of government, the City Council’s role is that of a legislative policy-making body, which determines not only the local laws that regulate community life, but also determines public policy and gives direction to the City Manager and City Attorney.

Roseville’s five (5) City Councilmembers serve the entire city through a district-based system, where they are elected by districts every four (4) years. The Roseville City Council represents all of Roseville’s over 150,000 residents. The Roseville City Council is compensated at $600 a month, with the Mayor receiving an additional $50 a month, for a total of $650 per month.

In California, a city is either a charter city or a general law city. General law cities derive their powers from general laws enacted by the state legislature. Charter cities, on the other hand, derive their powers directly from the California Constitution, subject to limitations in their respective charters and the legislature.

Roseville Charter and Previous Charter Review Commission Roseville is a California charter city, meaning its city Charter serves as the authority for much of its operations. City Council compensation is expressly provided for in the Roseville Charter, under Article III, §3.05. That section currently reads:

a. The council may enact an ordinance providing that each member of the council shall receive a salary, the amount of which shall be determined by the following schedule:

1. If the City's population is between 50,000 and 75,000 persons, inclusive, the salary shall be five hundred dollars ($500) per month for each councilmember, and the mayor shall receive an additional amount of fifty dollars ($50) per month.

2. If the City's population exceeds 75,000 persons, the salary shall be six hundred dollars ($600) per month for each councilmember and the mayor shall receive an additional fifty

dollars ($50) per month.
b. Councilmembers may, upon order of the council, be reimbursed for reasonable and necessary expenses actually incurred in the service of the City.

This current Charter language was approved by the voters 25 years ago in the 2000 General Election. The salaries indicated above were established based on salaries provided in the California Government Code, as it existed in 2000 when the population was approximately 75,000 people.

At least every ten (10) years, the Roseville Charter is reviewed by an appointed citizen led Charter Review Commission. The topic of City Council compensation was specifically brought up in the 2010 and 2020 reviews. Specifically, at the last Charter Review Commission (2020) the then Charter Review Commission recommended the City Council place a measure on the 2020 General Election ballot increasing the City Council compensation based on a population-based calculation, taking into consideration surrounding jurisdictions. Despite the recommendation, the then City Council decided not to place the measure on the ballot, citing it was not the right time fiscally. A recommendation was made at the meeting that it be revisited in the future.

Because City Council compensation is expressly enumerated in the Roseville Charter, any change to the compensation would require a Charter amendment, which requires a majority vote of the voters.

Changes in State Law
As was stated above, the current salaries in the Roseville Charter were established based on salaries provided in the California Government Code, as it existed in 2000 (25 years ago).

In contrast to charter cities, general law cities must follow California Government Code §§36501- 36525 as it relates to establishing city council salaries. Government Code § 36516 specifically sets caps on city council salaries, based on population size.

In 2000, when the Roseville voters approved the current Roseville Charter language and set $600 per month for a City Councilmember and $650 per month for the Mayor, the then version of Government Code § 36516 established $600 per month as the salary for a city councilmember in a city with a population from 75,000-150,000 (which was Roseville’s population at the time). The voters back then tied salaries to those set for general law cities of similar size.

Last year, the California legislature updated Government Code § 36516, for the first time since 1984, via SB 329. The State specifically stated that increasing compensation would help attract individuals from across different income levels to serve the public and support their families. The new changes took effect on January 1, 2024, for general law cities. While SB 329 does not apply directly to charter cities, it has sparked many jurisdictions throughout the State adjusting city council compensation, taking into account the new State law salary amounts.

As of January 1, 2024, the new salary amounts in Government Code § 36516 are as follows:
(A) In cities up to and including 35,000 in population, up to and including nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) per month.
(B) In cities over 35,000 up to and including 50,000 in population, up to and including one thousand two hundred seventy-five dollars ($1,275) per month.

(C) In cities over 50,000 up to and including 75,000 in population, up to and including one thousand six hundred dollars ($1,600) per month.
(D) In cities over 75,000 up to and including 150,000 in population, up to and including one thousand nine hundred dollars ($1,900) per month.
(E) In cities over 150,000 up to and including 250,000 in population, up to and including two thousand five hundred fifty dollars ($2,550) per month. (F) In cities over 250,000 population, up to and including three thousand two hundred dollars ($3,200) per month.

The new State law also allows for annual adjustment of the greater of 1) up to a five percent (5%) annual increase, or 2) an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024, based on the California Consumer Price Index, up to no more than ten percent (10%) for a calendar year.

Direction from Council at February 28, 2024 Strategic Planning Workshop, March 20, 2024, and June 5, 2024 City Council Meetings

City Council’s Strategic Planning Workshop February 28, 2024 Because of the above changes in State law prompting many jurisdictions to evaluate their city council compensation, the prior 2020 Charter Review Commission recommendation to increase City Council compensation, the fact compensation has not been adjusted since 2000, and the then upcoming 2024 General Election, staff raised the issue of City Council compensation during the public City Council Strategic Planning Workshop on February 28, 2024.

Specifically, staff asked for direction from City Council on whether to bring back an item at a City Council meeting to discuss whether or not to pursue a change in City Council compensation. City Council advised they would like more information and specifically requested a presentation at a City Council meeting on what other jurisdictions pay their city councils and governing bodies.

March 20, 2024 City Council Meeting
At the March 20, 2024, City Council meeting, staff presented the changes in state law related to maximum compensation for councilmembers in general law cities. Based on changes in state law, councilmembers in general law cities with a population size similar to Roseville (150,000 to 250,000), could now receive up to $2,550 per month in salary. Based on this change in the law related to general law cities, staff sought direction from the City Council with regard to whether Council wanted to place a Charter amendment on the ballot for the November 2024 General Election to ask the voters to adjust Council compensation and, if so, what they wanted that Charter amendment to look like.

After a robust discussion and details on council compensation from various other agencies in the region and around the state (including other “full service” cities), Council directed staff to come back with proposed Charter language that:

1. Defaulted to the maximum limits under state law for a general law city of similar population size;

2. Provided for an automatic inflationary adjustment each year;

3. Allowed the compensation to be adjusted in the future through an ordinance amendment requiring at least two public meetings, rather than a Charter amendment;

4. Had the new compensation amount be effective immediately upon voter approval, and

for future changes upon ordinance adoption.

June 5, 2024 City Council Meeting
Staff returned to City Council at the June 5, 2024, City Council meeting with proposed Charter language that incorporated the comments from the March 20, 2024 City Council meeting. Staff provided several draft language options, with two options ultimately rising to the top of the discussion. The two (2) options were:

Option 1): Draft language that defaulted to the maximum limits under state law for a general law city of similar population size ($2,550 per month), provided for an automatic inflationary adjustment each year, allowed the compensation to be adjusted in the future through an ordinance amendment requiring at least two public meetings (rather than a Charter amendment going to voters), and have the new compensation amount be effective immediately upon voter approval, and for future changes, upon ordinance adoption. This language read:

§ 3.05 Compensation of council members and mayor.
a. Each councilmember shall receive the monthly salary allowed for general law cities as set forth in California Government Code section 36516, as it now exists or may hereafter be amended. The salary of councilmembers shall adjust each calendar year based on the inflationary percentage methodology provided in California Government Code section 36516. The council may adopt an ordinance modifying the compensation of each councilmember, so long as such modification is consistent with California Government Code section 36516. Any ordinance establishing such salary by the council shall be effective thirty (30) days after the last of at least two (2) open session regular meetings of the council.

b. Councilmembers may be reimbursed for the reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the service of the City. Such reasonable expenses shall not be included for purposes of determining salary under section (a) above.

Option 2): Draft language that incorporated our existing Charter language and structure, but with updated population and dollar amounts to be selected by Council. This option did not have an automatic inflator and would require any future increases to go to the voters for a Charter amendment. This language read:

§ 3.05 Compensation of council members and mayor.
a. The council shall receive a salary, the amount of which shall be no more than the amounts determined by the following schedule:

1. If the City's population is between 75,000 and 150,000 persons, the salary shall be [$ ] per month for each councilmember.

2. If the City's population exceeds 150,000 persons, the salary shall be [$ ] per month for each councilmember.

b. Population shall be determined by the last preceding federal census, or a subsequent census, or estimate validated by the California Department of Finance.

c. Councilmembers may be reimbursed for the reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the service of the City. Such reasonable expenses shall not be included for purposes of determining salary under section (a) above.

Ultimately, the majority of City Council members decided an increase in compensation was

needed (though there was a split between Option 1 and Option 2), but a majority felt that it was not the right time back in June of 2024 for the increase. This majority cited the pending Placer County Transportation Sales Tax measure that was slated for the November 2024 ballot, the 2024 Presidential Election, and the then short time frame to meet the 2024 ballot deadlines. The majority of the Council requested staff revisit this issue in the future, with some asking for this on the November 2026 General Election ballot.

In an effort to provide ample time for discussion and to meet any ballot deadlines for the November 2026 General Election, staff is bringing this item back now to start those discussions and seek City Council direction.

Since June 2024, several of the cities that staff surveyed for council compensation data have increased their council’s compensation. An updated chart reflecting cities and counties surveyed and current compensation data is provided in Exhibit A to this staff report. All jurisdictions noted in green on Exhibit A are agencies that the City of Roseville has utilized to evaluate compensation data in the past. Roseville’s current council compensation now ranks the third lowest in jurisdictions surveyed (tied for 18th out of 20).

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this request for direction, however any Charter amendment would have costs associated with the General Election process and any increased compensation costs, if approved.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. This request for direction meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS

2. Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world

5. Support community engagement and advocacy

6. Deliver exceptional City services

Respectfully Submitted,
Joseph Speaker, Assistant City Attorney

Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Exhibit A Compensation Ranking Chart 8.13.25

REVIEWERS:

Joseph Speaker, City Attorney Department Created/Initiated - 8/13/2025 Gretchen Hakala, City Attorney Department Approved - 8/14/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 8/15/2025

Gretchen Hakala, City Attorney Department Approved - 8/18/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 8/18/2025 Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 8/21/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 8/25/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 9/10/2025 Dominick Casey, City Clerk Department Approved - 9/10/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 9/10/2025

Rank
(Highest to Lowest)
City/County Compensation Mayor (M)
Councilmember (C)
Population
(1/1/25 CA Dept. of
Finance Data)
Charter
City (C)
1 Sacramento
County
$15,296 /month, $183,556 annual (M and C)

1,604,745 C
2 Placer County $9,545.47 /month, $114,545.60 annual
($55.07 /hour)

421,446

C
3 Sacramento $9,277 /month, $111,324 annual (C)
$15,372 /month $184,464 annual (M)
527,979

C
4 Elk Grove $2,550 /month, $30,600 annual (M and C)

182,842

5 Modesto $4,500 /month, $54,000 annual (M)
$2,500 /month, $30,000 annual (C)

219,765

C
6 Santa Clara $2,625 /month, $31,500 (M)
$2,100 /month, $25,200 annual (C)

134,587

C
7 Chico $1,900 /month, $22,800 annual (C)
$2,280 /month, $27,360 (M)

113,847 C
8 Citrus Heights $1,900 /month, $22,800 per year (M and C)

86,280

9 Lodi $1,600 /month, $19,200 annual (M and C)

67,093

9 Palto Alto $1,600 /month, $19,200 annual (M and C)

68,794

C
9 West
Sacramento
$1,600 /month, $19,200 annual (M and C)

55,403

12 Fairfield $1,560 /month, $18,720 annual (M)
$1,300 /month, $15,600 annual (C)
120,720

13 Davis $1,366 /month, $16,392 annual (M and C)

65,423

14 Vacaville $829 /month, $9,948 annual (M and C)

103,181

15 Rocklin $685 /month, $8,220 annual (M and C)

73,172

16 Lincoln $705 /month, $8,460 annual (M)
$655 /month, $7,860 annual (C)

54,520

17 Folsom $630 /month, $7,560 annual (C)
$730 /month, $8,760 annual (M)

92,577

C
18 Roseville $600 /month, $7,200 annual (C)
$650 /month, $7,800 annual (M)

158,494

C
19 Redding $600 /month, $7,200 annual (M and C)

93,534

20 Auburn $300 /month, $3,600 annual (M and C)

13,286

City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 9/17/2025
Item #: VIII.17
File #: 0709
Item ID: 2025-639

Title: Prohousing Designation - Draft Application Renewal Contact: Lauren Hocker 916-774-5272 [email protected]

SUMMARY
Staff recommends Council receive a presentation on the draft application for the renewal of the City's Prohousing Designation. There is no fiscal impact on the City's General Fund.

RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational item and requires no City Council action.

BACKGROUND
The State of California's 2019–2020 Budget Act provided for the creation of a statewide Prohousing Designation Program. On July 1, 2021, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) established the Prohousing Designation Program pursuant to California Government Code §65589.9. The Program creates incentives for cities and counties that are compliant with Housing Element requirements and can demonstrate that they have enacted Prohousing Policies in four category areas: Favorable Zoning and Land Use, Acceleration of Housing Production Timeframes, Reduction of Construction and Development Costs, and Providing Financial Subsidies.

Roseville was one of the first ten jurisdictions in the state to receive a Prohousing Designation in 2022, and our designation is now set to expire at the end of 2025. The City is proposing to reapply for this designation because it includes the following benefits:
• Additional points on applications for various competitive state grants, including grants for improvements to water lines, sewer lines, and other infrastructure; transit funding; and congestion reduction and safety improvement projects.
• Additional points for affordable housing developers on their grant applications for funding.

Reapplying gives the City credit for the pro-housing programs and policies the City already has in place, ensuring the City remains competitive when seeking grant funding for community improvements. Grant programs which offer priority processing or funding points include: Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities, Infill Infrastructure Grant, Transformative Climate Communities, Solutions for Congested Corridors, Local Partnership Program, Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program, and the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program.

To be awarded a Prohousing Designation, jurisdictions must complete an application and provide documentation of their policies, publish the application for a 30-day public review period, and hold an informational workshop. The City's draft application was published for a 30-day review period which closes at 5 p.m. on September 29, 2025; the application is available for review at roseville.ca.us/prohousing and a physical copy is available at 311 Vernon Street in the Permit Center, and upon request. Flyers have been

posted at City libraries in both English and Spanish language, an email announcing the release of the draft was distributed to the Housing Element listserve, and announcements were made on the City's social media platforms.

The purpose of this workshop is to describe HCD's Prohousing Designation Program and the City's draft application and provide an opportunity for questions and comments from the public.

FISCAL IMPACT
No formal action is requested by City Council. Therefore, this agenda item has no fiscal impact on the City's General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, or is otherwise not considered a project as defined by CEQA statute §21065 and CEQA state guidelines §15060(c)(3) and §15378. This is an informational workshop that involves no formal or discretionary action, and therefore is not a project as defined by CEQA.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS

4. Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth

Respectfully Submitted,
Lauren Hocker, Senior Planner

Mike Isom, Development Services Director

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Public Review Draft Prohousing Application - Roseville

REVIEWERS:

Lauren Hocker, Development Services - Planning Created/Initiated - 8/26/2025 Greg Bitter, Development Services Department Approved - 8/26/2025 Mike Isom, Development Services Department Approved - 8/26/2025 Gretchen Hakala, City Attorney Department Approved - 8/29/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 9/2/2025
Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/2/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/4/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 9/4/2025 Dominick Casey, City Manager Department - City Manager Approved - 9/5/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 9/5/2025

Rev 2/3/25
Prohousing Designation Program Application

State of California
Governor Gavin Newsom

Tomiquia Moss, Secretary
Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency

Gustavo Velasquez, Director
Department of Housing and Community Development

Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director
Division of Housing Policy Development

651 Bannon Street
Sacramento, CA 95811

Website: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/prohousing- designation-program
Email: [email protected]

February 2025

Rev 2/3/25

Prohousing Designation Program Application Package
Instructions

The applicant is applying for a Prohousing Designation under the Prohousing Designation Program (“Prohousing” or “Program”), which is administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development (“Department”) pursuant to Government Code section 65589.9.

The Program creates incentives for Jurisdictions that are compliant with State Housing Element Law and that have enacted Prohousing Policies. These incentives will take the form of additional points or other preference in the scoring of applications for competitive housing and infrastructure programs. The administrators of each such program will determine the value and form of the preference.

In order to be considered for a Prohousing Designation, the applicant must accurately complete all sections of this application, including any relevant appendices. The Department reserves the right to request additional clarifying information from the applicant.

This application is subject to Government Code section 65589.9 and to the regulations (Cal.

Code Regs., tit. 25, § 6600 et seq.) adopted by the Department in promulgation thereof (“Regulations”). All capitalized terms in this application shall have the meanings set forth in the Regulations.

All applicants must submit a complete, signed application package to the Department, in electronic format, in order to be considered for a Prohousing Designation. Please direct electronic copies of the completed application package to the following email address:

[email protected]
.

A complete application will include all items identified in the Application Checklist.

In relation to Appendix 1, the Formal Resolution for the Prohousing Designation Program, please use strikethrough and underline if proposing any modifications to the text of the Resolution. Please be aware, any sustentative deviations from the Formal Resolution may result in an incomplete application and will likely be subject to additional internal review and potential delays.

Appendix 2, the Proposed Policy Completion Schedule, applies only if an application includes proposed policies.

Appendix 3, Self-Scoring Sheet and Sample Self-Scoring Sheet, includes a blank template to be completed by the applicant as part of the application, as well as a Sample Self-Scoring Sheet with an example of how this template may be completed.

Appendix 4 lists examples of Prohousing Policies with enhancement factors to aid applicants in understanding how enhancement factors may be applied.

Rev 2/3/25
Appendix 5 provides a sample template to assist applicants with confirming the treatment of homeless encampments within the jurisdiction is consistent with USICH’s “7 Principles for Addressing Encampments.”

Appendix 6 provides a checklist to confirm that a Diligent Public Participation Process was conducted.

Appendix 7 is where the applicant will include any additional information and supporting documentation for the application.

If you have questions regarding this application or the Program, or if you require technical assistance in preparing this application, please email [email protected] .

Rev 2/3/25
Application Checklist
Yes No
Application Information ☒ ☐
Certification and Acknowledgement ☒ ☐
The Legislative Information form is completed. ☒ ☐
The Threshold Requirements Checklist is completed. ☒ ☐
A duly adopted and certified Formal Resolution for the Prohousing Designation Program is included in the application package. (See Appendix 1 for the Formal Resolution for the Prohousing Designation Program form.)
☐ ☐
If applicable, the Proposed Policy Completion Schedule is completed. (See Appendix 2.)
☐ ☐
The Self-Scoring Sheet is completed. (See Appendix 3 for the Self- Scoring Sheet and the Sample Self-Scoring Sheet.)
☒ ☐
One-page summary describing consistency with the 7 Principles for Addressing Encampments is completed. (See Appendix 5 for a template to assist.)
☒ ☐
The checklist confirming that a Diligent Public Participation process was conducted. (See Appendix 6 for the template.)
☐ ☐
Additional information and supporting documentation (Applicant to provide as Appendix 7.)
☒ ☐
A
pplication Information
Applicant (Jurisdiction): City of Roseville
Applicant Mailing Address: 311 Vernon Street
City: Roseville
ZIP Code: 95678
Website: www.roseville.ca.us
Authorized Representative Name Mike Isom
Authorized Representative Title: Development Services Director Phone: 916-774-5276
Email: [email protected]
Contact Person Name: Lauren Hocker
Contact Person Title: Senior Planner
Phone: (916) 774-5272
Email: [email protected]
Total Self-Score (Based on Appendix 3): 50
Note: The checklist will be completed once these actions are complete.

Rev 2/3/25

CERTIFICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
As authorized by the Formal Resolution for the Prohousing Designation Program (Resolution No. ) , which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full, I hereby submit this full and complete application on behalf of the applicant.

I c
ertify that all information and representations set forth in this application are true and correct.

I fu
rther certify that any proposed Prohousing Policy identified herein will be enacted within two (2) years of the date of this application submittal.

I
acknowledge that this application constitutes a public record under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) and is therefore subject to public disclosure by the Department.

Signature: __________________________________________
Name and Title: Mike Isom, Development Services Director Date: _______________________________________________
L
egislative Information
District Number Legislators Name(s)
State
Assembly
District
5 Joe Patterson
State
Senate
District
6 Roger Niello
A
pplicants can find their respective State Senate representatives at https://www.senate.ca.gov/, and their respective State Assembly representatives at https://www.assembly.ca.gov/
Note: The certification will be completed once all actions are complete.

Rev 2/3/25
Threshold Requirements Checklist
T
he applicant meets the following threshold requirements in accordance with Section 6604 of the Regulations:

Yes No
The applicant is a Jurisdiction. ☒ ☐
The applicant has adopted a Compliant Housing Element. ☒ ☐ The applicant has submitted or will submit a legally sufficient Annual Progress Report prior to designation.
☒ ☐
The applicant has completed or agrees to complete, on or before the relevant statutory deadlines, any rezone program or zoning that is necessary to remain in compliance with Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c)(1), and 65584.09, subdivision (a), and with California Coastal Commission certification where appropriate. ☒ ☐
The applicant is in compliance, at the time of the application, with applicable state housing law, including, but not limited to those included in Government Code section 65585, subdivision (j); laws relating to the imposition of school facilities fees or other requirements (Gov. Code, § 65995 et seq.); Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code, § 65913.1); Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code, § 65920 et seq.); and provisions relating to timeliness of CEQA processing by local governments in Public Resources Code sections 21080.1, 21080.2, and 21151.5(a). ☒ ☐
The applicant further acknowledges and confirms that its treatment of homeless encampments on public property complies with and will continue to comply with the constitutional rights of persons experiencing homelessness and that it has submitted a one-page summary to the Department demonstrating how the applicant has enacted best practices in their jurisdiction related to the treatment of unhoused individuals camping on public property, consistent with United States Interagency Council on Homelessness’ “7 Principles for Addressing Encampments,” (June 17, 2022 update), hereby incorporated by reference. ☒ ☐
The applicant has duly adopted and certified, by the applicant’s governing body, a Formal Resolution for the Prohousing Designation Program, which is hereby incorporated by reference. (A true and correct copy of the resolution is included in this application package.) ☒ ☐

Rev 2/3/25
Scoring Criteria
Category 1: Favorable Zoning and Land Use
Category Prohousing Policy Description Points
1A Sufficient sites, including rezoning, to accommodate 150 percent or greater of the current or draft RHNA, whichever is greater, by total and income category. These additional sites must be identified in the Jurisdiction’s housing element adequate sites inventory, consistent with Government Code section 65583, subdivisions (a)(3) and (c)(1). 3 1B Permitting missing middle housing uses (e.g., duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes) by right in existing low-density, single-family residential zones in a manner that exceeds the requirements of SB 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021, Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, 66411.7). 3 1C Sufficient sites, including rezoning, to accommodate 125 to 149 percent of the current or draft RHNA, whichever is greater, by total and income category. These points shall not be awarded if the applicant earns three points pursuant to Category (1)(A) above. These additional sites must be identified in the Jurisdiction’s housing element adequate sites inventory, consistent with Government Code section 65583, subdivisions (a)(3) and (c)(1).
2 1D Density bonus programs that allow additional density for additional affordability beyond minimum statutory requirements (Gov. Code, § 65915 et seq.).
2 1E Increasing allowable density in low-density, single-family residential areas beyond the requirements of state Accessory Dwelling Unit Law, (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.2, 65852.22) (e.g., permitting more than one converted ADU; one detached, new construction ADU; and one JADU per single-family lot), and in a manner that exceeds the requirements of SB 9 (Chapter 192, Statutes of 2021, Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, 66411.7). These policies shall be separate from any qualifying policies under Category (1)(B).
2 1F Eliminating minimum parking requirements for residential development as authorized by Government Code section 65852.2; adopting vehicular parking ratios that are less than the relevant ratio thresholds at subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of Gov. Code section 65915, subdivision (p)(1); or adopting maximum parking requirements at or less than ratios pursuant to Gov. Code section 65915, subdivision (p).
2 1G Zoning or incentives that are designed to increase affordable housing development in a range of types, including, but not limited to, large family units, Supportive Housing, housing for transition age foster youth, and deep affordability targeted for Extremely Low-Income Households in all parts of the Jurisdiction, with at least some of the zoning, other land use designation methods, or incentives being designed to increase affordable housing development in higher resource areas shown in the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map, and with the Jurisdiction having confirmed that it considered and addressed potential environmental justice issues in adopting and implementing 2

Rev 2/3/25
this policy, especially in areas with existing industrial and polluting uses.
1H Zoning or other land use designation methods to allow for residential or mixed uses in one or more non-residential zones (e.g., commercial, light industrial). Qualifying non-residential zones do not include open space or substantially similar zones.
1 1I Modification of development standards and other applicable zoning provisions or land use designation methods to promote greater development intensity. Potential areas of focus include floor area ratio, height limits, minimum lot or unit sizes, setbacks, and allowable dwelling units per acre. These policies must be separate from any qualifying policies under Category (1)(B) above.
1 1J Establishment of a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone, as defined in Government Code section 65620, or a Housing Sustainability District, as defined in Government Code section 66200.
1 1K Establishment of an inclusionary housing program requiring new developments to include housing affordable to and reserved for low- and very low-income households, consistent with the requirements of AB 1505 (Chapter 376, Statutes of 2017, Gov. Code, § 65850.01). 1 1L Other zoning and land use actions not described in Categories (A)-(K) of this section that measurably support the Acceleration of Housing Production.
1

Rev 2/3/25
Scoring Criteria
Category 2: Acceleration of Housing Production Timeframes

Category Prohousing Policy Description Points
2A Establishment of ministerial approval processes for multiple housing types, including, for example, single-family, multifamily and mixed-use housing.
3 2B Acceleration of Housing Production through the establishment of streamlined, program-level CEQA analysis and certification of general plans, community plans, specific plans with accompanying Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), and related documents. 2 2C Documented practice of streamlining housing development at the project level, such as by enabling a by-right approval process or by utilizing statutory and categorical exemptions as authorized by applicable law, (e.g., Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21155.1, 21155.4, 21159.24, 21159.25; Gov. Code, § 65457; Cal Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15303, 15332; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21094.5, 21099, 21155.2, 21159.28).
2 2D Establishment of permitting processes that take less than four months to complete. Policies under this category must address all approvals necessary to issue building permits.
2 2E Absence or elimination of public hearings for projects consistent with zoning and the general plan.
2 2F Priority permit processing or reduced plan check times for homes affordable to Lower-Income Households.
2 2G Establishment of consolidated or streamlined permit processes that minimize the levels of review and approval required for projects, and that are consistent with zoning regulations and the general plan. 1 2H Absence, elimination, or replacement of subjective development and design standards with objective development and design standards that simplify zoning clearance and improve approval certainty and timing.
1 2I Establishment of one-stop-shop permitting processes or a single point of contact where entitlements are coordinated across city approval functions (e.g., planning, public works, building) from entitlement application to certificate of occupancy.
1 2J Priority permit processing or reduced plan check times for ADUs/JADUs or multifamily housing.
1 2K Establishment of a standardized application form for all entitlement applications.
1 2L Documented practice of publicly posting status updates on project permit approvals on the internet.
1 2M Limitation on the total number of hearings for any project to three or fewer. Applicants that accrue points pursuant to category (2)(E) are not eligible for points under this category.
1 2N Other policies not described in Categories (2)(A)-(M) of this section that quantifiably decrease production timeframes or promote the streamlining of approval processes.
1

Rev 2/3/25
Scoring Criteria
Category 3: Reduction of Construction and Development Costs

Category Prohousing Policy Description Points
3A Waiver or significant reduction of development impact fees for residential development with units affordable to Lower-Income Households. This provision does not include fees associated with the provision of housing affordable to Lower-Income Households (e.g., inclusionary in lieu fees, affordable housing impact fees, and commercial linkage fees).
3 3B Adoption of policies that result in less restrictive requirements than Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 to reduce barriers for property owners to create ADUs/JADUs. Examples of qualifying policies include, but are not limited to, development standards improvements, permit processing improvements, dedicated ADU/JADU staff, technical assistance programs, and pre-approved ADU/JADU design packages.
2 3C Adoption of other fee reduction strategies separate from Category (3)(A), including fee deferrals and reduced fees for housing for persons with special needs. This provision does not include fees associated with the provision of housing affordable to Lower-Income Households (e.g., inclusionary in lieu fees, affordable impact fees and commercial linkage fees).
1 3D Accelerating innovative housing production through innovative housing types (e.g., manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, park models, community ownership, and other forms of social housing) that reduce development costs.
1 3E Measures that reduce costs for transportation-related infrastructure or programs that encourage active modes of transportation or other alternatives to automobiles. Qualifying policies include, but are not limited to, publicly funded programs to expand sidewalks or protect bike/micro-mobility lanes, creation of on-street parking for bikes, transit-related improvements, or establishment of carshare programs. 1 3F Adoption of universal design ordinances pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17959.
1 3G Establishment of pre-approved or prototype plans for missing middle housing types (e.g., duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes) in low- density, single-family residential areas.
1 3H Adoption of ordinances that reduce barriers, beyond existing law, for the development of housing affordable to Lower-Income Households. 1 3I Other policies not described in Categories (3)(A)-(H) of this section that quantifiably reduce construction or development costs. 1

Rev 2/3/25
Scoring Criteria
Category 4: Providing Financial Subsidies

Category Prohousing Policy Description Points
4A Establishment of a housing fund or contribution of funds towards affordable housing through proceeds from approved ballot measures.
2 4B Establishment of local housing trust funds or collaboration on a regional housing trust fund, which include the Jurisdiction’s own funding contributions. The Jurisdiction must contribute to the local or regional housing trust fund regularly and significantly. For the purposes of this Category, “regularly” shall be defined as at least annually, and “significant” contributions shall be determined based on the impact the contributions have in accelerating the production of affordable housing. Help – d
2 4C Demonstration of regular use or planned regular use of funding (e.g., federal, state, or local) for preserving assisted units at-risk of conversion to market rate uses and conversion of market rate uses to units with affordability restrictions (e.g., acquisition/rehabilitation).

For the purposes of this category, “regular use” can be demonstrated through the number of units preserved annually by utilizing this funding source.
2 4D Provide grants or low-interest loans for ADU/JADU construction affordable to Lower- and Moderate-Income Households.
2 4E A comprehensive program that complies with the Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code, § 54220 et seq.) and that makes publicly owned land available for affordable housing, or for multifamily housing projects with the highest feasible percentage of units affordable to Lower Income Households. A qualifying program may utilize mechanisms such as land donations, land sales with significant write-downs, or below-market land leases.
2 4F Establishment of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District or similar local financing tool that, to the extent feasible, directly supports housing developments in an area where at least 20 percent of the residences will be affordable to Lower-Income Households. 2 4G Prioritization of local general funds to accelerate the production of housing affordable to Lower-Income Households.
2 4H Directed residual redevelopment funds to accelerate the production of affordable housing.
1 4I Development and regular (at least biennial) use of a housing subsidy pool, local or regional trust fund, or other similar funding source sufficient to facilitate and support the development of housing affordable to Lower-Income Households.
1

Rev 2/3/25
4J Prioritization of local general funds for affordable housing. This point shall not be awarded if the applicant earns two points pursuant to Category (4)(G).
1 4K Providing operating subsidies for permanent Supportive Housing. 1 4L Providing subsidies for housing affordable to Extremely Low-Income Households.
1 4M Other policies not described in Categories (4)(A)-(L) of this section that quantifiably promote, develop, or leverage financial resources for housing affordable to Lower-Income Households.
1

Rev 2/3/25
Scoring Criteria
Enhancement Factors
The Department shall utilize enhancement factors to increase the point scores of Prohousing Policies. An individual Prohousing Policy may not use more than one enhancement factor.

Each Prohousing Policy will receive extra points for enhancement factors in accordance with the chart below.

Category Prohousing Policy Description Points
1 The policy represents one element of a unified, multi-faceted strategy to promote multiple planning objectives, such as efficient land use, access to public transportation, housing affordable to Lower-Income Households, climate change solutions, and/or hazard mitigation.
2 2 Policies that promote development consistent with the state planning priorities pursuant to Government Code section 65041.1. 1 3 Policies that diversify planning and target community and economic development investments (housing and non-housing) toward place- based strategies for community revitalization and equitable quality of life in lower opportunity areas. Such areas include, but are not limited to, Low Resource and High Segregation & Poverty areas designated in the most recently updated TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, and disadvantaged communities pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 39711 and 39715 (California Senate Bill 535 (2012).
1 4 Policies that go beyond state law requirements in reducing displacement of Lower-Income Households and conserving existing housing stock that is affordable to Lower-Income Households. 1 5 Rezoning and other policies that support intensification of residential development in Location Efficient Communities.
1 6 Rezoning and other policies that result in a net gain of housing capacity while concurrently mitigating development impacts on or from Environmentally Sensitive or Hazardous Areas.
1 7 Zoning policies, including inclusionary housing policies, that increase housing choices and affordability, particularly for Lower-Income Households, in High Resource and Highest Resource areas, as designated in the most recently updated TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps.
1 8 Other policies that involve meaningful actions towards Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing outside of those required pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c)(10), and 8899.50, including, but not limited to, outreach campaigns, updated zoning codes, and expanded access to financing support.
1

S
elf-Scoring Sheet Instructions
T
he Department shall validate applicants’ scores based on the extent to which each identified Prohousing Policy contributes to the Acceleration of Housing Production. The Department shall assess applicants’ Prohousing Policies in accordance with statutory requirements and the Regulations.

T
he Department shall further assess applicants’ Prohousing Policies using the following four scoring categories: Favorable Zoning and Land Use, Acceleration of Housing Production Timeframes, Reduction of Construction and Development Costs, and Providing Financial Subsidies. Applicants shall demonstrate that they have enacted or proposed at least one policy that significantly contributes to the Acceleration of Housing Production in each of the four categories. A Prohousing Designation requires a total score of 30 points or more across all four categories.

Instructions
P
lease utilize one row of the Self-Scoring Sheet for each Prohousing Policy. • C
ategory Number: Select the relevant category number from the relevant Scoring Criteria list in this application. Where appropriate, applicants may utilize a category number more than once. • Concise Written Description of Prohousing Policy: Set forth a brief description of the enacted or proposed Prohousing Policy.
• Enacted or Proposed: Identify the Prohousing Policy as enacted or proposed. For proposed Prohousing Policies, please complete Appendix 2: Proposed Policy Completion Schedule. • Documentation Type: For enacted Prohousing Policies, identify the relevant documentary evidence (e.g., resolution, zoning code provisions). For proposed Prohousing Policies, identify the documentation which shows that implementation of the policy is pending.
• Web Links/Electronic Copies: Insert the Web link(s) to the relevant documentation or indicate that electronic copies of the documentation have been attached to this application as Appendix 7. • Points: Enter the appropriate number of points using the relevant Scoring Criteria list in this application. • Enhancement Category Number (optional): If utilizing an enhancement factor for a particular Prohousing Policy, enter the appropriate category number using the relevant Scoring Criteria list in this application. • Enhancement Points (optional): If utilizing an enhancement factor for a particular Prohousing Policy, enter the point(s) for that Prohousing Policy.
• Total Points: Add the enhancement point(s) to the Prohousing Policy’s general point score.

Formal Resolution for the Prohousing Designation Program (Revised 09/24)
Appendix 1: Formal Resolution for the Prohousing Designation Program Formal Resolution for the PROHOUSING Designation Program RESOLUTION NO. [INSERT RESOLUTION NUMBER]

A RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF
[INSERT THE NAME OF THE CITY OR COUNTY] AUTHORIZING APPLICATION TO

AND PARTICIPATION IN THE PROHOUSING DESIGNATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, Government Code section 65589.9 established the Prohousing Designation Program (“Program”), which creates incentives for jurisdictions that are compliant with state housing element requirements and that have enacted Prohousing local policies; and WHEREAS, such jurisdictions will be designated Prohousing, and, as such, will receive additional points or other preference during the scoring of their competitive Applications for specified housing and infrastructure funding; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“Department”) has adopted regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 25, § 6600 et seq.) to implement the Program (“Program Regulations”), as authorized by Government Code section 65589.9, subdivision (d); and
WHEREAS, the [INSERT THE NAME OF THE CITY OR COUNTY] (“Applicant”) desires to submit an Application for a Prohousing Designation (“Application”).

THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED THAT:

1. Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to submit an Application to the Department.

2. A
pplicant acknowledges and confirms that it is currently in compliance with applicable state housing law.

3. A
pplicant acknowledges and confirms that it will continue to comply with applicable housing laws and to refrain from enacting laws, developing policies, or taking other local governmental actions that may or do inhibit or constrain housing production.

Examples of such local laws, policies, and actions include moratoriums on development; local voter approval requirements related to housing production; downzoning; and unduly restrictive or onerous zoning regulations, development standards, or permit procedures. Applicant further acknowledges and confirms that the Prohousing Policies in its Application comply with its duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing pursuant to Government Code sections 8899.50 and 65583. Applicant further acknowledges and confirms that its general plan is in alignment with an adopted sustainable communities strategy pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21155- 21155.4. Applicant further acknowledges and confirms that its policies for the treatment of homeless encampments on public property comply do and will continue to comply with the Constitution and that it has enacted best practices in its jurisdiction

t
hat are consistent with the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness’ “7 Principles for Addressing Encampments” (June 17, 2022, update).

4. I
f the Application is approved, Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to enter into, execute, and deliver all documents required or deemed necessary or appropriate to participate in the Program, and all amendments thereto (the “Program Documents”).

5. A
pplicant acknowledges and agrees that it shall be subject to the Application, the terms and conditions specified in the Program Documents, the Program Regulations, and any and all other applicable law.

6. [I
NSERT THE TITLE OF THE APPLICANT’S AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY] is authorized to execute and deliver the Application and the Program Documents on behalf of the Applicant for participation in the Program.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: [Insert #] NOES: [Insert #] ABSENT: [Insert #] ABSTAIN: [Insert #] The undersigned, [INSERT NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNATORY] of Applicant, does hereby attest and certify that the foregoing is a true and full copy of a resolution of the Applicant’s governing body adopted at a duly convened meeting on the date above-mentioned, and that the resolution has not been altered, amended, or repealed.

SIGNATURE: DATE:

NAME: TITLE:

Appe
ndix 2: Proposed Policy Completion Schedule
Category
Number
Concise Written Description of
Proposed Policy
Key Milestones and
Milestone Dates
Anticipated
Completion
Date
Notes
Note: The City's application does not include proposed policies. All polic ies in the application are already adopted/enacted.

A
ppendix 3: Self-Scoring Sheet and Sample Self-Scoring Sheet Self-Scoring Sheet

Category
Number
Concise Written
Description of
Prohousing Policy
Enacted or
Proposed
Documentation Type
(e.g., resolution,
zoning code)
Insert Web
Links to
Documents or
Indicate that
Electronic
Copies are
Attached as
Appendix 7
Points Enhancement
Category
Number
Enhancement
Points
Total Points
1C The Housing Element
Residential Sites
Inventory and
completed Rezone
Program accommodate
a total of 2,403 units.

Enacted Adopted Housing
Element. Housing
Element Program

14. Policies H3.2,
H3.4, H3.5. See
C
alculation Table in
Appendix D.
https://cdnsm5
-
hosted.civicliv
e.com/UserFil
es/Servers/Se
rver_7964838/
File/Governme
nt/Department
s/Developmen
t%20Services/
Planning/Gen
eral%20Plan/1
0%20Housing
%20Element%
20Adopted%2

08.18.21.pdf
S
ee Appendix
7 Document
01 for
Calculation
Table.
2 2

1H Residential uses are
permitted by right in the
Commercial Mixed Use
(CMU) zone and
conditionally permitted
in Neighborhood
Commercial (NC),
Community
Commercial (CC),
General Commercial
(GC), and Old Town
Historic (HC) zones.

T
he Riverside Gateway
Specific Plan includes a
Special Area overlay
(SA) that created the
CMU/SA-RG zoning
district that allows
residential development
by right.

Enacted Municipal Code
Section 19.12.020
and
Sections 9.3.1
through

9.3.3 of the
Riverside Gateway
Specific Plan
Municipal
Code:
https://ecode3

60.com/42766
215
A
nd Riverside
Gateway Plan:
https://cdnsm5
-
hosted.civicliv
e.com/UserFil
es/Servers/Se
rver_7964838/
File/Governme
nt/Department
s/Developmen
t%20Services/
Planning/Spec
ific%20Plans
%20&%20Pla
nning%20Area
s/Riverside%2
0Gateway%20
Specific%20Pl
an/Riverside%
20Gateway%2
0Specific%20
Plan.pdf
2 2

1I The Development
Standard (DS) overlay
district allows an
applicant to modify the
development standards
in any zone district or
specific plan minimum
lot size, width, yard
setbacks, useable open
space, landscaping
setbacks, and parking
ratios; maximum lot
depth, coverage, and
building height; and
principal building types
to provide for increased
development flexibility.

There are currently
5,812.1 acres within
26,373 parcels within
the city that have DS
overlay zoning.

Enacted Municipal Code
Section 19.18.020
https://ecode3

60.com/42766
261#4276626
1 1 1

1L On December 21, 2022
the Roseville City
Council approved the
Douglas-Harding,
Douglas-Sunrise, and
Atlantic Street Specific
Plans to facilitate
commercial
reinvestment and
redevelopment,
housing, and
streetscape
beautification. The
Corridor Plans
streamline housing
development by
correcting non-
conforming zoning
issues, allowing
housing in commercial
zones, and by
streamlining CEQA
analysis. The three
plans provide for a
minimum of 850 new
housing units. This
further expands the
City’s comprehensive
and successful specific
plan strategy in the
City’s Infill areas. Like
the specific plan
strategy, the Corridor
Plans provide
streamlining using the
specific plan
exemption, eliminating
most future
entitlements and CEQA
requirements for future
projects.

Enacted Commercial
Corridors website,
General Plan Growth
Management
Strategy (starting on
page II-33)

and

General Plan
Policies LU1.1,
LU5.5, LU8.5,
LU8.7, LU8.10,
LU9.3,
and LU9.5 and
Housing Element
Program 6
Municipal
Code:
https://ecode3

60.com/42766
841#4276684
1 And the
Atlantic Street,
Douglas-
Harding, and
Douglas-
Sunrise
Corridor
specific plans

https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=2
0705371

See Appendix
7 Document
02 for
description of
this criteria’s
relationship to
Enhancement
Factor 1.
1 2 1 3

The Commercial
Corridor Project is the
City’s latest effort in its
comprehensive Specific
Planning strategy.
(Enhancement Factor
1)
2A The City maintains
several ministerial
approval process
options for multiple
housing project types.

All low density
residential (aka single
family) units citywide
are exempt from
Design Review. These
projects only require a
building permit.

Multifamily projects with
at least 20% affordable
housing may use the
City’s Objective Design
Standards checklist,
which allows applicants
to self-certify that their
projects meet a set of
objective standards,
and after that, these
projects only require
ministerial building
permits, and no
additional entitlements,
notices, or hearings are
required. Affordable
Housing projects also
qualify for ministerial
processing of lot line
adjustments, voluntary
mergers, and parcel
maps.

Enacted Housing Element
Program 15,
Municipal
Code 19.74.010 (D),
Objective Design
Standards, and
Objective Design
Standards webpage,
Ordinance, Municipal
Code 18.05.020
Housing
Element:
https://cdnsm5
-
hosted.civicliv
e.com/UserFil
es/Servers/Se
rver_7964838/
File/Governme
nt/Department
s/Developmen
t%20Services/
Planning/Gen
eral%20Plan/1
0%20Housing
%20Element%
20Adopted%2

08.18.21.pdf

Municipal
Code:
https://ecode3

60.com/42765
899#4276589
9 And

https://ecode3

60.com/42765
137
3 3

2B Certified General Plan
EIR and many specific
plan program EIRs that
provide program-level
CEQA analysis for
projects.

N
early all housing
projects are located
within specific plan
areas, and thus nearly
all housing qualifies for
streamlining.

Enacted General Plan EIR
(2020), Downtown
Specific Plan EIR
(2009), Northeast
Roseville Specific
Plan EIR (1987),
North
Central Roseville
Specific Plan EIR
(1990), Southeast
Roseville Specific
Plan EIR (1988),
Stoneridge Specific
Plan EIR (1998),
Hewlett Packard
Master Plan EIR
(1996), Highland
Reserve Specific
Plan EIR (1997),
Northwest Roseville
Specific Plan EIR
(1989), North
Roseville Specific
Plan EIR (1997,
1999,
2000), Del Webb
Specific Plan EIR
(1993), West
Roseville Specific
Plan EIR (2004),
Sierra Vista Specific
Plan EIR (2010),
Creekview Specific
Plan EIR (2012),
Amoruso Specific
Plan EIR (2016)
G
eneral Plan
Policies LU1.1,
LU5.5, LU8.5,
LU8.7, LU8.10,
LU9.3,
Specific Plans
Webpage
(Click on map
of each plan
for all plan
documents):
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=8
774576
S
ee Appendix
7 Document
02 for
description of
this criteria’s
relationship to
Enhancement
Factor 1.
2 1 2 4

and LU9.5 and
Housing Element
Program 6
2C The City has a
documented practice of
streamlining housing
development through
the CEQA exemption
for projects consistent
with a specific plan
(Government Code
section 65447).

The City’s CEQA
Implementing
Procedures document
the City’s adopted
approach to
streamlining housing
development using the
CEQA statutory and
categorical exemptions.

In addition, the City has
an adopted citywide
ministerial process for
multifamily housing
providing at least 20%
affordable housing.

Enacted City of Roseville
CEQA Implementing
Procedures for
Preparation,
Processing, and
Review of
Environmental
Documents,
Exemption
Examples,

General Plan
Policies LU1.1,
LU5.5, LU8.5,
LU8.7, LU8.10,
LU9.3,
and LU9.5 and
Housing Element
Program 6
CEQA
Implementing
Procedures:
https://cdnsm5
-
hosted.civicliv
e.com/UserFil
es/Servers/Se
rver_7964838/
File/Governme
nt/Department
s/Developmen
t%20Services/
Planning/City
wide%20Plan
ning%20Docu
ments/CEQA
%20Procedur
es_adopted20
Jan2021.pdf
See Appendix
7 Document
03 for two
projects with
Exemptions
that have
implemented
these
procedures.

See Appendix
7 Document
02 for
description of
this criteria’s
relationship to
Enhancement
Factor 1.
2 1 2 4

2D Typical building permit
processing times are:

Mul
tifamily: Between 8
and 16 weeks
A
ffordable Housing
Projects: Reviews are
prioritized, which
expedites permit review
time by up to 25% (6 to
12 weeks)
S
ingle Family
Production Units: 2 to 3
weeks
C
ustom Single-Family
Units: 6 to 12 weeks,
depending on
complexity of design.

E
ngineering permit
applications can be
submitted concurrently
with building permit
applications so that
reviews can overlap,
providing further
reductions in
processing times.

T
he City added a new
reporting function to its
online permit records
system on timelines for
building, engineering,
and planning records in
the beginning of 2022.

The City continues to
optimize
this Plan Review
Report, which lists
Enacted Page X-147,
Housing Element
and Plan Review
Report
https://cdnsm5
-
hosted.civicliv
e.com/UserFil
es/Servers/Se
rver_7964838/
File/Governme
nt/Department
s/Developmen
t%20Services/
Planning/Gen
eral%20Plan/1
0%20Housing
%20Element%
20Adopted%2

08.18.21.pdf
S
ee Appendix
7 Document
04 for August
18, 2025 Plan
Review Report
2 2

all active permits
and entitlements,
the responsible
staff reviewer,
and time
remaining before
the review
deadline for each
project.

Currently, 99% of all
engineering and
building permits and
planning entitlements
are completed prior
to their due date.

Reviews that do not
meet their deadlines
are usually
completed within a
day
past their deadline.

2E The Downtown Specific
Plan streamlines the
permitting of all housing
within the downtown
area. As mentioned
under 2A, all single
family and two-unit
housing throughout the
City is permitted
ministerially. In
addition, all multifamily
housing in the
Downtown Specific
Plan area is
streamlined through the
Minor Design Review
Permit (MDRP) process
(Municipal Code
Section

19.74.010(C)(2)). The
MDRP is an over-the-
counter, inexpensive
process that is
approved
administratively by the
Planning Manager and
requires no hearing. A
public notice is posted
at the project site at
least 10 days prior to
action on the project
(Municipal Code
Section 19.78.020).

The MDRP fee is $233,
whereas a standard
design review permit
requires a deposit of
$8,000.

This process has been
used to approve more
than 227 new housing
units (four mixed use
Enacted Downtown Specific
Plan (Section 9.4.7),
Downtown Code
Section 3.6,
Municipal Code
Sections

19.74.010(C)(2) and

19.78.020
and
G
eneral Plan
Policies LU1.1,
LU5.5, LU8.5,
LU8.7, LU8.10,
LU9.3,
and LU9.5 and
Housing Element
Program 6
Downtown
Specific Plan
Chapter 9:
https://cdnsm5
-
hosted.civicliv
e.com/UserFil
es/Servers/Se
rver_7964838/
File/Governme
nt/Department
s/Developmen
t%20Services/
Planning/Spec
ific%20Plans
%20&%20Pla
nning%20Area
s/Downtown%
20Specific%2
0Plan/Downto
wn%20Specifi
c%20Plan/09
%20Plan%20
Administration
.pdf
D
owntown
Code Chapter
3:
https://cdnsm5
-
hosted.civicliv
e.com/UserFil
es/Servers/Se
rver_7964838/
File/Governme
nt/Department
s/Developmen
t%20Services/
Planning/Spec
ific%20Plans
%20&%20Pla
nning%20Area
2 1 2 4

projects: Lohse
Apartments [623
Vernon Street], Main
Street Plaza[140 Main
Street], Junction Station
[120 Pacific Street], and
Vernon Mixed Use [129
Vernon Street])
T
he three Commercial
Corridor Specific Plans
allow Planning
Manager approval for
Multi-Family Residential
projects that propose
density of 25 units/acre
or greater.
s/Downtown%
20Specific%2
0Plan/Downto
wn%20Code/
Planning_Cha
pter3_DTCode
Master.pdf
M
unicipal
Code MDRP:
https://ecode3

60.com/42767
759#4276776
0 https://ecode3

60.com/42767
831#4276783
1 Municipal
Code Corridor
Plans:
https://ecode3

60.com/42766
841#4276684
1 A
nd the
Atlantic Street,
Douglas-
Harding, and
Douglas-
Sunrise
Corridor
specific plans
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964

922&pageId=2
0705371
S
ee Appendix
7 Document
02 for
description of
this criteria’s
relationship to
Enhancement
Factor 1.

2G The City allows
concurrent submittal of
building and
engineering permits
along with entitlements
after the first round of
entitlement check, once
the application is
complete.

T
o facilitate this, the
Development Services
Department uses
several permit and
entitlement checklists to
make requirements for
all stages of a project
as clear as possible,
and to make applicants
aware of required
documentation and
information before even
filing an application.

F
urthermore, the Online
Permitting Services
(OPS) Portal allows
applicants and staff to
submit information,
comments, and
changes directly
without the need for
hard copy plans and
multiple meetings or
visits to the Permit
Center. In addition, this
system allows staff in
different divisions on
concurrent permits to
work directly with each
other and see each
other’s comments in
real time, reducing
Enacted Policy for Concurrent
Review of Building
Permits, Civil
Improvement
Permits, and Final
Maps (Policy
Number DS08),
Permit and
Entitlement
Checklists, Online
Permitting System
Portal
Policy for
Concurrent
Review and
Request
Form:
https://cdnsm5
-
hosted.civicliv
e.com/UserFil
es/Servers/Se
rver_7964838/
File/Governme
nt/Department
s/Developmen
t%20Services/
Planning/AFH/
Concurrent%2
0Review_201
8_revised.pdf
P
ermit and
Entitlement
Checklists:
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=1
0388959 (click
link and then
click tabs for
Building,
Planning, and
Engineering
and see
“Electronic
Submittal
Checklists”
O
PS Portal:
1 1

the need for the
applicant to go back
and forth between
divisions and deal
with potentially
conflicting
comments. With
direct, online
communication, less
administration is
required, so staff
processing
entitlements and
permits can respond
directly and quickly
without the need for
the information to
need to go through
multiple people or
steps.

Combined, the OPS
Portal, application
checklists, and
concurrent
entitlement and
permit processing
create a
consolidated
process that allows
multiple staff the
ability to work
simultaneously on
planning
entitlements greatly
reduces processing
time.
https://aca-
prod.accela.co
m/COR/Defaul
t.aspx

2H The City has ministerial
Objective Design
Standards (ODS)
process for qualifying
multifamily projects,
which shortens
timeframes by an
average of three to four
months.

To qualify to use the
ODS process, a project
need not comply with
the State SB 35 criteria.

All projects citywide
that provide a minimum
of 20%
affordable housing for
low, very low, or
extremely low income
households may use
the streamlined ODS
process.

Applicants who wish to
use this process fill out
an application and self-
certification checklist
indicating they comply
with the City’s Objective
Design Standards and,
after pre-application
review by Planning staff
to verify, are permitted
to proceed directly to
the Building Permit
process. This allows
affordable housing
projects to bypass the
Design Review Permit
process, which can
save an average of
three months of
Enacted Objective Design
Standards, Page X-
147 of the Housing
Element
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=1
7937094
1 1

processing time and
eliminates the
$8,000 deposit
required for the
entitlement.

Since the ODS were
adopted in their
current form on April
21, 2021, the City
has completed 10
affordable multifamily
projects though the
ODS process. In
2024 alone, the City
approved four ODS
projects for a total of
1,157 new affordable
units. To compare,
since the adoption of
the ODS process no
applicants have
requested
streamlining
pursuant to SB 35 as
of August 2025.

2I The City operates a
physical Permit Center
where applicants can
meet with planners and
permit technicians, as
well as representatives
from Fire, Engineering,
and Environmental
Utilities in person, as
well as an Online
Permit Center where
they can apply for any
entitlement and pay
fees. Each project is
assigned to a planner
who coordinates the
project throughout its
life and acts as a single
point of contact for all
other department
contacts.

Enacted Webpage and
Brochure
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=1
0101469
https://cdnsm5
-
hosted.civicliv
e.com/UserFil
es/Servers/Se
rver_7964838/
File/Governme
nt/Department
s/Developmen
t%20Services/
Planning/AFH/
Handouts/Entit
lement%20Per
mit%20Revie
w%20Process
.pdf
1 1
2J Planning prioritizes the
processing of
multifamily
development projects
with affordable units,
which reduces
processing times by up
to 25%.

Enacted Permit Processing
Procedures and
Timeline Estimates,
Page X-147 of the
Housing Element
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=1
6922252
1 1

2K The City has a
universal planning
application form for all
entitlement
applications. In
addition, Planning
provides application
checklists for every
entitlement type to
assist applicants in
providing all of the
needed information
consistently and in a
timely manner.

Enacted Applications, Forms
& Handouts
webpage. Click on
“Planning” tab
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=1
0388959
1 1
2L The City publicly posts
status updates on
projects and permits
online on its
Development Activity
Reporting webpage and
the Online Permitting
Services (OPS) portal,
which allows anyone to
look up status updates
and documents.

Enacted Development Activity
Reporting webpage
and Online
Permitting Services
Portal. Click on
“Planning” tab
Development
Activity
Reporting:
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/g
overnment/de
partments/dev
elopment_serv
ices/planning/
development_
activity_report
s

OPS Portal:
https://aca-
prod.accela.co
m/COR/Defaul
t.aspx
1 1

2N A Project Evaluation
Meeting (PEM) is
held to review the
first application
submittal for
discretionary projects
to discuss possible
site and design
issues. It is attended
by representatives
from City
departments
(including
Engineering,
Building, Fire,
Utilities, etc.) with the
project applicant,
architect, engineer,
etc. to disclose
potentially costly and
time-consuming
issues early enough
to efficiently make
changes. The PEM
meeting can be held
in person or virtually
and allows a project
applicant to meet
with representatives
from all of the City
departments with
discretionary
authority over a
project’s requested
entitlements and
permits
simultaneously, thus
removing silos
between
departments. This
allows the applicant
to speak with
department
Enacted Entitlement Permit
Review Process
brochure, found on
Applications, Forms
& Handouts
webpage. Click on
“Planning” tab
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=1
0388959
1 1

representatives
directly so they can
ask clarifying
questions, negotiate
terms, and, if two
departments have
conflicting directions,
can resolve
inconsistent
directions on the
spot. This reduces
the need for multiple
calls, meetings,
and/or emails
between the
applicant and
multiple departments.

This can also solve
issues before an
applicant prepares
resubmittal project
documents. This can
save the applicant
tens of thousands
(or more)
of dollars and weeks or
months of time.

3A The Downtown
Specific Plan waives
park in lieu fees for
residential
development.
(Housing Element,
pg. X-90 and X-191;
Downtown Specific
Plan Policy 8.2.1).

The waiver of
parkland dedication
requirements and
park fees reduces
development impact
fees by $2,523 per
unit (Commercial &
Multifamily Fee
Booklet, Appendix P)

The Commercial
Corridor Specific Plans
also provide these
waivers. The City’s
intent is to provide
incentives to build high
density housing,
particularly in more
dense, walkable areas
of the city.

Enacted Housing Element
Program 6, pg. X-90
and X-191

Downtown Specific
Plan, Policy 8.2.1

Commercial Corridor
Specific Plans

Residential Fee
Booklet, Commercial
& Multifamily Fee
Booklet
Appendix P

General Plan
Policies LU1.1,
LU5.5, LU8.5,
LU8.7, LU8.10,
LU9.3,
and LU9.5
Housing
Element:
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=1
6922252

Downtown
Specific Plan:
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=8
775091

Commercial
Corridor
Specific Plans:
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=1
7686767

Fee Booklets:
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=8
740472

General Plan:
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=8
774544
3 1 2 5

See
Appendix
7,
Document
02 for
description
of this
criteria’s
relationship
to
Enhanceme
nt Factor 1.

3C The City has reduced
development impact
fees for age-
restricted housing.

This includes the
citywide Public
Facilities Fee, the
Placer County
Capital Facilities
Fee, and Parks fees
for several of the
City’s specific plans,
including the North
Roseville Specific
Plan (NRSP),
Westpark Specific
Plan, and the Sierra
Vista Specific Plan
(SVSP). These fee
reductions reduce
development costs
associated with this
special housing
need.

These fees are
provided in the City’s
Residential Fee
Booklet and
Commercial &
Multifamily Fee
Booklet, and a table
showing a
comparison of fees is
provided in Appendix 7.

Enacted Residential Fee
Booklet and
Commercial &
Multifamily Fee
Booklet
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=8
740472

See Appendix
7 Document
05 for
Comparison of
Fees
1 1

3D The City coordinated
with Placer County and
AMI Housing to convert
and rehabilitate the
Hampton Inn located at
Sunrise Boulevard and
Douglas Boulevard
from a hotel to 82 fully-
contained units of
permanent supportive
housing for unhoused
households. Now
called the Sun Rose
Apartments, the project
started as an effort by
Placer County and the
City to shelter the
unhoused during the
beginning of the Covid-
19 pandemic using
Project Roomkey funds.

The units are fully
occupied as of April
2025 and the program
has been successful
both in terms of helping
people find housing
and gaining stability, as
well as for collaboration
between the City and
the County. This project
is one component of
the City’s continued
collaborative work with
Placer County to
provide innovative
housing and services
for people experiencing
homelessness.

Enacted Sun Rose
Apartments website,
Council
Communication RE:

Placer Regional
Homelessness
Strategy
Website for
Sun Rose
Apartments:
https://www.int
eriminc.org/su
nroseapartme
nts/

See Appendix
7 Document
06 for Council
Communicatio
n.
1 4 1 2

3E The City operates a
robust Alternative
Transportation
program with several
full time staff
dedicated to
planning, operating,
and maintaining
alternative
transportation
options.

This group assists
the City in developing
new policies
supportive of non-
vehicular
transportation,
including transit,
biking, and walking.

They also coordinate
with transit, operate a
Safe Routes to
School Program, and
provide and
financially support
educational
opportunity and
outreach events
centered around
biking and walking
throughout the year.

There are over 100
miles of on-street
bike lanes plus 38.4
miles of Class 1
separated trails for
bikes and
pedestrians currently
located within the
city. The City is
currently constructing
a two-mile-long
Enacted Bicycle Master Plan,
Pedestrian Master
Plan, Alternative
Transportation
Division webpage,
City Bicycle Friendly
Community
webpage, League of
American Bicyclists
webpage and
Bicycle Friendly
Community Report
Card for Roseville.

Biking &
Walking -
City of
Roseville
(includes
parks, trails
and
bikeways
map)
Bicycle
Master Plan
and
Pedestrian
Master
Plan:

Planning -
City of
Roseville
B
icycle
Friendly
Communit
y - City of
Roseville
B
icycle
Friendly
America℠ |
League of
American
Bicyclists
(bikeleague
.or g)
See Appendix
7 Document
07 for Bicycle
Friendly
Community
Report Card
1 1

section of the Dry
Creek Greenway
East Trail with
planned completion
by 2026, and several
more off-street trails
are planned and/or in
the design and public
outreach phases. A
map of existing and
planned bike lanes
and multiuse trails is
printed and
distributed to
members of the
public, as well as
made available
online for people
wanting to download
the map.

The City originally
adopted its Bicycle
Master Plan in 2008
and its Pedestrian
Master Plan in 2011,
both of which are
updated regularly.

The Bicycle Master
Plan sets the City’s
goals for bicycling
and facilities and
infrastructure to
support those goals
and policies.

Roseville was first
awarded the Bicycle
Community award by
the League of
American Bicyclists
in 2008, and the
award was renewed

in 2017 and 2021,
and has currently
applied for the 2025
award period. The
Alternative
Transportation group
advocates for funding
to implement more
robust programs and
develop better biking
infrastructure.

3I The Riverside
Gateway Specific
Plan includes a
streamlined Site
Development
Prototypes and
Design Review
Process. As part of
the development of
this specific plan, a
qualified architect
prepared four
development
prototypes for mixed
use buildings on
typical-sized lots
located within the
Plan Area. Property
owners and/or
developers may use
one of these
prototypes to take
advantage of a
streamlined
development process
consisting of only
three steps. A
Design Review
Permit is not
required, saving
thousands of dollars
in design costs to the
developer, as well as
in entitlement
processing fees and
time. The simplified
process requires that
the developer submit
a site-specific
grading plan showing
utility locations,
followed by a 30-day
review period for City
Enacted Riverside
Gateway Specific
Plan, page 9- 8
and Appendix C
and
G
eneral Plan
Policies LU1.1,
LU5.5, LU8.5,
LU8.7, LU8.10,
LU9.3,
and LU9.5 and
Housing Element
Program 6
Riverside
Gateway Plan:
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=8
775137
G
eneral Plan:
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=8
774544
Se
e Appendix
7 Document
02 for
description of
this criteria’s
relationship to
Enhancement
Factor 1.
1 1 2 3

departments.

After comments on
the grading plans
have been
addressed, the
project can go
straight to plan
check, including
concurrent
Engineering and
Building Permit
reviews, consistent
with the timelines
mentioned in 2D. If a
lot merger or lot line
adjustment is
required for one of
these projects using
the prototypes, The
Riverside Gateway
Specific Plan allows
for these entitlements
to be reviewed and
approved through the
City’s Administrative
Permit process,
which is approved at
the staff level. In
addition, this process
removes the
requirement for the
notification process,
further reducing
processing time and
limiting potential for
litigation.

4B The City established
the Roseville Local
Housing Trust Fund
HTF) in 2004. The
HTF
is funded through
developer in‐lieu
fees, payoffs from
developer-
subsidized loans,
and payoffs from
affordable resale
units. The HTF was
slow to gain funding
due to the recession
and reductions in
home building
starting in 2008, so it
was unable to
provide for major
projects until 2019.

However, prior to
that, it did assist in
providing funding for
smaller-scale
projects and loans
for affordable
housing
development.

The HTF has now
built up enough to be
a major source of
funding for new
affordable
housing construction.

Enacted Housing Element p.

X- 29, and Local
Housing Trust Fund
Final Report
Housing
Element:
https://www.ro
seville.ca.us/c
ms/One.aspx?
portalId=7964
922&pageId=1
6922252

2 2

4H The City acts as
the successor
agency for the
now dissolved
Roseville
Redevelopment
Agency. Current
revenues primarily
come from loan
repayments and
are used for small
gap funding for
future affordable
housing projects in
areas of high
opportunity or in
areas at risk of
displacement.

In 2021, residual
redevelopment funds in
the amount of $600,000
were loaned to St.

Anton Partners to
create 80 affordable
units that were fully
occupied in 2024. In
2022, a loan in the
amount of $500,000
was used as gap
financing to fund
Hampstead’s Prospera
at Fiddyment Workforce
project that created 54
affordable workforce
units.

Enacted FY 2023-2024
Annual Report and
Report of Required
Information
See Appendix
7 Document
08 FY 2023-
2024 Annual
Report and
Report of
Required
Information
1 1

4I The City operates an
ongoing Affordable
Housing Program,
which consists of
three separate
funding sources: the
Roseville Local
Housing Trust Fund,
Low and Moderate
Income Fund, and
the Affordable
Housing

The City issues a
Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA)
each year making
funding from these,
and other funding
sources as available
(such as CDBG,
State Local Housing
Trust Fund Program
match, etc.) for new
affordable housing
construction
projects to qualified
builders.

Enacted 2025 Permanent
Supportive and
Affordable Housing
Notice of Funding
Availability
See
Appendix
7 Documen
t 09 for
2025
NOFA
1 1

4M The Roseville
Housing Division
operates the bicycle
Program, which
provides 0% interest
loans of up to
$100,000 to low-
income households
for repairs needed to
correct health and
safety deficiencies
and general
improvements to
keep the property
from falling into
disrepair. There are
no monthly loan
payments, and the
loans are only
payable upon sale,
change of title, or
change of use. Low-
income individuals
that are either
permanently
disabled and/or over
the age of 62 may
also qualify for
grants of up to
$5,000 under this
program.

In 2024, the Housing
Rehabilitation
Program served five
households with a
total of $300,000.

Additional funds can
be applied to the
program as
available. As of
August 2025, there
are currently another
Enacted Program Webpage,
Program Brochure,
2024 APR
Link to
Program
Webpage:
https://www.
roseville.ca.
us/residents
/affordable_
housing/ow
nership_pro
grams/housi
ng_rehabilit
ation_progr
am
H
ousing
Element
APR data
available on
HCD
website:
https://www
.hcd.ca.gov/
planning-
and-
community-
developme
nt/housing-
element-
implementa
tion-and-
apr-
dashboard
1 4 1 2

four homes that are
being rehabbed
using this program.

This program goes
beyond State
requirements to
prevent the
displacement of
lower-income
households and
preserve affordable
housing by offering
0% interest loans
with no monthly
payments, as long
as the resident
continues to occupy
the home as their
primary residence. It
enables lower-
income homeowners
to make essential
health and safety
repairs, helping
them remain in their
homes and avoid the
risk of forced sale
due to unaffordable
costs or code
enforcement actions
resulting from
deferred
maintenance.

Total 36 15 13 50

Appendix 4: Examples of Prohousing Policies with Enhancement Factors If a
Prohousing Policy incorporates any of the enhancement factors specified in the Scoring Criteria Enhancement Factors chart, it will receive extra points as indicated therein. Examples of such qualifying Prohousing Policies include the following:

C
ategory 1: Favorable Zoning and Land Use
• R
ezoning sufficient sites to accommodate 150 percent or greater of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation by total or income category, including sites in Location Efficient Communities.
• Rezoning sufficient sites to accommodate 150 percent or greater of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation by total or income category, including sites in High Resource and Highest Resource areas (as designated in the most recently updated TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps).
• Rezoning to accommodate 125 to 149 percent of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation in downtown commercial corridors or other infill locations. • Expanding density bonus programs to exceed statutory requirements by 10 percent or more in Location Efficient Communities.
• Reducing or eliminating parking requirements for residential development as authorized by Government Code section 65852.2 in Location Efficient Communities. • Increasing allowable density in low-density, single-family residential areas beyond the requirements of state Accessory Dwelling Unit Law in High Resource and Highest Resource areas (as designated in the most recently updated TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps).
• Modification of development standards and other applicable zoning provisions to promote greater development intensity in downtown commercial corridors or other infill locations.
• Coupling rezoning actions with policies that go beyond state law requirements in reducing displacement of lower-income households and conserving existing housing stock that is affordable to lower-income households.

C
ategory 2: Acceleration of Housing Production Timeframes • M
inisterial approval processes for multifamily housing in High Resource and Highest Resource areas (as designated in the most recently updated TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps).
• Streamlined, program-level CEQA analysis and certification of specific plans in Location Efficient Communities.
• Documented practice of streamlining housing development at the project level in downtown commercial corridors and other infill locations. • Expedited permit processing for housing affordable to lower-income households in High Resource and Highest Resource areas (as designated in the most recently updated TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps).

Category 3: Reduction of Construction and Development Costs • F
ee waivers for affordable housing in High Resource and Highest Resource areas (as designated in the most recently updated TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps). • Fee waivers or reductions for higher density housing in downtown commercial corridors or other infill locations.
• Measures that reduce costs and leverage financial resources for transportation-related infrastructure or programs in Low Resource and High Segregation & Poverty areas (as designated in the most recently updated TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps). • Adoption of universal design ordinances to increase housing choices and affordability for persons with disabilities in High Resource and Highest Resource areas (as designated in the most recently updated TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps). • Permitting innovative housing types, such as manufactured homes, recreational vehicles or park models, in High Resource and Highest Resource areas (as designated in the most recently updated TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps).

C
ategory 4: Providing Financial Subsidies
• T
argeting local housing trust funds to acquisition or rehabilitation of existing affordable units, or to affordable units at risk of converting to market rate uses, in Low Resource and High Segregation & Poverty areas (as designated in the most recently updated TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps).
• Marketing grants and other financial products for ADUs/JADUs in High Resource and Highest Resource areas (as designated in the most recently updated TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps).
• Utilizing publicly owned land for affordable housing in High Resource and Highest Resource areas (as designated in the most recently updated TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps).
• Establishment of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District or similar local financing tool in a Low Resource or High Segregation & Poverty area (as designated in the most recently updated TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps). • Directing residual redevelopment funds or general funds to conservation or preservation of affordable housing in areas at high risk of displacement.

• P rinciple 5: Ensure Access to Shelter or Housing Options – Describe how low barrier resources to housing and supportive services are communicated to encampment residents. Include how strategies involve alternative measures to criminalization, focusing on service engagement and harm reduction. (350 characters max) • P rinciple 6: Develop Pathways to Permanent Housing and Supports – Describe Housing First strategies emphasizing low barriers, a harm-reduction model, and services to support people obtaining permanent housing more efficiently. Identify efforts to align federal, state, and local funding/programs to provide clear pathways to permanent housing. (350 characters max)
• P rinciple 7: Create a Plan for What Will Happen to Encampment Sites After Closure – Describe plans for former encampment spaces (long-term solutions to prevent encampments from reoccurring). Include efforts to emphasize safety, accessibility, and inclusivity that improve infrastructure. Example: Communities can include curb cuts to increase mobility access and enhanced lighting to encourage safety. (350 characters max) C
ertification and Authorization:

Signature of Authorized Representative Date
See Appendix 5 Document 01
See Appendix 5 Document 01
See Appendix 5 Document 01

Appendix 5 Document 01
Summary related to the treatment of unhoused individuals camping on public property
• P rinciple 1: Establish a Cross-Agency, Multi -Sector Response to Encampments – Describe how system partners (name partners) work together to prioritize health and safety both for residents and unsheltered individuals. (350 characters max) T
he City developed a Homeless Response Team in 2015. This is a cross-departmental team comprised of staff from various departments and divisions, including Economic Development, Parks Recreation and Libraries, the Roseville Police Department Social Services Unit (SSU), the Housing Division, Public Works, Public Affairs and Communications, and the City Attorney’s Office. The team meets regularly to address homelessness and prioritize unsheltered individuals and housed neighbors, the environment, and businesses.

This Homeless Response Team collaborates frequently with shelter providers, County Health and Human Services, County Probation, local hospitals, and neighboring jurisdictions.
• P rinciple 2: Engage Encampment Residents to Develop Solutions – Describe street outreach efforts to engage with encampment residents to find alternative shelter, housing, and service options using the housing first approach before an existing encampment is closed. (350 characters max)
P
ark, Recreation & Libraries’ Open Space Division coordinates with the Roseville Police Department Social Services Unit to clean up abandoned camping sites and locations frequently utilized by homeless individuals. When such locations are found by City staff or reported by the public, RPD’s Social Services Unit outreaches to individuals to build trust and offer connection to shelter and housing. If a site cleanup is needed, RPD coordinates with the Open Space Division to perform the service, hold any found belongings for 90 days for pick-up, and dispose of waste. Cleanups are performed up to once a week, if necessary. • P rinciple 3: Conduct Comprehensive and Coordinated Outreach – Describe multidisciplinary connection strategies and linkages to resources and permanent housing solutions that is customized to individual needs. If applicable, describe how the

jurisdiction uses the coordinated entry system to connect individuals to resources and permanent housing. (350 characters max)

Social Services Unit conducts coordinated outreach with the countywide Homeless Liaison Team and County Probation to provide connection to variety of potential person-centered solutions based on individual needs and next steps to housing.

Both the city Social Services Unit and the Housing Division utilize their licenses and are active in the countywide 211/coordinated entry Homeless Management Information System.

• Principle 4: Address Basic Needs and Provide Storage – Describe efforts to meet basic needs, health, safety, and access to storage (timeframes) for people experiencing unsheltered homelessness while creating clear pathways to permanent housing. (350 characters max)

The City provides connection to medical, mental, and behavioral health care, substance use treatment, and to local non profit providers offering shelter, transitional housing, permanent housing, groceries, meals, showers, and laundry. In collaboration with a local non profit provider, SSU administers an emergency hotel voucher program.

The City also encourages unhoused individuals to store copies of their important housing documents needed to access housing such as picture ID, veteran ID, DD214, social security card, income statements and more to the HMIS. Lost or stolen documents can be an added barrier to permanent housing.

• Principle 5: Ensure Access to Shelter or Housing Options – Describe how low barrier resources to housing and supportive services are communicated to encampment residents. Include how strategies involve alternative measures to criminalization, focusing on service engagement and harm reduction. (350 characters max)

First established in 2015, SSU takes a person centered services first solution focused approach offering outreach, intervention, and re-integration. SSU meets unhoused individuals in person where they are. They listen, offer opportunities, help address barriers to permanent housing, and establish next steps. In addition, 48 hour notice is provided in writing.

• Principle 6: Develop Pathways to Permanent Housing and Supports – Describe Housing First strategies emphasizing low barriers, a harm-reduction model, and services to support people obtaining permanent housing more efficiently. Identify efforts to align federal, state, and local funding/programs to provide clear pathways to permanent housing. (350 characters max)

The Social Services Unit and the Housing Division provide direct support to people experiencing homelessness to access permanent housing most efficiently through outreach where people are and as folks demonstrate a need for assistance.

The City plays an active role in the countywide Built for Zero efforts to meet people where they are, build trust, listen to needs and help address barriers to permanent housing.

Supports include working with people in need of housing on their next step to housing, which could be PSH. Assistance can include help in person assistance navigating the DMV and SS offices, gathering documents like valid picture ID, completing rental applications, and paying for application fees and housing deposits.

• Principle 7: Create a Plan for What Will Happen to Encampment Sites After Closure – Describe plans for former encampment spaces (long-term solutions to prevent encampments from reoccurring). Include efforts to emphasize safety, accessibility, and inclusivity that improve infrastructure. Example: Communities can include curb cuts to increase mobility access and enhanced lighting to encourage safety. (350 characters max)

The City created an Encampment Safety Priority Level Standards Policy in 2023 (see Appendix 5 Document 01). The policy distinguishes encampments by priority (safety threat) level using a risk management methodology.

The plan for what happens to encampment sites after closure is for public space to be utilized as intended and to be accessible, clean, safe, and environmentally responsible. For example, the City provides parks, trails, and open space for recreation, health benefits, community engagement, and environmental protection. The City supports shelter and transitional housing providers, PSH, and affordable housing for people coming from homelessness, as a prevention tool.

Prevention actions include improved lighting and routine visits by security patrol, Social Services Unit, and Open Space Division.

Appendix 6: Public Participation Checklist
Pursuant to Sections 6601, 6602, and 6605, applicants are required to demonstrate how they have engaged in a “Diligent Public Participation Process.” Please complete this checklist, and sign, to confirm that the applicant has complied with this requirement. Attach and reference any comments you received during the process.

Regulation Text Explanation Yes No
Outreach through a
variety of methods and
languages to ensure
access to the public
process and provide
opportunities for public
input.

Applicant should use methods such as newspaper
ads, email, social media, fliers, etc., to inform the
public that an application has been drafted and
posted for public comment. Language access
should reflect languages spoken in your local
community and should be available in multiple
languages in print media or upon request for digital
media.
☐ ☐
Specific effort to engage
all segments of the
community, including
individuals or
representatives of lower-
income and special
needs households, for-
profit and non-profit
developers, and special
needs service providers.

Individuals and organizations representing lower-
income and special needs households, for-profit
and non-profit developers, and special needs
service providers should be engaged, informed of,
and offered an opportunity to comment on the
application. Outreach lists utilized for Housing
Element compliance would suffice.
☐ ☐
Availability of the draft
document to the public,
including notification to
interested parties and all
segments of the
community, for thirty (30)
calendar days and
subsequent versions for
seven (7) calendar days.

Applicants should post the application in print and
digital forms, collect comments, and incorporate
those comments into the application if necessary.

Making the application available to the public could
be satisfied by posting the application online and/or
announcements through other mediums (e.g., local
newspapers) so long as these forums include
diverse segments of the community, including
individuals or representatives of lower-income and
special needs households, for-profit and non-profit
developers, and special needs service providers.
☐ ☐
Public hearings and
informative meetings.

For the purposes of satisfying this requirement, a
City Council or Board of Supervisors meeting
informing the public of the jurisdiction's intent to
submit a Prohousing Designation Program
application, in addition to any subsequent meetings
necessary to make revisions in response to public
comment, will satisfy this requirement.
☐ ☐
Note: This section will be completed once the publication and outreach proc ess is complete.

Consideration of
comments, including
incorporation of
comments into a
jurisdiction's application
and Prohousing Policies
as appropriate.

Provide all comments received with a description
of how the comment was incorporated into the
application. If the comment is not appropriate for
incorporation, please describe why.
☐ ☐

Certification and Authorization:

Signature of Authorized Representative Date

�Appendix 7: List of Supporting Documents
Document
Number Document Name Used for
Criteria
Link
or
PDF
01 RHNA Calculation Table 1C PDF
02 Specific Plan Process Relation to Enhancement Factor 1 2B, 2C,
2E, 3A,
3H
PDF
03 Projects Using Specific Plan Exemption 2C PDF
04 August 18, 2025 Current Plan Check Report 2D PDF
05 Age Restricted Housing Fee Reductions Table 3C PDF
06 Council Communication of Placer Regional Homelessness Strategy 3D PDF
07 Bicycle Friendly Community Report Card 3E PDF
08 FY 23/24 Report of Required Information 4F PDF
09 2025 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) 4F PDF
10 Housing Element
1C 1J, 2A,
2D, 2G,
2I, 3A, 3H,
4A
Link
https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Develop ment%20Services/Planning/General%20Plan/10%20Housing%20Element%20Adopted%208.18.

21.pdf
11 Municipal Code 1F, 1G,
1H, 2A, 2F Link
ht tps://ecode360.com/42765899
12 Downtown Specific Plan 2B, 2E, 3A Link

ht tps://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=8775091 13 Riverside Gateway Specific Plan 1G, 3H Link
ht tps://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=8775137 14 Commercial Corridors Webpage 1J Link
ht tps://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/ commercial_corridors_project
15 General Plan and EIR
1J, 2B,
2C, 2E,
3A, 3H
Link
https://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=8774544 16 Objective Design Standards 2A, 2G Link
https://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=17937094 17 All Specific Plan EIRS 2B Link
ht tps://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=8774576 18 CEQA Implementing Procedures 2C Link
https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/ Departments/Development%20Services/Planning/Citywide%20Planning%2 0Documents/CEQA%20Procedures_adopted20Jan2021.pdf
19 Online Permit Center webpage 2F, 2H, 2K Link
https://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=10101469 20 Entitlement Review Process brochure 2H, 2M Link
https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/ Development%20Services/Planning/AFH/Handouts/Entitlement%20Permit%20Review %20Process.pdf
21 Universal planning application form 2J Link
https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/D evelopment%20Services/Planning/AFH/Applications/Universal%20Fillable%20Form%20- %20Planning.pdf
22 Permit and Entitlement Checklists (Click on tabs for Building, Planning, and Engineering) 2F, 2J Link
ht tps://www.roseville.ca.us/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7964922&pageId=10388959

23 Policy for Concurrent Review of Building Permits, Civil Improvement Permits, and Final Maps (Policy DS08) 2F Link https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/D evelopment%20Services/Planning/AFH/Concurrent%20Review_2018_revised.pdf 24 Development Activity Reporting webpage 2K Link
ht tps://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/ development_activity_reports
25 Residential Fee Booklet and Commercial & Multifamily Fee Booklet 3A, 3C Link
Residential (all): https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/ Development%20Services/Building/Development%20Impact%20Fees/2024- 2025%20Residential%20Fee%20Booklet%20FINAL%2003272025.pdf Commercial & Multifamily Fee Booklet: https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Depar tments/Development%20Services/Building/Development%20Impact%20Fees/2 025-2026%20Commercial%20&%20Multi-
Family%20Fee%20Booklet%20FINAL.pdf
26 City of Roseville Alternative Transportation Division Webpage 3E Link Walk, Bike, and Roll - City of Roseville
27 Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan 3E Link Planning - City of Roseville
28 The League of American Bicyclists Bicycle Friendly America webpage 3E Link
Bicycle Friendly America℠ | League of American Bicyclists (bikeleague.org) 29 City of Roseville Parks, Trails, and Bikeways Map 3E Link https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/public_w orks/biking_walking/parks_trails_bikeways_map
30 City of Roseville Housing Rehabilitation Project Webpage 4H Link Housing Rehabilitation Program - City of Roseville (civiclive.com)

31 Housing Rehabilitation Program Brochure 4H Link
https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Depart ments/Economic%20Development/Rehab/Housing%20Rehab%20Brochure%20w ebsite%20version.pdf
32 2024 Annual Progress Report and Council Communication 4H Link https://rosevilleca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/2826/files/agend a/3124

Appendix 5 Document 01 | Comparison of Regional Housing Need and Existing Residential Unit Capacity Income
Category
Regional
Housing
Needs
Allocation
Vacant
Land
Underutilized
Opportunity
Sites
Accessory
Dwelling
Units
Total
Existing
Capacity
Housing
Unit
Surplus
or
Deficit4
(Before
Rezone
Program)
Rezone
Program
Housing
Unit
Surplus
or
Deficit4
(After
Rezone
Program)
Total
Capacity
After
Rezone
Program
%
Capacity
Very Low1 3,855
3,985 357 45 4,387 -1,791 2,403 5 612 6,790 109.9%
Low1 2,323
Subtotal
(Very Low
and Low)
6,178
Moderate2
1,746 4,676 42 34 4,752 3,006 0 3,006 4,676 267.8%
Above
Moderate3 4,142 4,644 0 1 4645 503 0 503 4,644 112.1%
Total 12,066 13,305 399 80 13,784 1,718 2,403 4,121 16,110 133.5% 1 Capacity based on sites with a density of 23 du/acre or greater and/or a lower income affordable housing obligation 2 Capacity based on sites with a density of 7–22.9 du/acre 3 Capacity based on sites with a density of less than 7 du/acre 4 This number is derived from the current existing housing unit capacity minus the regional housing need number for the planning period.

5. C
ompleted Rezone Program, successful completion email from HCD on June 27, 2025 Appendix 7, Document 01: Examples of Use of Specific Plan Exemption

Appendix 7 Document 02
Description of Specific Planning Process in Support of Enhancement Factor 1 Specific Plans are the foundation of the City’s growth management and planning strategy, as well as the first step in implementing the City’s 10% Affordable Housing policy. Criteria 1J, 2B, 2C, 2E, 3A, and 3H each represent an element of the City’s successful comprehensive Specific Plan strategy. Housing Element Implementation Measure/Program 6: Specific Plan areas (beginning on page X-17) provides a comprehensive description of the City’s Specific Planning Process and how it assists, and has succeeded for many years in streamlining the development of housing, including at least 10% deed-restricted affordable housing, along with the services, infrastructure, and community-serving commercial uses for each area. The Specific Plan process has enabled the City to set aside large areas of connected open space for environmental protection, passive recreation, wildlife migration, multi-use trails, and aesthetic value. Furthermore, the Specific Plan process allows for easy CEQA and permit streamlining because major issues, including mitigation, infrastructure, and financing, are known and have already been negotiated. Most infrastructure is already in place and federal and state permits already obtained by the time residential units are ready to be developed.

This comprehensive unified program is supported by many of the City’s General Plan policies, including Policies LU1.1, LU5.5, LU8.5, LU8.7, LU8.10, LU9.3, and LU9.5.

Appendix 7, Document 03: Examples of Use of Specific Plan Exemption EXAMPLE 1: Minor modification of a Specific Plan Planning Division Staff Report
Planning Commission Meeting October 12, 2023
Prepared by: Kinarik Shallow, Associate Planner
ITEM 6.1: Specific Plan Amendment and Development Agreement Amendment – 5251 Fiddyment Road – WRSP PCL F-22 – SPA and DAA – File #PL23-0245

REQUEST
The applicant requests a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) and Development Agreement Amendment (DAA) to merge WRSP Parcels F-22A and F-22B into new Parcel F-22, and to adjust the unit allocations and affordable housing allocations accordingly. No changes to the overall unit and affordable housing counts are proposed.

Applicant – Kris Steward, Plan Steward, Inc.

Property Owner – West Roseville Development Company Inc.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The Pl
anning Division recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:

1. Rec
ommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Specific Plan Amendment; and

2. Recommend the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the 11th Amendment of the Fiddyment Land Venture Development Agreement.

SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES
There ar
e no outstanding issues associated with this request. The applicant has reviewed and is in agreement with all recommended conditions of approval.

BACKGROUND
Figure 1: Project Location

WRSP PCL F-22 – SPA and DAA – 5251 Fiddyment Rd.; File #PL23-0245 Planning Commission – October 12, 2023 – Page 2 of 13
The project site is located on Parcels F-
22A and F- 22B in the West Roseville
Specific Plan (WRSP), at the northeast
corner of Harvey Way and Fiddyment
Road (see Figure 1 below). The site is
currently vacant and both parcels have a
General Plan land use designation of
High Density Residential and a zoning
designation of Multi-Family Housing
(R3). F- 22A has a unit allocation of 82
units and Parcel F -22B has a unit
allocation of 162 units. Surrounding
uses include an Open Space parcel to
the north, a Medium Density Residential
subdivision to the east, the Plaza at Blue
Oaks retail center to the south across
Harvey Way, and a vacant Community
Commercial parcel and Open Space
parcel to the west across Fiddyment
Road.

At the time of the adoption of the WRSP,
the site was one parcel (F -22) with a unit allocation of 244 units , and the parcel had an affordable obligation of 184 rental units (91 very low-income and 93 low-income). On February 9, 2023, the Planning Commission approved a Tentative Parcel Map (file #PL22-0304) to subdivide Parcel F -22 into the two current parcels, F-22A and F-22B, and a Tree Permit to allow removal of one 68” valley oak tree on site to accommodate future development. As part of that project, the City Council approved a Specific Plan Amendment and Tenth Amendment of the Fiddyment Land Venture Development Agreement to reallocate the affordable housing units among the subject parcels. The parcel was subdivided to facilitate the development of an affordable apartment project on each of the resultant parcels. The apartment projects were approved through the City’s Objective Design Standards (ODS) process because at least 20% of the units were provided as affordable to lower income households (File #PL22-0380 and File #PL22-0383). The ODS process was adopted by City Council on April 21, 2021 (Resolution 21- 152) in order to streamline the construction of qualified affordable housing projects and to comply with State housing legislation. The projects have not been constructed.

Although the Tentative Parcel Map was approved, the map has not been recorded and the parcel remains as one parcel. The applicant is currently requesting a Specific Plan Amendment and Development Agreement Amendment to merge WRSP Parcels F -22A and F -22B back into one parcel F -22, and to adjust the unit allocations and affordable housing allocations accordingly. No changes to the overall unit and affordable housing counts are proposed. The applicant has indicated that the entitlements are requested to better position the site for a future affordable housing project. Development of the site is not proposed with this application. The future affordable housing project will be subject to the ODS process.

EVALUATION – SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
Specific Plan Amendments (SPA) are analyzed for consistency with the goals and policies of the affected plan. The project includes a text only amendment to the West Roseville Specific Plan (WRSP). No changes are being made to the existing zoning and land use designation of the site. The SPA exhibit and WRSP change pages are included as Exhibits A and B. Changes to the text, tables, and figures of the WRSP will be made to reflect the merging of parcels F-22A and F-22B into one parcel (F-22) with a unit allocation of 244 units. The proposed unit allocations result in a density that is consistent with the existing High Density Residential (HDR) land use designation of the site.

Project Site

WRSP PCL F-22 – SPA and DAA – 5251 Fiddyment Rd.; File #PL23-0245 Planning Commission – October 12, 2023 – Page 3 of 13
C
onsistent with the General Plan affordable housing goal, the WRSP includes an Affordable Housing Plan (Chapter 5) which designates 10% of the units in the WRSP for middle-, low- and very low-income households. This includes a mix of purchase housing that is affordable to middle- income households, and rental housing that is affordable to low - and very low -income households. The WRSP affordable housing goal is allocated to specific MDR and HDR parcels as identified in Table 5-3 of the WRSP. The intent is to distribute affordable units throughout the WRSP area. Parcel F-22A is currently allocated 81 affordable rental units, with 100 percent of the units allocated for very low-income households. Parcel F- 22B is currently allocated 162 affordable rental units, with 10 units allocated for very low-income households and 93 units allocated for low -income households. The Affordable Housing Plan will be amended to revise the affordable housing obligations and reflect the merging of the parcels. The resulting unit allocation will be 244 units with 184 affordable units (91 very low-income and 93 low-income). Table 1 below identifies the proposed unit allocations and the proposed affordable unit allocations.

G
iven the project will maintain the same number of units in the WRSP, there will be no impacts to planned infrastructure, roadways, or other public facilities. In addition, the project will maintain the existing obligation of 184 affordable units. Based on the foregoing, staff supports the proposed SPA.

T
able 1: Unit Allocations
Existing Proposed
Specific Plan Parcel F-22A F-22B Total F-22
Acres 2.70 7.15 9.85 9.85
Unit Allocation 82 162 244 244
Density 30.4 22.7 n/a 24.8
Affordable Units 81 103 184 184
Very low-income units 81 10 91 91
Low-income units 0 93 93 93
EVALUATION – DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
S
ection 19.84.040 of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance specifies that recommendations for approval or denial of a Development Agreement (DA), including Amendments, shall include consideration of the following:

1. Consistency with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and the West Roseville Specific Plan;

2. Consistency with the provisions of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance;

3. Conformity with the public health, safety and general welfare;

4. The effect on the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values; and

5. Whether the provisions of the Agreement shall provide sufficient benefit to the City t o
j
ustify entering into the Agreement.

WRSP PCL F-22 – SPA and DAA – 5251 Fiddyment Rd.; File #PL23-0245 Planning Commission – October 12, 2023 – Page 4 of 13
The project includes an eleventh (11 th) amendment of the Fiddyment Land Venture Development Agreement (DA). The DA Amendment is included as Exhibit C. Development Agreements are binding contracts that set the terms, rules, conditions, regulations, entitlements, responsibilities, and other provisions relating to the development of the covered properties.

The DA Amendment includes a revision to the land use plan exhibit contained in the original DA to reflect the merging of Parcels F-22A and F-22B. The DA Amendment will also amend the relevant sections of the original DA to address the revised affordable housing obligations resulting from the merging of the parcel. The City’s Housing Division reviewed the project and determined the proposed affordable unit allocations are acceptable and consistent with City policy. Items that are not addressed in the amendment are subject to the terms of the original DA . In summary, City staff has found the proposed DA A mendment is c onsistent with the General Plan, WRSP, and the Zoning Ordinance. The DA Amendment is in conformance with the public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values. Therefore, the proposed DA Amendment is consistent with items 1-5 above.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
The proposed project was distributed to all internal and external agencies and departments who have requested such notice, and all comments or recommended conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project, as appropriate. Early notification of the project was posted on the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA)’s website. A notice of the public hearing was published in the Roseville Press Tribune on September 28, 2023 and a notice of the hearing was also distributed to all property owners within 300 feet of the site and posted on the RCONA website.

Subsequent to the publication of the public hearing notice, staff received email correspondence from Stephen Mueller, a resident in the Oakbriar subdivision located to the east of the site (see Attachment 1). Mr. Mueller indicated concerns with the potential traffic impacts resulting from the eventual construction of the apartments on Parcel F-22. Planning and Engineering staff spoke with Mr. Mueller and explained that the site has been designated as an HDR site since the adoption of the WRSP and was evaluated as such in the City’s traffic demand model. Since the apartment use is consistent with the land use and density assumed for the site in both the General Plan and the WRSP, the project is not anticipated to result in additional traffic impacts beyond what was already anticipated. Mr. Mueller also expressed concerns with the existing overflow parking on Harvey Way, which is currently permitted on the south side but prohibited on the north side of the street. Staff indicated they would further evaluate on-street parking along Harvey Wy.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed project is statutorily exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as a residential project pursuant to a Specific Plan. A project is eligible for this exemption if the public agency has prepared an EIR on a specific plan after January 1, 1980, and the criteria to require a subsequent or supplemental EIR are not met. The EIR for the West Roseville Specific Plan (SCH #2002082057) was certified by the City Council on February 4, 2004. No significant changes to the site or new, potentially significant impacts have been identified that would require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR, and the proposed project is consistent with the previously completed analysis.

RECOMMENDATION
The P
lanning Division recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:

1. Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – 5251 FIDDYMENT ROAD – WRSP PCL F-22 – SPA AND DAA – FILE #PL23-0245; and

WRSP PCL F-22 – SPA and DAA – 5251 Fiddyment Rd.; File #PL23-0245 Planning Commission – October 12, 2023 – Page 5 of 13

2. Recommend the City Council adopt the five (5) findings of fact and approve the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT – 5251 FIDDYMENT ROAD – WRSP PCL F-22 – SPA AND DAA – FILE #PL23-0245.

EXA
MPLE 2: Tentative Subdivision Map

PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 8, 2022
Prepared by: Sean Morales, Associate Planner
ITEM 6.1: Tentative Subdivision Map, Major Grading Plan, and Administrative Permit – 2091 Gentle Rain Drive – ARSP PCL AR-14, AR-15, AR-27, AR-31, AR-117A & AR-117B – Amoruso Ranch Phase 1 Subphase A2 – File # PL22-0157

REQUEST
The pr
oposed project will create 156 residential lots within the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan. The project will result in small lot tentative maps for parcels AR -14, AR-15, AR-27, AR-31, and newly created AR- 117A and AR-117B. The map also includes parks AR-61 & AR-64B as well as additional landscape and water-quality lots. A Major Grading Plan is requested to allow rough grading on parcel AR-51 in order to borrow material to balance the earthwork on the project site. An Administrative Permit is requested to transfer units among ARSP parcels, eliminate parcels AR-7 and AR-46, and create parcels AR-117A and AR-117B.

Applicant – Vance Jones, Wood Rodgers, Inc.

Property Owner – Gonzalo Rodriguez, Brookfield Sacramento Holdings, LLC

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
The
Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions:

A. A
dopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the Tentative Subdivision Map subject to seventy- two (72) conditions of approval;
B. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the Major Grading Plan subject to twenty-seven (27) conditions of approval.

C. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the Administrative Permit subject to two (2) condition of approval.

SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES
Ther
e are no outstanding issues associated with this request. The applicant has reviewed and is in agreement with all recommended conditions of approval.

BACKGROUND
The A
moruso Ranch Specific Plan (ARSP) was approved by City Council in June 2016 to support the development of approximately 696 acres in the northwestern portion of the City, including 2,827

WRSP PCL F-22 – SPA and DAA – 5251 Fiddyment Rd.; File #PL23-0245 Planning Commission – October 12, 2023 – Page 6 of 13
residential units, 51 acres of commercial, 17 acres of public/quasi-public, 22 acres of parks, 145 acres of open space, and 20 acres of urban reserve. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH# 2013102057) was certified at the time of Specific Plan adoption. Annexation of the ARSP area into the City of Roseville was approved by the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on December 18, 2018.

An initial Tentative Large Lot Map, which reflected the ARSP land use parcels was approved by the Planning Commission on January 10, 2019. However, during the coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permitting, the USACE requi red additional avoidance of wetland features that necessitated a modification of the land use plan. A General Plan Amendment (GPA), Specific Plan Amendment (SPA), Rezone (RZ), two Development Agreement Amendments (DAA), and Tentative Large Lot Map Modification application (File #PL19- 0312) was reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 27, 2020 and approved by City Council on April 1, 2020. No changes were made to the overall acreage of the ARSP or to the number of housing units.

On March 24, 2022, the Planning Commission approved a Tentative Subdivision Map for 481 residential units within Amoruso Ranch Phase 1 Subphase A1. The current request is for a subsequent Tentative Subdivision Map to create 156 additional residential parcels within Subphase A2.

Figure 1: Project Location (parcels bordered in red)
P

ROJECT DESCRIPTION
Tentative Subdivision Map – The applicant requests a Tentative Subdivision Map for parcels AR-14, AR-15, AR-27, AR-31, AR-117A and AR-117B.

Major Grading Plan – The applicant requests a Major Grading Plan approval to allow rough grading on parcel AR-51 in order to borrow material to balance the earthwork on the project site.

Westbrook Blvd.

Previously Approved –
Subphase A1
Project Site –
Subphase A2
Grading Site – AR-51

WRSP PCL F-22 – SPA and DAA – 5251 Fiddyment Rd.; File #PL23-0245 Planning Commission – October 12, 2023 – Page 7 of 13

Administrative Permit – The applicant requests an Administrative Permit to transfer units among parcels in the ARSP, eliminate parcels AR-7 and AR-46, and create parcels AR-117A and AR-117B.

EVALUATION: TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (PARCELS AR-14, AR-15, AR-27, AR-31, AR-117A and AR-117B)
Section 18.06.180 of the City of Roseville Subdivision Ordinance requires that three findings be made in order to approve or conditionally approve a Tentative Subdivision Map. The three findings are listed below in bold, italic text and are followed by an evaluation of the map in relation to each finding.

1. The size, design, character, grading, location, orientation, and configuration of lots, roads and all improvements for the tentative subdivision map are consistent with the density, uses, circulation and open space systems, applicable policies and standards of the General Plan and the Community Design Guidelines, and the design standards of Title 18 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the Roseville Municipal Code.

The proposed project includes a tentat ive subdivision map for Phase 1 Subphase A2 of the ARS P to divide approximately 34.48 acres into 156 single-family residential lots, 3 water quality lots , 2 park parcels, and 1 paseo parcel in addition to right-of-way parcels. Table 1 below provides a summary of each village within the proposed subdivision, as well as acreages for the other parcels within the subphase.

Table 1 – Tentative Subdivision Map Parcels
Parcel
Number
Land Use
Designation Zoning Designation Dwelling Units Gross Acreage Density (du/ac) Residential Lots
AR-14 LDR RS/DS 48 7.64 6.3
AR-15 LDR RS/DS 45 7.91 5.7
AR-27 LDR RS/DS 13 2.37 5.5
AR-31 LDR RS/DS 22 4.26 5.2
AR-117A LDR RS/DS 13 2.49 5.2
AR-117B LDR RS/DS 15 3.30 4.5
Total 156 lots 27.97 acres
Water Quality Lots
“A” LDR RS/DS 0.06
“B” LDR RS/DS 0.07
“C” LDR RS/DS 0.37
Total 0.50 acres
Park Parcels

WRSP PCL F-22 – SPA and DAA – 5251 Fiddyment Rd.; File #PL23-0245 Planning Commission – October 12, 2023 – Page 8 of 13

The layout of the parcels within the project are based on the community form anticipated in the ARSP.

While the ARSP allows for flexibility in the physical development of the community over time, there are two key elements that f orm the framework of the plan; paseos and the park system they connect to.

ARSP Phase 1 Subphase A2 contains the central portion of the axial geometry of the planned parks and paseos. Figure 2 shows the applicable figures from the ARSP for reference. As anticipated in the plan, the applicant proposes a street connecting linear park AR -64B and park AR -61 on the western end. A paseo then crosses this linear park section perpendicularly and creates a link between neighborhoods and amenities in the area. Park AR -61 is proposed as anticipated in the ARSP with two roadways with homes t hat front onto the park as well as frontage onto Green Feather Way. A ll single -family lot s throughout the plan area are oriented with frontage onto public streets. The subdivision layout and street design were reviewed by the City’s Engineering Division and the Fire Department to ensure there is adequate street widths for circulation and emergency response.

Figure 2. Park and Paseo diagrams from the ARSP

The Map Act and Subdivision Ordinance do not contain any maximum or minimum lot sizes. Instead, these standards are contained within the Zoning Ordinance and ARSP. All residential parcels included in the tentative subdivision map have a zoning designation of Small Lot Residential with Development Standards (RS/DS) overlay. All of the villages within Subphase A2 have a Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation. A developer may either use the RS/DS development standards established in the ARSP or may adopt adjusted standards through the Design Review Permit for Residential Subdivisions (DRRS) entitlement. No DRRS is requested with this application, so each village will rely on the standard RS/DS development standards within the ARSP.

LDR Villages AR-14, AR-15, AR-27, AR-31, AR-117A & AR-117B: The LDR villages within Subphase A2 of the ARSP will result in a total of 156 single-family residential lots (see Figure 3). As proposed, the LDR villages will conform to the RS/DS standards as provided in the Zoning Ordinance. P roposed densities in the villages range from 4.5 to 6.3 dwelling units per acre . The lots within the villages will have two general sizes. Approximately half will be 55 feet wide by 100 feet deep and the other half will be a smaller AR-61 P/R P/R 1.71
AR-64B P/R P/R 0.74
Total 2.45 acres
Paseo Parcel
AR-72A OS OS 0.64
Total .64 acres

WRSP PCL F-22 – SPA and DAA – 5251 Fiddyment Rd.; File #PL23-0245 Planning Commission – October 12, 2023 – Page 9 of 13
45 feet wide by 95 feet deep, which meets the minimum 4,275-square foot lot area required in the RS/DS zone for lots fronting onto a separated sidewalk.

Figure 3 – Small Lot Tentative Subdivision Map, Subphase A2 Ther
e are three water quality lots located within the plan area (Lot A, Lot B, and Lot C). The size of these lots were reduced to the extent possible to limit the visual impact on the plan area. However, due to the relatively flat grade of the project area and the location of planned infrastructure, these lots are necessary to provide adequate storm water quality treatment. Lot A and Lot B are located adjacent to open space parcel AR-94 on the western edge of the project area and will blend into the open space.

Water quality lot C is located along Green Feather Way. Condition 9a was added to the project to ensure that this lot will be attractively landscaped because it will be more clearly visible from the public way.

2. The subdivision will result in lots which can be used or built upon. The subdivision will not create lots which are impractical for improvement or use due to: the steepness of terrain or location of watercourses in the area; the size or shape of the lots or inadequate building area; inadequate frontage or access; or, some other physical condition of the area.

The proposed parcels are of sufficient size and shape to accommodate development that is consistent with the applicable zoning and design requirements. As mentioned above, the lots are consistent with the proposed development standards. The RS/DS standards have been determined to be of adequate size and shape to support development consistent with the ARSP guidelines. The proposed parcel configurations preserve the location of watercourses and do not create a physical condition that would be impractical for the proposed improvements.

WRSP PCL F-22 – SPA and DAA – 5251 Fiddyment Rd.; File #PL23-0245 Planning Commission – October 12, 2023 – Page 10 of 13

3. The design and density of the subdivision will not violate the existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the discharge of waste into the sewage system, pursuant to Division 7 of the Water Code.

As part of the adoption for the ARSP, an assessment of wastewater demands was completed for the entire plan area. The proposed subdivision map is consistent with the total number of units anticipated within the Specific Plan, and therefore will not increase planned demands on sewage services. There will be no impacts to the existing requirements established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

EVALUATION: MAJOR GRADING PLAN (PARCEL AR-51)
Grading Ordinance Section 16.20.080 stipulates that three findings must be made in order to approve a Major Grading Plan. The required findings are listed below in bold italics and are followed by an evaluation.

1. The
grading plan conforms to the requirements of the city’s improvement standards and th e pr
ovisions of Chapter 16.20 of the Roseville Municipal Code.

The pr
oject includes a request to rough grade Parcel AR-51, in addition to the grading that will take place on the residential subdivisions. The work will balance approximately 66,100 cubic yards of cut and fill across the project. The Engineering Division reviewed the Grading Plan and the rough grading plans are included within Exhibit A.

A
s part of a future Grading Permit, the applicant will be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to the commencement of work. This plan will ensure that storm water will either be contained on site or will be treated and will not impact surrounding properties and water bodies prior to discharge from the site. With the recommended conditions of approval the project will meet the requirements of the City’s Improvement Standards and Grading Ordinance , and will be consistent with the master grading and drainage plan for the SVSP.

2. The gr
ading has been designed to accommodate, and/or mitigation conditions have bee n i
mposed to compensate for any potential impacts to any of the natural features of the property or
to adjacent properties, and the grading will not result in any increase in water surface elevation in any stream channel located on the property and associated with the grading as approved.

The C
ity’s Grading Ordinance and General Plan require City staff to evaluate the impacts to wetlands and other natural resource areas and recommend changes to a project if there are opportunities to preserve these areas. Long term preservation of natural resources is best achieved through placement in Open Space areas. Parcel AR- 51, identified in the Grading Plan, has a Zoning Designation of Commercial Mixed Use/Special Area (CMU/SA) and a Land Use Designation of Community Commercial/Village Center (CC/VC ) and is anticipated for development in the ARSP. Buildout of the ARSP area, including Parcel AR-51, was evaluated in the AR SP EIR and mitigation measures were adopted to compensate for any loss of wetlands . Per the ARSP EIR mitigation measures, any fill that will impact wetland areas will require the applicant to receive approval of an Army Corps of Engineers “404” permit and a Regional Water Quality Control Board “401” certification. The applicant has received approval of the required permits for the project area and has provided staff with the permit documentation.

The proposed grading will not result in an increase in water surface elevation of any stream channel.

3. The
proposed grading is necessary to allow development of the property consistent with the gener
al plan land use allocation for the property.

WRSP PCL F-22 – SPA and DAA – 5251 Fiddyment Rd.; File #PL23-0245 Planning Commission – October 12, 2023 – Page 11 of 13
Parcel AR-51 has an existing General Plan land use designation of Community Commercial/Village Center (CC/VC). The property will require grading to allow development of the site and the Major Grading Plan will facilitate the property being developed consistent with the land use allocation.

EVALUATION: ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT
As shown in Table 4.2 of the ARSP each residential specific plan large lot parcel has been allocated a specific number of units. The specific plan anticipated that these units may need to be adjusted as more detailed site development began and includes provisions for transferring units between large lot parcels.

The Implementation chapter of the ARSP provides the standards of review for minor residential unit transfers. As described in the ARSP, a minor unit transfer may be approved with an Administrative Permit if the transfer meets the following criteria:

1. The transfer and receiving parcels are located within the ARSP and are subject to a development agreement;

2. The transfer of units does not result in a change to the land use designation, specifically, the transfer does not: (a) reduce the number of units from the transfer parcel below the minimum number of units allowed by the applicable land use designation; or (b) increase the number of units to the receiving parcel above the maximum number of units allowed by the applicable land use designation;

3. The transfer of units does not result in increased impacts beyond those identified in the Specific Plan EIR and does not preclude the ability of the parcels to conform to the applicable standards or regulations contained in this Specific Plan and related D evelopment Standards and Desig n
G
uidelines;

4. The transfer of units does not adversely impact planned infrastructure, roadways, schools, or other public facilities, or fee programs and assessment districts;

5. The cumulative increase or decrease in units resulting from the adjustment does not change the unit allocation by more than 20 percent of the units to either the transfer or receiving parcel, as established at the time of the original approval of the Specific Plan;

6. HDR units designated as affordable units may be transferred administratively until such time that they are encumbered by an Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement (or other form as approved by the City); and

7. For HDR parcels, unit transfers may be approved between HDR parcels administratively, provided the resulting density of either parcel does not fall below 25 units per acre.

Section 19.78.060A of the City of Roseville Zoning Ordinance requires that three findings be made prior to the approval of an Administrative Permit. The required findings are listed below.

1. The proposed use or development is consistent with the City of Roseville General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

2. The proposed use or development conforms to all applicable standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.

3. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the use or development is compatible with and shall not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in the area, or be detrimental or injurious to public or private property or improvements.

WRSP PCL F-22 – SPA and DAA – 5251 Fiddyment Rd.; File #PL23-0245 Planning Commission – October 12, 2023 – Page 12 of 13

As detailed in Table 2 below, the applicant proposes to transfer units among parcels within the ARSP.

Additionally, parcels AR-7 and AR-46 are proposed to be removed and replaced with multi-phase parcel AR- 117A and AR-117B. A redlined version of the ARSP land use chapter reflecting these changes is included as Exhibit B. The specific plan parcel lines will also be modified with the proposed project to accommodate the proposed lot and street layout (Figure 4). A Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Map modification is not requested because the large lot map boundaries will no longer be applicable with the recordation of the final small lot map. However, the shape of the specific plan parcels within the ARSP will need to be modified to match the small lot map. The overall number of units within the Subphase A1 area will be reduced by 17 units (approximately 10%) from what was anticipated in the ARSP. The LDR land use designation will remain throughout the project area. According to the implementation procedures of the ARSP, any units assigned to a large lot parcel that are not used by a tentative map/Design Review for Residential Subdivision Permit or are not approved for transfer, shall revert to the City unit pool and landowners shall have no subsequent claim to such units. Thus, the applicant proposes to transfer the 17 unused units to parcels AR-1 and AR-2 as shown in Table 2 below. Those parcels are located in the third and final phase of the ARSP.

Table 2: Proposed Unit Transfer
SVSP
Parcel
Current
Allocation
Transfer
(+/-)
Proposed
Allocation
Current
Density
Proposed
Density
Percent Unit
Change
AR-1 70 +13 83 3.5 4.1 +19%
AR-2 101 +4 105 4.1 4.3 +4%
AR-14 50 -2 48 6.7 6.3 -4%
AR-15 49 -4 45 6.5 5.7 -8%
AR-27 15 -2 13 6.3 5.5 -13%
AR-31 27 -5 22 6.1 5.2 -19%
AR-117A &
B (Former
AR-7 and
AR-46)

32 -4

28 5.8

4.8 -13%
Total 344 n/a 344 unchanged

Figure 4. Large Lot Parcel Line Adjustments (Proposed in Red)

WRSP PCL F-22 – SPA and DAA – 5251 Fiddyment Rd.; File #PL23-0245 Planning Commission – October 12, 2023 – Page 13 of 13
All of the affected large lot parcels have a Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation, are located within the ARSP, and are subject to the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Development Agreement.

The requested transfers will not result in a change to the land use designations, as all parcels will remain LDR. The cumulative change in units is not more than 20% for any of the parcels. The unit transfers will occur in areas that have been identified for development and will not require modification to existing infrastructure or result in new environmental impacts. None of the parcels are designated High Density Residential, nor are they subject to an affordable housing agreement.

The project is consistent with the General Plan, AR SP, and the Zoning Ordinance. The project will transfer planned units between existing specific plan large lot parcels. No physical effects will occur. The transfer will have no effect on the health, safety, or welfare of people in the area, nor will it be detrimental or injurious to private property or improvements.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
The proposed project was distributed to all internal and external agencies and departments who have requested such notice, and all comments or recommended conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project, as appropriate. A notice of the public hearing was published in the Press Tribune on November 26, 2022 and a notice of the hearing was also distributed to all property owners within 300 feet of the site, and to the Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations. To date, no comments have been received.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, which exempts residential projects consistent with a Specific Plan for which an EIR has been certified. The Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan EIR (SCH # 2013102057) was certified on June 15, 2016.

RECOMMENDATION
The P
lanning Division recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:

A. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP – 2091 Gentle Rain Drive – ARSP PCL AR-14, AR -15, AR -27, AR -31, AR-117A & AR -117B – AMORUSO RANCH PHASE 1 SUBPHASE A2 – FILE #PL22-0157 subject to seventy-two (72) c
onditions of approval;
B. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the MAJOR GRADING PLAN – 2091 Gentle Rain Drive – ARSP PCL AR-7, AR-14, AR-15, AR-27, AR-31, AR-46, AR-51, AR-117A & AR- 117B – AMORUSO RANCH PHASE 1 SUBPHASE A2 – FILE #PL22-0157 subject to twenty- seven (27) conditions of approval; and
C. Adopt the three (3) findings of fact and approve the ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT – 2091 Gentle Rain Drive – ARSP PCL AR-1, AR-2, AR-7, AR-14, AR-15, AR-27, AR-31, AR-46, AR-117A & AR-117B
– AMORUSO RANCH PHASE 1 SUBPHASE A2 – FILE #PL22-0157 subject to two (2) condition of approval.

Past Due
1 0
0 1
0 3
0 0
0 0
Current Plan Check Task Status by Department and Reviewer Development Services Department Key Performance Measures As of 8/18/2025 7:15 AM Total Reviews Due Within 6 Bus Days
BUILDING 116 83
BUSINESS SERVICES 33 18
ELECTRIC 21 13
ENGINEERING 70 36
2EU 7
FIRE 21 9
2HOUSING 2
PARKS 4 1
23PLANNING 57
PUBLIC WORKS 12 2
Appendix 7 Document 04

Fee Type Fee Cost Savings
1 - 6.9
units/acre
7 - 12.9
units/acre
> 13 units/acre
(single-family)
Multifamily
Public Facilities Fee $1,340.00 $1,042.00 $447.00 $447.00 Placer County Public
Facilities Fee
$ 955.06 $955.06 $955.06 $190.09
Park Fees
NRSP - Phase I $1,514.00 $1,514.00 $1,514.00 *
NRSP - Phase II $147.00 $147.00 $147.00 *
NRSP Phase II South $2,114.00 $2,114.00 $2,114.00 *
WRSP - Westpark $1,746.00 $1,746.00 $1,746.00 *
SVSP - Westbrook $2,861.00 $2,861.00 $2,861.00 $1,776.00 *This is a senior single-family community; there is no age-restricted multifamily in this planning area
Source: Commercial and Multifamily Development Fees booklet pages 8, 15, and 48 Appendix 7 Document 05





































 






 
!

" "
!"#!$%&'(#$'#"#)$"(*
+,,- ."
/"


0


122



.1,







3
.#

4&.
&5

6&"78#)$%
'.

,.



1 19/
"

/
 1
:/
*/;
"

/


1.






'<




 
,,
 1

.



+
.
'.,
 
,.2




12

1

2


2
,
.

'.2
9 


.

,.
1 .
1
 




.2
1

,/ 2;
 
1
22 


;
1

,2




11
.



+
.

#
.

,


.2
9 
.2
.
2
.1.,


=
>
"

/.

2

/



1



/
,


>62
.
>"

 



..

"




,";.
*
!
,


& 

4
*!&5;

1 1 

.

1:2


,.

;

2

1;
1.
#,,

,!1 

;
>22


,/


,
2


/.






/

>%



/2 9
 
/,,
11
,,

;

 1



,


1..2

1
>"



2 9
,/
1 


.


1
 2



1

12


.


6


1


&11


/;.2



1

,



.





 
2'.&1

8
2.

2
1
,

1

,,

,
.
/

+
.

1.




8
2.


1
,,,,
.


11

 

?

.



...



/
'.

 
2

1

12
1
/

,




.
.
1

21;91

.1
 

1 

.


;
2
1
.&1

8
2,
.



1



+
,



1


,


 
1
22 



/

192
.1



.,
,


.
,
.2
;
,
1
 



..
1
1




8
29
61

.1
 


1

1

1 

%9;@A@;&1

8
2

;
11





.1

.. 
2

<9 /@;@A@@;,
.2 2

,2

1 .

 


.11





.
122

9,
.
1,2

,


?1
'.

 





.."
/"



,.



+
.

2
.1,2

1 



2 
1/
.
2
2 1
:2.
,.2
#
.

.


 11;.

 


2
.1,2
;

 1

.


.
122

 

1,
.



.."
/"


;
.
"

/6
1
,+ 2


,
.
1


 1


.@
,.2


<(+"&*(
&"'
'.


,




2

1

..



!$B(#$!$'&*!B(!
Appendix 7 Document 06

!$B(#$!$'&*!B(!
'."
,


!




C 
/&4"!C&51


22/



.



 

1



9/,
9

1 2./
.


.




;


.






112
1,

19/"!C&+ D@A
1"!C&
+8
1

DAA454E5
1DEF&2


9
.







.9





1


 9
"!C&$
11











-
1

"('G"#)$"(*+'&'!8("
*&$H#B!&"
($88#&*+
8 "



,
1../


/

2, /+ 9
1;




;8





&1



%

*
.
;&

"
/
 


IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
%


"/;"
/
 

#$
%

%
2

&.
&<





2

!

+

.#
2

&$'$($&%

%2
 


 &

%
"
/
  
?;&/ &22

1 EHH@A@@@=

"
/
  "/;%


 &22

1 EH@H@A@@=A


 
;8.
&22

1 EHEH@A@@@=F

"
/" +
:;7

 &22

1 EHEH@A@@=

&

"
/
  *
.
;%

&22

1 EHH@A@@A=&
".
,<



#,,
 7 ,,
;%

 &22

1 EHH@A@@=A

"
/&

/ +.
1
9 ;
. &22

1 EHH@A@@F=

"
/
  "/;%


 &22

1 EHFH@A@@A=&
"
/" +
:;7

 &22

1 EHFH@A@@@=E


100%35%

» Continue to improve and expand the low-stress bike network for all ages and abilities, and ensure that your community follows a bicycle facility selection criteria that increases separation and protection of bicyclists based on levels of motor vehicle speed and volume.
» Develop a system of bicycle boulevards, utilizing quiet neighborhood streets, that creates an attractive, convenient, and comfortable cycling environment welcoming to cyclists of all ages and skill levels. Use the Bicycle Boulevards section of the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide for design guidelines. » Ensure that your Complete Streets policy is followed for all projects, and that compliance is tracked. Ensuring compliance with a Complete Streets policy is an important and often low- cost way to add to your bicycle network. Striping bicycle lanes as part of repaving operations can save 40% of the cost of adding a bicycle lane. If necessary, revisit your Complete Streets policy and process to ensure better compliance.
» Continue to increase the amount of high quality bicycle parking throughout the community, and to upgrade the quality of existing bike parking to meet APBP standards. (See www. apbp.org/bicycle-parking-solutions)
» Consider launching a bike share system that is open to the public. Bike sharing is a convenient, cost effective, and healthy way of encouraging locals and visitors to make short trips by bike, make bicycling more accessible to all, and to bridge the 'last mile' between public transit and destinations.

ROSEVILLE, CA
71%
GOOD
25%

EXCELLENT
NO
NONE

EXCELLENT

SOMEWHAT
1 PER 31K
10 BUILDING BLOCKS OF
A BICYCLE FRIENDLY COMMUNITY RosevilleAverage Silver
High Speed Roads with Bike Facilities
Bicycle Education in Schools
Share of Transportation Budget
Spent on Bicycling
Bike Month and
Bike to Work Events
Active Bicycle Advocacy Group
Active Bicycle Advisory Committee
Bicycle–Friendly Laws & Ordinances
Bike Plan is Current and is Being
Implemented
Bike Program Staff to Population
48%
GOOD
11%
GOOD
YES

MEETS EVERY

TWO MONTHS
GOOD
YES
1 PER 78K
LEARN MORE » WWW.BIKELEAGUE.ORG/COMMUNITIES SUPPORTED BY

KEY OUTCOMES

RIDERSHIP
Percentage of Commuters who bike

SAFETY MEASURES

CRASHES
Crashes per 10k bicycle commuters

SAFETY MEASURES

FATALITIES
Fatalities per 10k bicycle commuters

KEY STEPS TO SILVER

POPULATION DENSITY
3215141,500

TOTAL POPULATION
TOTAL AREA (sq. miles)

44.08 # OF LOCAL BICYCLE
FRIENDL Y BUSINESSES 0
# OF LOCAL BICYCLE

FRIENDL Y UNIVERSITIES
0 Roseville

0.38%
1,369
0 Average Silver

2.7%
537

6.3 Fall 202₁

AND LEAGUE MEMBERS
Total on- and off-road
Bicycle Network Mileage
to Total Road Network Mileage
KEY STEPS CONTINUED ON PAGE 2...

CATEGORY SCORES

ENGINEERING
Bicycle network and connectivity

EDUCATION
Motorist awareness and bicycling skills

ENCOURAGEMENT
Mainstreaming bicycling culture

EVALUATION & PLANNING
Setting targets and having a plan

4.4 /10

4.9 /10

5.6 /10

5.8 /10
» 19853
» 19853
» Roseville
» 19853
» Roseville
Appendix 7 Document 07

» Improve bicycle safety education for students of all ages by incorporating on-bicycle education opportunities and by expanding the program to all K-12 schools. Providing bicycles in schools for on-bike education ensures that all students can learn to safely ride a bicycle regardless of the availability of a bicycle in their household.
» Host a League Cycling Instructor (LCI) seminar to increase the number of local LCIs in your community. Having several active instructors in the area will enable you to expand cycling education for youth and adults, recruit more knowledgeable cycling ambassadors, deliver Bicycle Friendly Driver
education to motorists, and have experts available to assist in encouragement programs. Visit bikeleague.org/ridesmart for more information.
» Create an official Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to create a systematic method for ongoing citizen input into the development of important policies, plans, and projects. Ensure that the members of the committee reflect the diversity and ability levels of cyclists in your community. » Begin the process of creating a new Bicycle Master Plan or updating your 2008 Bike Plan. Regularly updating your bicycle plan is key to improving conditions for bicycling, adhering to evolving best practices and national standards, and institutionalizing processes for continual evaluation and improvement. Ensure the new plan includes specific
and measurable goals and performance measures to track
progress, and is supported by a dedicated budget for
implementation.
» Continue to develop a bicycle count program that utilizes several methods of data collection including automated
bicycle counters to provide long-term data on bicycle use at fixed points and mobile counters to provide periodic or before/after data related to a changes in your community's road or bicycle network. Observational counts and surveys can continue to supplement automated data in order to collect demographic information and examine social equity goals.

ROSEVILLE, CA
LEARN MORE » WWW.BIKELEAGUE.ORG/COMMUNITIES
PAGE 2 OF 2 SUPPORTED BY AND LEAGUE MEMBERS
MORE RESOURCES FOR IMPROVING YOUR COMMUNITY:
» League of American Bicyclists: https://www.bikeleague.org » Guide to the BFC Report Card:
https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/Guide_to_the_Bicycle_Friendly_Community_Report_Card.pdf » Resources for Building a Bicycle Friendly Community: https://bikeleague.org/BFC_Resources » Building Blocks of a Bicycle Friendly Community:
https://bikeleague.org/content/building-blocks-bicycle-friendly-communities » About the BFC Application Process: https://bikeleague.org/content/about-bfc-application-process » The Five E's: https://bikeleague.org/5-es
» Tips for Current and Aspiring BFCs: https://bikeleague.org/BFC-tips » Smart Cycling Program: https://bikeleague.org/ridesmart » Advocacy Reports and Resources: https://bikeleague.org/reports » Bicycle Friendly Business Program: https://bikeleague.org/business » National Bike Month: https://bikeleague.org/bikemonth

KEY STEPS TO SILVER CONTINUED
Fall 2021

Report of Required Information per Health and Safety Code 34176.1 (f) City of Roseville Housing Successor
Fiscal Year 2023‐24
Page | 1

1. Any am
ounts deposited into the Fund, with segregation of amounts deposited from payments pursuant to a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule ("ROPS") from other sources.

Amount  Source  Purpose
$60,864   Interest on Investments Earned  Fund Balance‐Reserved $19,500   Interest on Notes/Loans  Fund Balance‐Reserved $45,778   Monitoring Fees  Fund Balance‐Reserved
$252,532   20% Deposit from City Loan Payoff  Fund Balance‐Reserved $56,700   Loan Payoffs‐Program Income  Fund Balance‐Reserved $15,000  Other Income  Fund Balance‐Reserved
$450,374   Total Deposits

2. The ba
lance in the Fund at the fiscal year end, with segregation of amounts held to meet obligations on a ROPS from other amounts.

Amount  Description
$1,911,160  Ending Cash
$6,850  Interest Receivable
$1,918,010   Fund Balance 6/30/24

3. A descri
ption of expenditures from the Fund by category for:
a. Monitoring and preserving the long‐term affordability of units subject to affordability restrictions or covenants entered by the redevelopment agency or the housing successor and administering permitted affordable housing activities. The amount that can be spent on monitoring and admini stration  is capped at 2% of the value of the assets in the Fund or $200,000 whichever is greater.
b. Homeless prevention and rapid rehousing services. This amount is limited to $250,000 annually.
c. Development of housing affordable to households at or below 80% of area median income ("AMI").

Amount  Description
$50,452   a. Staff charges for Monitoring
$101,046   a. Professional Services
$12,199   a. Misc Office Charges
$249,999   b. Homeless Prevention
$500,000   c. Development of housing
$913,696  Total Expenditures
Appendix 7 Document 08

Report of Required Information per Health and Safety Code 34176.1 (f) City of Roseville Housing Successor
Fiscal Year 2023‐24
Page | 2

4. The statutory value of real property owned by the housing successor, the value of loans and grants receivable, and the sum of these two amounts. "Statutory value of real property" means the value of properties formerly held by the former redevelopment agency as listed on the housing asset transfer form approved by the Department of Finance ("DOF") and the purchase price of properties purchased by the housing successor.

Amount  Description
$875,000   Land ‐ Note Receivable
$5,760,000   Mercy Housing ‐ Deferred Receivables
$500,000  Hampstead Prospera at Fiddyment
Workforce
$3,693,755  FTHB/commercial Deferred Receivables
$861,715   Residential
$11,690,470  Total Value of Land & A/R

5. A description of any inter‐jurisdictional transfers of monies from the Fund in the previous fiscal year as well as any transfer from prior fiscal years if the funds are still unencumbered and a description of and status update on any project for which transferred funds have been or will be expended if that project has not yet been placed in service.

None

6. A description of any project for which the housing successor receives or holds real property tax revenue pursuant to the ROPS and the status of that project.

None

7. For interests in real property acquired by the former redevelopment agency prior to February 1, 2012, a status update on compliance with the development of the property within five (5) years after the DOF approved the property as a housing asset, which would typically be the date of approval of the housing asset transfer list. For interests in real property acquired on or after February 1, 2012, a status update on the project.

Mercy Housing secured a loan from the Housing Successor for $5,760,000 for the development of a 58‐ unit mixed‐use affordable housing development at 623 Vernon Street, Roseville. The loan was approved by the City Council, acting as the Housing Successor, on November 16, 2016. The project was completed in November 2018.

In 2016, the Housing Successor committed $600,000 of funding from the low/moderate affordable housing funds towards the Junction Crossing affordable rental housing development at 120 Pacific Street.

The deferred low interest loan was approved by the City Council, acting as the Housing Successor, on October 20, 2021.  This project includes 80 affordable units available for low‐ and very low‐income households and was completed in February 2024.

Report of Required Information per Health and Safety Code 34176.1 (f) City of Roseville Housing Successor
Fiscal Year 2023‐24
Page | 3

The Housing Successor loaned $500,000 in gap funding to Hampstead Company’s Prospera at Fiddyment ‐ Workforce Housing project for the development of a 104‐unit mixed‐income affordable housing development.  The project is located at 2801 North Hayden Parkway in West Roseville and was completed in October 2024. The loan was approved by the City Council, acting as the Housing Successor, on April 3, 2024.

8. A description of any outstanding replacement housing and housing production obligations that transferred to the housing successor on February 1, 2012, the housing successor's progress in meeting those obligations, and the housing successor's plans to meet the unmet obligations.

The Agency finalized a loan of $500,000 from Low/Mod funds to one affordable rental project that developed 59 very low‐ and low‐income units.  The Agency will continue to use loan portfolio payoffs and 20% set‐aside deposits from City loan payments to provide additional assistance for affordable housing developments. The value of the 20% loan receivable from the Successor Agency on June 30, 2024, is $2,234,941 providing the California Department of Finance approves the payment of the City loans by the Successor Agency.

9. Reporting on income targeting requirements does not need to be included until December 31, 2019 for the period from January 1, 2014 through the end of the fiscal year covered by the report (June 30, 2019 for most housing successors), and every five years thereafter. However, it may be useful for housing successors to track this information on an annual basis to ensure the requirement is met every five years. The required income targeting expenditures are that, over a five year period, the funds remaining after expenditures for monitoring and administration and rapid rehousing services, if any, must be expended for the development of housing affordable to and occupied by households earning 80% or less of the AMI, with at least 30% of the funds expended on the development of housing affordable to and occupied by households earning 30% or less of the AMI and not more than 20% of the funds expended on the development of housing affordable to and occupied by households earning between 60% and 80% of the AMI.

Project  Loan Mount  Assisted Units  AMI
Prospera at Fiddyment
Workforce
500,000.00   8  30%
Junction Crossing      438,000.00   8  30%
Junction Crossing     162,000.00   3  50%

Report of Required Information per Health and Safety Code 34176.1 (f) City of Roseville Housing Successor
Fiscal Year 2023‐24
Page | 4

10. The percentage of units of deed‐restricted rental housing restricted to seniors and assisted individually or jointly by the housing successor, its former redevelopment agency, and its host jurisdiction within the previous 10 years in relation to the total number of units of deed‐ restricted rental housing assisted individually or jointly by the housing successor, its former redevelopment agency, and its host jurisdiction within the same time period. If the percentage of assisted senior rental housing is more than 50 percent of the total of all assisted rental housing, no additional senior rental housing can be assisted until the percentage falls to 50 percent or less.

In last 10 years:
# of Units  Description
0  Senior Restricted Rental Housing Units
601  Non‐Senior Restricted Rental Housing Units
601  Total Units
0%  % of Senior Restricted Rental Housing Units

11. The amount of any excess surplus, the amount of time that the successor agency has had the excess surplus, and the housing successor's plan for eliminating the excess surplus. The definition of excess surplus has been modified so that an "excess surplus" exists to the extent a housing successor
holds unencumbered funds in its Fund in an amount that exceeds the greater of $1,000,000 or the total amount of deposits into the Fund for the preceding four fiscal years. The housing successor is required to spend the excess surplus amount or transfer that amount to another jurisdiction as provided in Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1(c)(2) within three fiscal years. If not, the excess surplus amount must be transferred to HCD to use pursuant to the Multifamily Housing Program or the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program.

Fiscal Year  Amount Deposited
FY2022‐23  $500,424
FY2021‐22  $1,301,704
FY2020‐21  $603,561
FY2019‐20  $419,559
TOTAL  $2,825,248

Fund Balance – 6/30/23  $1,918,010

Amount of Fund Balance does not exceed the
sum of the deposits in the prior four years.

$0

Report of Required Information per Health and Safety Code 34176.1 (f) City of Roseville Housing Successor
Fiscal Year 2023‐24
Page | 5

12. Inventory of Home Ownership Units: This section provides an inventory of homeownership units assisted by the former Agency or FVHA as Housing Successor that are subject to covenants or restrictions or to an adopted program that protects the former Agency’s investment of moneys from the Low and Moderate Income Fund per Section 33334.3 (f).

Loan Date  Loan Due in yrs  Address  Amount
12/2/2008  45  121 Hickory Street  77,300.00
12/2/2008  45  177 Hickory Street  100,000.00
2/18/2009  45  109 Hickory Street  100,000.00
6/30/2009  45  153 Hickory Street  98,637.00
11/4/2009  45  145 Hickory Street  100,000.00
11/24/2009  45  125 Hickory Street  85,778.00
11/25/2009  45  141 Hickory Street  100,000.00
11/25/2009  45  113 Hickory Street  100,000.00
3/11/2010  45  149 Hickory Street  100,000.00
TOTAL  $861,715.00

2025–26 Community
Development Block Grant
Acquisition of
Affordable Rental Housing
Notice of Funding Availability
Date Due: 12:00 p.m. – September
5, 2025
Appendix 7 Document 09

2 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 2025–26 CDBG AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOFA 2025–26 CDBG
Acquisition of Affordable
Rental Housing
Notice of Funding Availability

INTRODUCTION
The City of Roseville (City) announces the availability of $700,000 in Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) funds to be awarded to qualified nonprofit affordable housing developers/project sponsors. Funding under this Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) is for the purpose of property acquisition that will assist in the development of affordable rental housing in the City of Roseville to provide permanent or transitional housing for low-and moderate-income (LMI) persons. The funding will be provided for the acquisition of real property or land for the future development of affordable rental housing. The future proposed project must contain 1 unit per $100,000 (i.e., a minimum of 7 units for $700,000, etc.).

The amount of financial assistance allocated to eligible acquisitions under this NOFA will be limited to $700,000. As appropriate, financial assistance will be made in the form of a loan, secured by a lien against the property, and will have a term of 55 years with 3% simple interest. Preference will be given to Applicants who can commit to expending the CDBG funds by March 31, 2026, and an affordable housing project must be developed within a three to four- year period from commitment date. The award and disbursement of these funds is contingent upon the City of Roseville’s receipt of the 2025–26 CDBG Grant Agreement from the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The City reserves the right to increase or decrease the amount in the NOFA.

Qualified nonprofit affordable housing developers/project sponsors (Applicants) that can meet the NOFA requirements and demonstrate their ability to finance, design, manage affordable rental housing are encouraged to submit proposals. Proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the CDBG Program regulations and the terms of this NOFA. All proposals must be received by 12:00 p.m. on September 5, 2025. Funding will be awarded by the City on a competitive basis to the project or projects that provide the best opportunity to address the City’s affordable housing needs.

The City reserves the right to request that Applicants submit additional information to clarify submitted information. Also, the City reserves the right to suspend, amend or modify the provisions of this NOFA, to reject all proposals, to negotiate modifications of proposals, or to award less than the $700,000 of funding made available.

ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
Proposals will be accepted from experienced qualified nonprofit organizations and affordable housing developers/project sponsors. Applicants should have experience completing affordable rental housing projects of similar size and complexity as the proposed project, preferably within the Placer/Sacramento regions. Acquisition by a private for-profit entity is not eligible under §570.201(a).

3 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 2025–26 CDBG AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOFA

Organizations must have a valid UEI (Unique Identifier Number). For information on how to obtain a UEI number please visit the website: https://sam.gov/content/duns-uei. Entities with an exclusion listed on SAM.gov are not eligible to participate in the CDBG program or receive funding.

PREFERECES
Preference will be given to projects located on properties within the areas shown on the maps in Attachment C. These areas are key commercial areas within the City’s Douglas-Harding and Douglas-Sunrise Corridor Specific Plans. The City is actively pursuing reinvestment projects in these areas, including opportunities for multifamily housing that will activate and support commercial uses. Multifamily housing is a permitted use in the areas shown on the map and public hearings are not required for affordable housing projects. The City has also provided California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) clearance, utility capacity, and reduced parking requirements for multifamily projects at densities of 25 units per acre or greater.

Additional preference will be given to projects serving households exiting homelessness.

CDBG PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program is one of the longest-running programs administered by HUD. It provides annual funding to entitled cities and counties to carry out a wide range of community development activities to improve the lives of their low- and moderate-income residents through the creation and expansion of economic and community development opportunities in support of livable communities.

CDBG Program statute requires that each activity funded must meet one of the three national objectives; Benefit to low-and moderate-income (LMI) persons (80% AMI or less); Aid in the prevention of elimination of slums or blight; and meet a need having a particular urgency.

HUD REGULATIONS
The availability and use of the funds under this NOFA are subject to the CDBG Program regulations imposed by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and can be found at 24 CFR Part 570.

ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
The City of Roseville 2025–26 CDBG Affordable Housing award will support rental units designated for lower-income households with household income of no more than 80 percent AMI with a priority for financing for rental projects restricted to households with incomes of no more than 60 percent AMI.

Projects considered for funding must meet all three of the following requirements: (1) be an eligible activity for CDBG funding; (2) qualify for funding on the basis of principally benefiting lower-income persons; and (3) meet the City of Roseville CDBG Consolidated Plan goal of acquisition or development of rental housing affordable to very low- and low-income

4 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 2025–26 CDBG AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOFA households.

Eligible projects must be located within the City of Roseville. Projects which are assisted under this NOFA must create 1 unit per $100,000 and must provide permanent or transitional affordable rental housing.

Proposals for the following types of activities will be accepted:
- Acquisition of real property to be used for permanent housing for low-income persons (80% AMI or less);
- Acquisition of real property to be used for transitional housing for low-and moderate- income (LMI) persons;
- Acquisition of vacant land for the development of permanent or transitional housing for low-and moderate-income (LMI) persons:
o End use of land is limited to the creation of housing designated for lower- income households with household income of no more than 80 percent of the HUD Area Median Income for Placer County (AMI);
o An affordable housing project must be developed and occupied within a four-year period from commitment date.
o Land acquired must be retained for its originally intended use, which must qualify as a categorically excluded activity under 24 CFR 58.35.

CDBG funds may be used to reimburse the cost of surveys to identify the property to be acquired, appraisals, the preparation of legal documents, recordation fees, and other costs that are necessary to the acquisition process. Reimbursement for expenses incurred before CDBG funds were allocated or before the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review was completed is not allowed under the regular CDBG program.

AFFORDABILITY COVENANT
Restricted units must remain affordable for the remaining life of the project, which shall be no less than fifty-five (55) years. A restrictive covenant will be recorded against the property to ensure affordability during the term of the agreement. All projects shall be required to agree to maintain the project’s affordability for the term of the restrictive covenant, regardless of whether the loan is fully repaid. A draft Regulatory Agreement is included in Attachment A.

The annual reporting requirements will be outlined in the Regulatory Agreement. Projects receiving funds from the City shall be monitored annually to ensure compliance with the occupancy and affordability requirements of the Regulatory Agreement.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT
Projects must comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Project will also be assessed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. Award of funds will be subject to completion of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. If a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment has already been completed, it must

5 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 2025–26 CDBG AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOFA be included as an attachment with the application.

Hazardous Materials: It is HUD policy, as described in §50.3(i), that "(1)... all property proposed for use in HUD programs be free of hazardous materials, contamination, toxic chemicals and gasses, and radioactive substances, where a hazard could affect the health and safety of occupants or conflict with the intended utilization of the property. (2) HUD environmental review of multifamily and non- residential properties shall include evaluation of previous uses of the site and other evidence of contamination on or near the site, to assure that occupants of proposed sites are not adversely affected by the hazards..." Sites known or suspected to be contaminated by toxic chemicals or radioactive materials include but are not limited to sites: (i) listed on an EPA Superfund National Priorities or CERCLA List, or equivalent State list; (ii) located within 3,000 feet of a toxic or solid waste landfill site; or (iii) with an underground storage tank (which is not a residential fuel tank).

UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE (URA) REQUIREMENTS
Acquisition of real property with CDBG funds is subject to the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA). Specifically, 24 CFR 570.606(e) requires that acquisition of real property for a CDBG-funded activity or series of activities (including CDBG- funded acquisition itself) must comply with the URA real property acquisition requirements at 49 CFR Part 24, Subpart B.

Applicant must be required to follow 49 CFR 24.101(b)(1) for the acquisition to avoid triggering URA. This includes notifying the seller in writing that if negotiations fail to result in an amicable agreement, they will not seek to acquire the property (in other words, will not seek eminent domain); and notifying the seller in writing of what they believe to be the market value of the property.

RELOCATION PLAN
Any Applicant proposing to acquire land using City funds that may result in the displacement of residential or commercial tenants must fully comply with both federal and state relocation laws.

LEAD MITIGATION REQUIREMENT
HUD requires that certain housing projects built before 1978 will need to meet lead-mitigation standards. These include activities involving housing rehabilitation, tenant-based rental assistance, acquisition, leasing, support services, and operations. Housing exclusively for seniors or persons with disabilities is exempted, unless a child under age 6 is expected to reside there. Also exempted are 0- bedroom dwellings, including efficiency apartments, single-room occupancy structures (SROs), or rentals of individual rooms in residential dwellings.

PREVAILING WAGE LAW
Funds awarded under this NOFA may be subject to federal Davis-Bacon law and state prevailing wage law, as set forth in Labor Code Section 1720 et seq., and require the payment of prevailing wages unless the project meets one of the exceptions of Labor Code, Section 1720 (c), as determined by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). The DIR can be contacted via its website at https://
www.dir.ca.gov/oprl/DPreWageDetermination.htm.

6 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 2025–26 CDBG AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOFA Applicants are urged to seek professional advice as to how to comply with state prevailing wage law. Since funds are limited to acquisition, projects will likely be considered exempt.

ACCESSIBILITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION
All projects or programs shall adhere to the accessibility requirements set forth in California Building Code, Chapter 11A and 11B and the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II. In addition, projects or programs shall adhere to either the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 8, or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) modified version of the 2010 American Disabilities Act Standards for Accessible Design (Alternative 2010 ADAS), HUD-2014-0042-0001, 79 F.R. 29671 (5/27/14) (commonly referred to as "the Alternative Standards" or "HUD Deeming Memo").

Accessible units shall, to the maximum extent feasible and subject to reasonable health and safety requirements, be distributed throughout the project and be available in a sufficient range of sizes and amenities consistent with 24 CFR, Section 8.26.

Recipients shall adopt a written non-discrimination policy requiring that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, age, medical condition, genetic information, citizenship, primary language, immigration status (except where explicitly prohibited by federal law), arbitrary characteristics, and all other classes of individuals protected from discrimination under federal or state fair housing laws, individuals perceived to be a member of any of the preceding classes, or any individual or person associated with any of the preceding classes be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity funded in whole or in part with program funds made available pursuant to this NOFA.

Recipients shall comply with the requirements contained in the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Amendments Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Unruh Act, Government Code Section 11135, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and regulations promulgated pursuant to those statutes, including 24 CFR Part 100, 24 CFR Part 8, and 28 CFR Part 35, in all of the Sponsor's activities.

7 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 2025–26 CDBG AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOFA

SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

1. Executed Proposer’s Certification Form
See Attachment B.

2. Cover Letter
Provide a brief summary of the proposed project and discuss your firm’s qualifications, why you are uniquely qualified to merit the City’s investment and why your proposal should be selected for funding. The letter should clearly identify all of the team members and their role. The cover letter should also indicate and provide contact information for the single point of contact/overall project manager.

3. Development Entity
Identify the entity with the legal authority to contract directly with the City, including all joint ventures/limited partners and their percentage ownership interest (if applicable).

Include resumes and a description of background experience of each principal and each person having major responsibilities for the project’s development and include a description of their roles in the proposed project.

Identify the type of legal entity with whom the City would contract and the person who has the legal authority to enter into a contractual agreement with the City on behalf of the Applicant.

4. Experience
Provide evidence of past project experience, particularly with developing affordable rental housing projects.

For three (3) projects include:
- a brief narrative description of the project,
- the Applicant's role,
- the cost of the project,
- amounts and sources of funds used to finance the project, - the date the project was completed,
- indicate if the project was completed on time and within budget, - include information on the roles the proposed principals and project staff played in these projects.

5. References
For each of the three projects listed above in Section 4, provide a reference with the applicable city or agency including name, title, telephone number and email address.

6. Financial Statements
In order to assess the financial soundness of the Applicant's proposed principal development entity, the submittal shall include copies of the two most recent audited financial statements of the Applicant and each proposed development entity/joint venture partner, as applicable.

8 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 2025–26 CDBG AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOFA

7. Description of Proposed Project Concept
Provide a written description of the proposed project, including scale of development:
- Number of stories,
- type of construction,
- number of units/buildings,
- levels of affordability proposed,
- use of proposed tenants of commercial component [if applicable], - occupancy restrictions,
- number and type of accessible units,
- bedroom size of units,
- number of parking spaces,
- proposed amenities.

Provide basic site information such as property address; Assessor Parcel Number; square footage; existing uses; an initial assessment for the need to relocate existing commercial and/or residential tenants, as may be applicable; current General Plan land use designation and zoning; indicate if the proposed project is consistent with the existing zoning, or if rezoning is required. Describe the property location, neighborhood, transportation options, local services, and amenities (full-service grocery store, neighborhood park, pharmacy, medical facility, schools, etc.) within close proximity to the site (include distance, e.g., ¼ mile, ½ mile).

If available, provide a graphic depiction of the proposed project consisting of a preliminary site plan and elevation.

Describe the proposed plans on how the future project will be managed. For example, if proposing the development of Permanent Supportive Housing, provide the management plan for the program. Also, if applicable, provide a list of affordable rental projects that are currently under the company’s management, include each property’s location, number of units and number of affordable units.

8. Financing Plan and Pro forma
Provide a narrative description of the proposed method of financing for the proposed project, including all sources of debt and equity. Given the competitive nature of many of the available local, state and federal funding programs, the narrative should describe the Applicant's approach to alternative financing scenarios as a contingency to the preferred plan.

The proposal should also include a complete preliminary financing pro forma of the proposed project including:
- Total development cost budget, itemized for each component of the Project, identifying predevelopment costs, estimates of land acquisition and site preparation costs (if applicable), direct construction costs (for each component) and all indirect and financing costs, including the developer fee, construction escalation, design contingency, and construction contingency of no less than 10%.

9 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 2025–26 CDBG AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOFA

- For mixed-use projects, a development budget with the costs attributable to the commercial/retails component clearly delineated from those for the residential component.

- A complete, phased, sources and uses of funds table for acquisition/predevelopment, construction, and permanent financing for each component of the project. The table should clearly indicate the amount of requested City CDBG financial assistance.

- An initial 15-year operating pro forma with estimated income and expenses including rents for each unit type and assumed inflation factors for both revenues and expenses; assumed vacancy rate; projected debt service with commercial lender assumed interest rate, loan term and amortization, as appropriate; and all distributions of remaining cash flow. The pro forma should clearly detail assumptions on rents for all unit types including utility allowance factors and other sources of income.

- An Excel pro forma is required. Utilizing a standard State of California Universal Application for the Development of Affordable Rental Housing is preferred, however other Excel pro formas that includes all of the above information is acceptable.

The proposal should also include a financing plan for how the applicant will fund ongoing costs and supportive activities once the project has been constructed.

9. Evidence of Site Control
At the time of proposal submission, Applicants with site control of the property for the proposed project for which funding is requested will be prioritized. - For Applicants with site control, they must show that if the proposal is selected, site control can be maintained until the property can be acquired. As evidence of site control, one of the following documents may be submitted with the application:
 Purchase and Sales Agreement, along with a copy of the title report, including evidence that the agreement is for a term that is sufficient to hold the property until the anticipated date of purchase.
 Option to purchase or lease, binding on seller or landlord, including evidence that options are renewable until the anticipated date of purchase.  Executed land sales contract or other enforceable agreement for acquisition; or
 Other evidence that Applicant has site control acceptable and as determined by the City.
- For Applicants who do not have site control at the time of application, CDBG regulations state that once you have applied for funding, there can be no commitment until the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is completed. If anything is signed/committed from the time Applicant has applied for funding, the project becomes ineligible for CDBG funding.

10 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 2025–26 CDBG AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOFA

10. Community Outreach Plan
Provide a preliminary plan for conducting community outreach to neighbors of the proposed Project and community groups. The outreach plan should describe how the Applicant intends to build support for the Project and address community concerns. The outreach plan should also discuss any anticipated community concerns and how they would be handled.

11. Residential Services Plan
If applicable, provide a residential services plan that describes services to be provided to tenants (e.gs. childcare, computer training, etc.) and demonstrates how supportive services for the target tenant population will be provided and funded. The plan should also show funding commitments for services.

12. Project Schedule
Provide a preliminary Project schedule identifying the estimated date of achieving key milestones including securing of all financing commitments; acquisition of the site; start of construction; completion of construction; and lease-up and stabilization of residential and commercial operations (if applicable).

13. Appraisal
A recent appraisal (within six months) and preliminary title report should be attached to the application if there is already under an agreement or option for the property. If an appraisal is not available, submit one as soon as is practical (not later than 30 days after application due date). Acquisition costs may not exceed the fair market value of the property as determined by appraisal. If the acquisition price is significantly higher than appraised value, the City may reject the application or deny the funding unless the price can be negotiated reasonably close to the appraised value.

If any of the required documentation is not provided with your application, it will be deemed non- responsive, and the application will not be considered further.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PROCESS

Questions can be sent by email or by telephone to Michelle Wurster, Housing Analyst.

Email: [email protected]
Phone: 916-774-5295.

Responses to this NOFA are to be sent by email with the designated subject line:

Subject: Proposal AH NOFA
To: [email protected]
Please note that the maximum size for attachments is 25 MB DUE DATE: September 5, 2025.

11 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 2025–26 CDBG AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOFA

EVALUATION AND SELECTION

Review of Proposals & Project Selection Process
City staff and technical consultants will review all proposals submitted that meet the NOFA requirements. Proposals will be evaluated based on the Applicant and Project Selection Criteria and NOFA identified priorities. Scoring serves as a basis to compare applications but ultimately the decision to award funds is based on the City Council’s approval. Successful respondents to this NOFA will be placed on the City’s CDBG Affordable Rental Housing project list, subject to approval of funding by the City of Roseville City Council.

APPLICANT AND PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA – 100 POINTS TOTAL

Applicants who submit proposals that meet the requirements of this NOFA will be evaluated according to the criteria below:

1. Applicant qualifications, experience, and management of affordable rental housing – 30 points:
a. Qualifications of the Applicant and development team. b. Experience completing affordable rental housing projects of similar size and complexity as the proposed project.
c. Applicants’ track record of successfully developing similar projects on time and within budget.
d. Positive track record for collaborative negotiations with public agencies (as demonstrated by references).
e. Track record of positive cash flow and compliance with regulatory agreements, property reserves and property management standards for existing projects.

2. Applicant Financial Capability and Economic Feasibility of Project: – 30 points a. Source and amount of equity contributions and other sources of funding. b. Degree of leveraging of City Affordable Housing funds. c. Per unit subsidy of City Affordable Housing funding requested and overall, per unit cost to construct.

3. Public Benefit and Response to City’s Housing Priorities – 30 points a. Project has housing units affordable to Extremely Low (highly desirable), Very- Low and Low-income households.
b. Project has housing units that address households with special needs (e.g., homeless, seniors, and/or special needs) and has appropriate level of services for the target population and identifies funding to provide for such services.
c. Applicant has proven success at gaining community support for affordable housing projects and remaining sensitive to community and neighborhood concerns throughout operations.
d. Project results in units that can be counted towards the production totals of the City, pursuant to definitions in California law and adopted by the Sacramento

12 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 2025–26 CDBG AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOFA Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
e. Project incorporates Universal Design principles into some or all affordable units.

4. Site Appropriateness – 10 points:
a. Project site is within ½ mile of a transit station or a transit corridor b. Project site has easy access to relevant local services and amenities, such as parks, medical services, fresh foods, schools, etc.
c. Proposed project is consistent with the proposed site’s General Plan land use designation and zoning. In cases where the land use designation and/or zoning would require an amendment, applicant can demonstrate that the proposed project warrants an amendment to land use and zoning designations and is compatible with surrounding land uses.

The site’s appropriateness should be described in detail in a prepared narrative. It should be noted that projects are not required to meet every criterion listed.

5. Tie Breaker
Preference will be given to applications that best align with the City’s strategic priorities, including projects proposed in one of the Commercial Corridors and projects that serve households exiting homelessness.

13 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 2025–26 CDBG AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOFA

NO OBLIGATION
The City reserves the right to modify this NOFA package at any time prior to the proposal due date, or to extend the proposal due date, or to cancel this NOFA package at any time. The City further reserves the right to reject any and all proposals for any reason or to accept any qualifying proposal received which the City, in its sole unrestricted discretion deemed most advantageous to itself. The lowest or any proposal may not necessarily be accepted. The respondent acknowledges the City’s rights and this clause and absolutely waives any right of action against the City for the City’s failure to accept its proposal whether such right of action arises in contract, negligence, bad faith, or any other cause of action. The acceptance of any proposal is subject to funds being legally available to complete this transaction and/or approval by the City Council or the officer or employee of the City having authority to accept the proposal.

The City of Roseville is not responsible for any loss, damage or expense incurred by a respondent as a result of any inaccuracy or incompleteness in the NOFA, or as a result of any misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the terms of this NOFA on the part of the Applicant.

Further, the City of Roseville is not liable for any costs incurred in the preparation of the proposal submittals.

Exceptions Certification
In submitting a proposal in response to this NOFA, Applicant is certifying that it takes no exceptions to this NOFA. If any exceptions are taken, such exceptions must be clearly noted in the proposal and may be reason for rejection of the proposal. Failure to include any exceptions to the NOFA shall be deemed an acceptance of all terms therein by Applicant and Applicant shall not have any further opportunity to request revisions to the same following submission of its proposal.

Cancellation of NOFA
City reserves the right to cancel this NOFA at any time prior to contract award without obligation in any manner for proposal preparation, interview, fee negotiation or other marketing costs associated with this NOFA.

No Commitment to Award
Issuance of this NOFA and receipt of proposals does not commit the City to award a contract.

City expressly reserves the right to postpone the NOFA process for its own convenience, to accept or reject any or all proposals received in response to this NOFA, to negotiate with more than one Applicant concurrently, or to cancel all or any part of this NOFA.

Right to Negotiate and/or Reject Proposals
City reserves the right to negotiate any price or provision, task order or service, accept any part or all of any proposals, waive any irregularities, and to reject any and all, or parts of any and all proposals, whenever, in the sole opinion of City, such action shall serve its best interests and those of the tax- paying public.

14 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 2025–26 CDBG AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOFA

Attachments:

Attachment A: Sample Loan Documents – Draft Regulatory Agreement Attachment B: Required Proposer’s Certification
Attachment C: Commercial Corridors Maps

15 Attachment A
Sample Loan Documents – Draft Regulatory Agreement

16 AFFORDABLE HOUSING REGULATORY AGREEMENT

(Project: __________________, Roseville)

This Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement (“Regulatory Agreement”) is made this day of , 2025 (“Effective Date”), by and between the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation (“CITY”), and ___________________________, a ______________________ (“DEVELOPER”).

RECITALS

A. WHEREAS, DEVELOPER proposes to purchase real property located at _________________ in Roseville, California as more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

B. WHEREAS, DEVELOPER specifically proposes to develop a _______________ unit multi-family apartment project on the Property, ( ) of which shall be rented at rents that are affordable to ( % of Area Median Income (AMI)), and ( % AMI) income households (collectively, the “Regulated Units”), with up to one manager’s unit.

C. WHEREAS, the Project is intended to serve as a community resource by providing decent, safe, and sanitary housing for households which would otherwise be unable to afford such housing.

D. WHEREAS, the CITY has agreed to provide DEVELOPER with financial assistance in the form of a loan in the combined principal amount of _____________________dollars ($______________) to assist DEVELOPER in the construction and permanent financing of the Project (the “Loan”).

E. Reserved.

F. DEVELOPER is simultaneously: (1) executing one Loan Agreement, one Promissory Note and one Deed of Trust evidencing and regulating certain aspects the Loan; (2) recording the Deed of Trust to secure the Loan; and (3) as further consideration for the Loan, and to further the public interests of the CITY in seeing the Project maintained as affordable housing, DEVELOPER is executing and recording this Regulatory Agreement. The Loan Agreement, the Promissory Note, the Deed of Trust and this Regulatory Agreement are collectively referred to herein as the “Loan Documents.”

G. The Loan is being made to DEVELOPER at an interest rate below the market rate in order to help achieve financial stability for the Project and to increase the supply of affordable rental housing in the CITY. In consideration for the Loan, DEVELOPER has agreed to observe all the terms and conditions set forth below.

17 NOW, THEREFORE, DEVELOPER and the CITY hereby agree as follows:

DEFINITIONS

The following terms have the meanings set forth herein wherever used in this Regulatory Agreement or attached exhibits. Capitalized terms not defined in this Regulatory Agreement shall have the same meaning as defined in the DDA.

1. “CITY” means the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation.

2. “AREA MEDIAN INCOME” (referred to herein as “AMI”) means the median income for the Metropolitan Statistical Area which includes the City of Roseville (“MSA”), with adjustments for household size, as determined from time to time by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) pursuant to Section 8(f)(3) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 as amended, or such other method of median income calculation applicable to the City of Roseville that HUD may hereafter adopt in connection with said Act. If HUD should cease making such determination, the CITY may designate another method of calculation of area median income used by any federal or state agency and applicable to the City of Roseville.

3. Intentionally deleted.

4. “DEED OF TRUST” means the Deed of Trust executed contemporaneously with this Regulatory Agreement and recorded against the Property as security for the Loan and other obligations by DEVELOPER, as trustor and the CITY as beneficiary, as well as any amendments to, modifications of, and restatements of said Deed of Trust.

5. “DEVELOPER” means ________________________, together with its permitted successors and assigns.

6. “LOAN” means the loan of funds provided by the CITY to DEVELOPER for the Project.

7. “LOAN DOCUMENTS” means, collectively, the Promissory Notes, the Deeds of Trust and this Regulatory Agreement for the Project, as they may be amended, modified, or restated from time to time, along with all exhibits and attachments to these documents.

8. “NOTES” mean the promissory notes executed contemporaneously with this Regulatory Agreement by DEVELOPER in favor of the CITY evidencing the Loans, which are secured by the Deeds of Trust, as well as any amendments to, modifications of, or restatements of said promissory note(s). The Notes are on file with the City of Roseville.

9. “PROJECT” means the development, construction and operation of a no fewer than unit residential, multi-family rental apartment project on the Property to be rented at rents that are affordable to ________________________ income households, up to one (1) unregulated manager’s unit and any additional improvements, landscaping, roads, and parking spaces existing thereon, as the same may from time to time exist.

10. “PROPERTY” means the real property located at ________________, Roseville, California, 95____ identified and described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated into this Regulatory Agreement by this reference, and any buildings or improvements now or hereafter situated on such real property.

18 11. “QUALIFYING HOUSEHOLD” means a household in which household income does not exceed the percentage of Area Median Income prescribed for the applicable housing unit by the terms of this Regulatory Agreement.

12. “QUALIFYING RENT” means the maximum monthly rent allowed under Exhibit B “adjusted for family size appropriate to the unit” (as such term is defined by California Health and Safety Code Sections 50052.5 and 50053) including a reasonable allowance for tenant-paid utilities (also known as Utility Allowance). During the period a regulatory agreement governing the allocation and award of any federal tax credits is in effect, Qualifying Rent may be determined in accordance with such regulatory agreement and 26 U.S.C., Section 42, for initial and ongoing occupancy of tenants.

13. “REGULATED UNITS” means ( ) rental dwelling units of the ( ) rental dwelling units on the Property constructed for the Project that shall be rented at rents that are affordable to __________________ income households and having the following composition: ( ) (1) bedroom units, ( ) two (2) bedroom units, and ( ) ( ) bedroom units.

DEVELOPER’S OBLIGATIONS

14. COMPLIANCE WITH LOAN DOCUMENTS. DEVELOPER’s actions with respect to the Property and the use of Loan funds shall at all times be in full conformity with the requirements of the Loan Documents.

15. TERM OF AGREEMENT. This Regulatory Agreement shall commence upon the Effective Date and shall remain in full force for the longest feasible time but at least a period of fifty-five (55) years from the date of recordation of the Certificate of Completion. The obligations in this Regulatory Agreement shall remain effective and fully binding on DEVELOPER in perpetuity regardless of any expiration of the term of any loan, any payment, or prepayment of any loan, any assignment of a note, any reconveyance of a deed of trust, or any sale, assignment, transfer, or conveyance of the Property (other than certain transfers by foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure, exercise of the power of sale or other similar transfer), unless terminated earlier by the CITY in a recorded writing.

PROJECT OCCUPANCY AND RENTS

16. OCCUPANCY OF PROJECT. DEVELOPER shall limit, for the full term of this Regulatory Agreement identified in paragraph 15, above, the rental of Regulated Units to Qualifying Households according to the schedule contained in Exhibit B herein, which is hereby incorporated by reference into this Regulatory Agreement. The income levels and other qualifications of applicants shall be certified prior to initial occupancy in conformance with the Final Management Plan identified in paragraph 25, below, and the City of Roseville’s rules governing income certification, as these rules may be amended from time to time by California law or as required in order to comply with California law. Specifically, DEVELOPER covenants and agrees that for the full term of this Regulatory Agreement it shall reserve for occupancy: (i) _ _ ( ) one-bedroom, ( ) two-bedroom, and ( ) three-bedroom Regulated Units for households whose income does not exceed thirty percent (__%) of AMI; and ( iv) ( ) two- bedroom, and ( ) three-bedroom Regulated Units for households whose income does not exceed sixty percent (__%) of AMI. The remaining one (1) unregulated unit shall be a two bedroom unit reserved for use by on-site Project management staff.

19 Preference shall be given to prospective tenants who are elderly, disabled, veterans (persons who served in the active military, naval, or air service and who were discharged or released from such service under conditions other than dishonorable), and persons who are residents and/or who are employed within the City of Roseville at the time of rental application.

The Project shall be owned, managed and operated as a single, multi-family residential rental project, which may be comprised of several buildings and structures, each consisting of more than one residential dwelling unit, together with facilities functionally related and subordinate thereto, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and applicable California law, as the same may be amended from time to time. All of the residential dwelling units in the Project will be similarly constructed and shall contain separate and complete facilities for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation for a single person or family, including sleeping area, bathing and sanitation facilities and cooking facilities equipped with a cooking range, refrigerator and sink. None of the residential dwelling units shall be utilized, at any time, on a transient basis. Neither the Project, nor any portion thereof, shall ever be used as a hotel, motel, hostel, vacation rental, dormitory, fraternity house, sorority house, rooming house, hospital, nursing home, sanitarium, rest home or trailer park, or court.

DEVELOPER shall further ensure that reasonable support services for the residents of this Project are provided, such as, but not limited to, life skills training, social and recreational programs, educational, health and nutritional programs, and computer training.

17. PROJECT RENTS. Rents for Regulated Units shall be limited to Qualifying Rents as set forth in Exhibit B as the same may be revised from time to time in accordance with this Regulatory Agreement and applicable federal or state laws and regulations. Rent shall be no greater than considered “affordable rent” for the applicable household pursuant to Sections 50052.5 and 50053 of the California Health and Safety Code, as amended, or any successor statute thereto, including the use of a CITY-approved utility allowance. Nothing in this Regulatory Agreement shall prevent DEVELOPER from charging lower rents.

18. SECURITY DEPOSITS. Any security deposits collected by DEVELOPER or DEVELOPER’s agent shall be kept separate and apart from all other funds in a trust account with a depository insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or other comparable federal deposit insurance program and shall be held and disbursed in accordance with California law. The balance in the trust account shall at all times equal or exceed the aggregate of all outstanding obligations, plus accrued interest thereon.

19. RENTAL INCREASES FOR EXISTING TENANTS ON THE PROPERTY.

Irrespective of when income limits are published under applicable tax credit law, rents for Regulated Units may be adjusted no more frequently than: (a) after the initial twelve (12) months following the date of initial occupancy or (b) every twelve (12) months following the last permissible date of recorded rental adjustment. Additionally, in no event shall the amount of annual rent increase result in a total rent amount that is in excess of that allowed by the Tax Credit Law. Rents for Regulated Units may be adjusted annually to coincide with the increases in the Annual Adjustment Factors (“AAFs”) as published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for the West Region.

In the event that HUD terminates publication of the AAFs, rents shall be adjusted annually to coincide with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) State Income Limits, using the limits established for Placer County, adjusted for household size, unit type and affordability. If DEVELOPER does not agree with the adjustment factors provided herein, DEVELOPER may, within fifteen (15) calendar days of notification by the CITY’s Economic Development Director or successor (“the EDD”) of that year’s adjustment, present to the EDD information on which it wishes to base its annual rent adjustment. The EDD

20 will review this information and decide on which adjustment factor DEVELOPER shall base its annual rent increase. The decision of the EDD shall be final.

20. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PROHIBITED. DEVELOPER shall not convert Project units, including Regulated Units and/or any unregulated units, to condominium or cooperative ownership or sell condominium or cooperative conversion rights to the Project units, during the term of this Regulatory Agreement.

21. NONDISCRIMINATION.

A. DEVELOPER herein covenants by and for itself, its subcontractors, its successors and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, nor denial of the benefits of this Regulatory Agreement to, any person or group of persons, on the basis of race, color, ancestry, national origin or ethnic group identification, religion or religious creed, sex, gender or self-identified gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, age, mental disability, physical disability or medical condition (including cancer, HIV and AIDS), genetic information, military or veteran status, familial status, source of income, or political affiliation or belief, nor any unlawful discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, ancestry, national origin or ethnic group identification, religion or religious creed, sex, gender or self-identified gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, age (over 40), mental disability, physical disability or medical condition (including cancer, HIV and AIDS), use of family care leave, genetic information, military or veteran status, familial status, source of income, or political affiliation or belief. DEVELOPER shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination or harassment. In addition to the foregoing general obligations, DEVELOPER shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code Section 12900, et seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder (Title 2, California Code of Regulations, Section 10000, et seq.), the provisions of Article 9.5, Chapter 1, Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code (Sections 11135-11139.5) and any state or local regulations adopted to implement any of the foregoing, as such statutes and regulations may be amended from time to time. To the extent this Regulatory Agreement subcontracts to DEVELOPER services or works required of the CITY by the State of California pursuant to agreement between the CITY and the State, the applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission implementing Government Code Section 12990 (a) through (f), set forth in Subchapter 5 of Division 4.1 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations are expressly incorporated into this Regulatory Agreement by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full, and DEVELOPER and any of its subcontractors shall give written notice of their obligations thereunder to labor organizations with which they have collective bargaining or other agreements.

B. The provisions of paragraph (A) shall further apply to the leasing, subleasing, transferring, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Project, and DEVELOPER and any person claiming under or through the DEVELOPER, shall not establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sublessees, subtenants, or vendees in the Project.

C. DEVELOPER shall include the provisions contained in this section in all contracts and subcontracts related to the Project.

D. The requirements in this section shall survive the repayment of the Loan,

21 and the reconveyance of the Deeds of Trust.

22. MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES. DEVELOPER is specifically responsible, subject to its obligations herein, for all management functions with respect to the Property, including, without limitation, the selection of tenants, certification and recertification of household size and income, evictions, collection of rents and deposits, maintenance, landscaping, routine and extraordinary repairs, replacement of capital items, and security. The CITY shall have no responsibility over management of the Property. A resident manager or an alternative designated contact shall be required to reside on-site.

23. INTENTIONALLY DELETED.

24. DRAFT AND FINAL MANAGEMENT PLANS.

A. DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN. DEVELOPER shall prepare and submit to the CITY a Draft Management Plan for the CITY’s review and approval. The Draft Management Plan shall be submitted to the CITY at least one hundred eighty (180) calendar days prior to the anticipated date for completion of construction of the Project. The Draft Management Plan shall contain, but is not limited to, specific statement as to (1) the identity, experience and duties of all employees of the Management Agency who intend to manage the Project; (2) marketing policies and strategies; (3) tenancy occupancy rules and regulations; (4) rental procedures and tenant income limitation; (5) eviction procedures; (6) operating policies and guidelines; (7) reserve account policies; (8) maintenance and capital improvement policies; (9) shall provide as an exhibit thereto a sample form of lease agreement; and (10) any provisions required by the DDA. Upon transfer of OWNER/ DEVELOPER’s interest in the Project, the party to whom the Project is transferred shall, as a condition of such transfer, provide the CITY with a copy of such party’s Management Plan for the Project, which plan shall provide statements as called for herein.

B. CITY REVIEW OF DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN. Upon submittal of the Draft Management Plan by DEVELOPER to the CITY, the CITY shall review the Draft Management Plan and provide written comments to DEVELOPER within ninety (90) calendar days or as soon thereafter as is practicable.

C. FINAL MANAGEMENT PLAN. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, DEVELOPER shall submit a Final Management Plan to the CITY for its review and final approval no later than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the anticipated date for completion of construction of the Project.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CITY shall have the right to review and approve any proposed amendments to DEVELOPER’s contract with its management firm, or any new management contracts, during the term of this Regulatory Agreement; provided, however, that the CITY’s approval shall not be required for a renewal of the initial management contract.

25. MANAGEMENT AGENCY. The Project shall at all times be managed by an experienced Management Agency reasonably acceptable to the CITY, with demonstrated ability to operate residential facilities like the Project in a manner that will provide decent, safe and sanitary housing. The City shall have the right to require a change in the Management Agency or the on-site manager for reasonable cause at any time during the term of this Regulatory Agreement, subject to the prior written consent of any senior lenders and the tax credit investor.

During the monitoring as described in paragraph 31, the CITY will assess the Management Agency’s ability to operate the Project in a decent, safe and sanitary manner. Calls for police

22 and fire services at a significantly greater number or with a significantly greater frequency of serious calls and frequent fair housing complaints by tenants or applicants may be among criteria considered by the CITY in determining whether any management change shall be required.

DEVELOPER shall submit for the CITY’s approval the identity of any proposed Management Agency. DEVELOPER shall also submit such additional information about the background, experience, and financial condition of any proposed Management Agency as is reasonably necessary for the CITY to determine whether the proposed Management Agency meets the standards for a qualified Management Agency set forth above.

If the proposed Management Agency meets the standards for a qualified Management Agency set forth above, the CITY shall approve the proposed Management Agency by notifying OWNER/DEVELPER in writing. Unless the proposed Management Agency is disapproved by the CITY within thirty (30) calendar days of said submission of identity and qualifications of proposed Management Agency, which disapproval shall state reasonable specificity the basis for disapproval, it shall be deemed approved. The CITY hereby approves of the use of , a , engaged in the provision of multi-family
residential and commercial property management services, as the designated initial Management Agency for the Project.

26. DISMISSAL OF MANAGEMENT AGENCY. Within fifteen (15) calendar days from DEVELOPER’s receipt of any recommendation by CITY staff to dismiss the Management Agency, DEVELOPER shall either dismiss the Management Agency or request a meeting with CITY staff representatives to discuss further. If an agreement cannot be reached with CITY staff representatives, DEVELOPER may request a public meeting to discuss the CITY recommendation. If, after conducting a requested public meeting, the CITY Council supports said recommendation of CITY staff, DEVELOPER shall promptly dismiss the Management Agency and shall appoint as the new Management Agency a person or entity which meets the standards for Management Agency and is approved by the CITY as set forth in paragraph 26.

27. MAINTENANCE AND SECURITY. DEVELOPER shall at its own cost and expense maintain the Property in good condition, in good repair, and in decent, safe, sanitary, habitable, and tenantable living condition for the benefit of Project occupants. DEVELOPER shall not commit or permit any waste on or to the Property, and shall prevent and/or rectify any physical deterioration of the Property. DEVELOPER shall provide adequate security equipment for the safety of Project occupants and to minimize the need for public safety calls.

DEVELOPER shall maintain the Property in conformance with all applicable state, federal, and local laws, ordinances, codes, and regulations and the Management Plan; but DEVELOPER’s maintenance obligations shall not be limited only to the standards contained in these laws or the Management Plan.

In the event the DEVELOPER fails to maintain the Property in accordance with the foregoing standards, and after at least seven (7) calendar days’ prior written notice to DEVELOPER and the Senior Lenders, the CITY or its agent may, but shall be under no obligation to, enter upon the Property, make such repairs or replacements as are deemed necessary in the CITY’s reasonable discretion (with the prior written consent of the Senior Lenders), and provide for payment thereof. Any amount advanced by the CITY to make such repairs, together with interest thereon from the date of such advance at the same rate of interest as specified in the Notes for the Project (unless payment of such an interest rate would be contrary to applicable law, in which case interest shall accrue at the highest rate then allowed by

23 applicable law), shall become an additional obligation of DEVELOPER to the CITY, and shall be secured by the Deeds of Trust.

28. UNIT VACANCIES. DEVELOPER shall use its best efforts to fill vacancies in Regulated Units as quickly as possible.

29. INSPECTIONS AND RECORDS. DEVELOPER shall maintain complete, accurate and current records which clearly document DEVELOPER’s performance of its obligations to operate the Property and the Project under the terms of this Regulatory Agreement. DEVELOPER shall submit any records reasonably requested by the CITY in connection with the Project to the CITY within ten (10) business days of the CITY’s request.

DEVELOPER shall also permit the CITY or its duly authorized representatives to enter and inspect the Property and the Project for compliance with obligations under this Regulatory Agreement upon seventy-two (72) hours advance notice of such visit by the CITY to DEVELOPER or DEVELOPER’s Management Agency and to tenants of any inspected Project units, subject to the provisions of the leases regarding inspection and entry rights, which provisions must otherwise be consistent with state law.

All tenant lists, applications and waiting lists relating to the Regulated Units shall at all times be kept separate and identifiable from any other business of the DEVELOPER and shall be maintained as required by the CITY, in a reasonable condition for proper audit and subject to examination during business hours by representatives of the CITY. DEVELOPER shall retain copies of all materials obtained or produced with respect to occupancy of the Regulated Units for a period of at least five (5) years.

The CITY shall also have the right to perform on-site inspections of the Project, including the Regulated Units, as is reasonably required to ensure compliance with the Loan Documents, but in any case at least once per year. DEVELOPER agrees to cooperate in such inspection(s).

If the CITY desires to inspect the interior of the Regulated Units, the CITY shall give DEVELOPER sufficient notice to allow DEVELOPER to give seventy-two (72) hours’ notice to tenants.

30. ANNUAL REPORTS. DEVELOPER shall provide any information reasonably requested by the CITY in connection with the Project. In particular, DEVELOPER shall provide the CITY with annual reports required by the Regulatory Agreement, including but not limited to reports regarding the Project’s rent and occupancy levels, as well as the annual operating budget. Without limitation, DEVELOPER shall provide the CITY no later than the ninetieth (90 th)
day after the close of each calendar year following the date of this Regulatory Agreement, hardcopies and PDF copies of the following documents:

A. Insurance certificates detailing all coverage required under the Deeds of Trust.

B. Evidence of payment of property taxes or property tax exemption for the Project, as applicable.

C. Audited financial statements for the Project and DEVELOPER.

D. An occupancy report including: (i) the verified income of each tenant or household; (ii) the number and demographic information of tenants in each household; (iii) the

24 current rents charged each tenant or household and whether these rents include utilities; (iv) the date tenancy commenced for each Unit; and (v) any additional information required by California Health and Safety Code Section 33418.

E. Certifications of eligibility for all tenants of Regulated Units at the time of initial occupancy and upon the yearly anniversary of their continuing tenancies. Such certification shall include verified income statements on a form provided by the CITY.

DEVELOPER shall retain in the tenant’s file all verifications of tenant’s income (tax returns, W-2 forms, paycheck stubs, etc.).

Within fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of a written request, DEVELOPER shall provide any other information or completed forms requested by the CITY to ensure compliance with the Loan Documents or this Regulatory Agreement.

If similar reports on some or all of the Regulated Units are required for regulatory compliance with other financing programs, those reports may be deemed satisfactory for the purpose of this section by the CITY, with respect to the portion of the requirements of this section covered by such reports, provided that copies are provided on an annual basis to the CITY with an owner certification addressed to the CITY certifying that the DEVELOPER has complied with this Regulatory Agreement.

31. MONITORING/NON-COMPLIANCE/CURE. DEVELOPER’s compliance with the provisions of this Regulatory Agreement shall be reviewed at least annually, and at such other times as the CITY may require, upon thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice from the CITY.

During any such review, DEVELOPER shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Regulatory Agreement. If, as a result of such review, the CITY finds and determines that DEVELOPER has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Regulatory Agreement, the CITY shall give written notice to DEVELOPER of its findings and of the exact nature of DEVELOPER’s non-compliance. DEVELOPER shall be given a period of sixty (60) calendar days after delivery of any such notice in which to cure, to the reasonable satisfaction of the CITY, any non-compliance; provided that, if the non- compliance cannot be cured within sixty (60) calendar days, DEVELOPER shall not be in breach so long as DEVELOPER is diligently undertaking to cure such non-compliance. In the event the CITY fails to give DEVELOPER notice of any non-compliance at or before the annual review, DEVELOPER shall not be held responsible for any failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this Regulatory Agreement during the year covered by the annual review.

32. CITY REMEDIES FOR BREACH. If DEVELOPER is unable or otherwise fails to cure any non-compliance within sixty (60) calendar days (or longer as provided herein) after the CITY delivers notice of non-compliance pursuant to paragraph 32, the CITY may, in addition to any other remedy provided by law or equity, modify or terminate this Regulatory Agreement, revoke the Project approval, or take any other action available to it under this Regulatory Agreement.

In particular, and without limitation by reason of enumeration, DEVELOPER acknowledges and agrees that failure to cure any non-compliance under this Regulatory Agreement, whether by DEVELOPER or any successor, shall, at the option of the CITY, constitute a breach and default under this Regulatory Agreement as to all other property within the Project. In addition, and without limitation by reason of enumeration, OWNER/DEVLOPER

25 acknowledges and agrees that the CITY shall have the right to withhold issuance of all building permits within the Project until such breach is cured.

Any partners of DEVELOPER shall have the right to cure any default. The CITY agrees that any cure of a default by any partners of DEVELOPER shall be deemed to be a cure by DEVELOPER, and shall be accepted or rejected on the same basis as if made or tendered by DEVELOPER.

In the event of any breach/default or violation of any agreement, obligation, or warranty under this Regulatory Agreement, the CITY shall give written notice to DEVELOPER, with copies to the Senior Lenders, specifying: (a) the nature of the breach or violation; (b) the action required to cure the breach or violation; and (c) a date, which shall not be less than thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the notice, by which such action to cure must be taken. If DEVELOPER fails to cure the breach or violation within the timeframe specified in the notice, the CITY additionally has the right, at its sole election, to:

A. Declare a default under the Notes, accelerate the indebtedness evidenced by the Notes, and with respect to the Loan, proceed with foreclosure under the Deeds of Trust;

B. Bring an action for equitable relief seeking the specific performance by DEVELOPER of the terms and conditions of this Regulatory Agreement, and/or enjoining, abating, or preventing any violation of said terms and conditions, and/or seeking declaratory relief;

C. Enter upon, take possession of, and manage the Property and the Project, either in person, by agent, or by a receiver appointed by a court, and collect any rents, income, deposits, or reserves and apply them to operate the Property and the Project, and continue in possession until such time as the CITY in its sole judgment determines that DEVELOPER is in a position to operate the Property and the Project in compliance with this Regulatory Agreement;

D. After notice provided for herein, make such repairs or replacements to the Property as are necessary and provide for payment thereof;

E. Declare an event of default under the Loan Documents and pursue the remedies described therein; and/or

F. Pursue any other remedy allowed at law or in equity.

The CITY’s rights hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, every other right or remedy provided for herein or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity by statute or otherwise, including, but not limited to injunctive relief, specific performance and damages. The exercise or beginning of exercise by the CITY of any one or more rights or remedies, provided herein or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity by statute or otherwise, shall not preclude the simultaneous or later exercise by the CITY of any or all other rights or remedies provided for in this Regulatory Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise. All such rights and remedies shall be considered cumulative and nonexclusive.

26 33. FEES, TAXES, AND OTHER LEVIES. DEVELOPER shall be responsible for payment of all fees, assessments, taxes, charges, and levies imposed by any public authority or utility company with respect to the Property and the Project, and shall pay such charges prior to delinquency in order to prevent any penalty from accruing or any lien or charge from attaching to the Property or the Project. However, DEVELOPER shall not be required to pay any such charge so long as (a) the legality thereof is being contested in good faith and by appropriate proceedings; and (b) DEVELOPER maintains reserves adequate to pay any contested liabilities.

In the event DEVELOPER exercises its right to contest any tax, assessment, or charge against it, DEVELOPER, on final determination of the proceeding or contest, shall immediately payor discharge any decision or judgment rendered against it, together with all costs, charges and interest.

34. INSURANCE COVERAGE. DEVELOPER shall cause to have in full force and effect during the term of this Regulatory Agreement continuous insurance coverage as required by the DDA.

35. PROPERTY DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION. Subject to the requirements of Senior Lenders, and if economically feasible in the CITY's reasonable judgment after consultation with the DEVELOPER, if any improvement now or in the future on the Property is damaged or destroyed, then the DEVELOPER shall, at its cost and expense, diligently undertake to repair or restore such improvement consistent with the plans and specifications for the Development. Such work or repair shall be commenced no later than the later of one hundred twenty (120) calendar days, or such longer period approved by the CITY in writing, after the damage or loss occurs or thirty (30) calendar days following receipt of the insurance proceeds, and shall be complete within one year thereafter. Any insurance proceeds collected for such damage or destruction shall be applied to the cost of such repairs or restoration and, if such insurance proceeds shall be insufficient for such purpose, then the DEVELOPER shall make up the deficiency. If the DEVELOPER does not make repairs, then any insurance proceeds collected for such damage or destruction shall be promptly delivered to the CITY as a special repayment of the Loan, subject to the rights of the Senior Lenders, if any.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

36. SUBORDINATION. Except as expressly set forth herein or in the DDA, this Regulatory Agreement shall not be subordinated in priority to any other interest in the Property that was not recorded on or prior to the date of recordation of this Regulatory Agreement, unless the CITY expressly consents, in writing, to the subordination or junior priority of this Regulatory Agreement. Such consent, if any, shall be within the CITY’s sole discretion, and may only be permitted, if at all, for purposes that conform with the circumstances authorized by California Health and Safety Code Section 33334.14(a), and to the extent the proposed subordination does not jeopardize the CITY’s security interest in the property and is otherwise consistent and compliant with all legal standards, including eligibility requirements and other conditions imposed by funding sources for the Project and any Loan.

37. TRANSFER AND ENCUMBRANCE OF PROPERTY. During the term of this Regulatory Agreement, DEVELOPER shall not, except as permitted by the DDA, make or permit any sale, agreement to sell, assignment, conveyance, lease (other than the rental of Project units to eligible residential tenant occupants), or transfer of the Property or any part thereof, including the sale of any general or limited partnership interests, the removal of any

27 general partner, or any substantial change in operational or management control over the Property (collectively referred to as “Transfers”), without the prior written consent of the CITY.

The limitations on DEVELOPER’s right of assignment or other transfer contained in this paragraph 38 shall not apply to any foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or other remedial action lawfully taken by any Senior Lender holding a security interest in the Property with priority over the CITY’s interests; nor shall they apply to: (i) the transfer of limited partner interests in DEVELOPER, (ii) the removal of a general partner or a limited partner pursuant to the terms and conditions of DEVELOPER’s organizational document; and/or (iii) transfers to a tax-exempt entity under the direct control of or under common control with DEVELOPER.

The CITY shall give its consent to a Transfer provided that it determines all of the following conditions are met: (a) DEVELOPER is in compliance with this Regulatory Agreement and the Loan Documents, or the Transfer will cure existing violations of this Regulatory Agreement or the Loan Documents; (b) the transferee agrees to assume all obligations of DEVELOPER imposed by this Regulatory Agreement and the Loan Documents; (c) the transferee demonstrates to the CITY’s satisfaction that it is capable of owning and/or operating the Property and the Project in full compliance with this Regulatory Agreement and the Loan Documents; (d) the terms of the Transfer shall not jeopardize the CITY’s security interest in the Property and is otherwise in full compliance with all legal standards, including eligibility requirements and other conditions imposed by funding sources for the Project and any Loan; and (e) the Transfer has been approved by the CITY’s governing body, if such approval is required.

During the term of this Regulatory Agreement, DEVELOPER shall not, except as may be contemplated by the DDA, engage in any financing or other transaction creating any mortgage or other encumbrance or lien upon the Property and/or the Project (except for any financing provided by the CITY), without the prior written consent of the CITY, which consent may be withheld in the CITY’s sole discretion. The CITY may give its consent to such financing if and only to the extent necessary to maintain or improve the affordability or condition of the Property and/or the Project.

38. NONLIABILITY OF OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS. No member, official, officer, director, employee, agent, or independent contractor of the CITY shall be personally liable to DEVELOPER or third party beneficiaries for any obligation created under the terms of this Regulatory Agreement.

39. INDEMNITY AND WAIVER. Notwithstanding the insurance coverage required herein and to the fullest extent allowed by law, DEVELOPER shall defend, indemnify and save and hold the CITY, its members, officials, officers, directors, employees, agents, and independent contractors (collectively “Indemnitees”), harmless against any losses, damages, liabilities, claims, demands, judgments, actions, court costs, and legal or other expenses (including attorneys’ fees) which Indemnitees may incur as a result of (1) DEVELOPER’s failure to perform any obligations as and when required by this Regulatory Agreement; (2) any failure of DEVELOPER’s representations or warranties to be true and complete in any material respect; or (3) any act or omission by DEVELOPER or any contractor, subcontractor, management agent, or supplier with respect to the Project or the Property, except to the extent that such losses are caused solely by the negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees. The duty of the DEVELOPER to indemnify includes the duty to defend Indemnitees in any court action, administrative action, or other proceeding brought by any third party arising from the Project or the Property. DEVELOPER’s duty to defend and indemnify Indemnitees shall survive

28 the term of this Regulatory Agreement, the reconveyance of the Deeds of Trust, and any release of part or all of the Property from the burdens of this Regulatory Agreement. The parties intend that this provision shall be broadly construed.

DEVELOPER hereby waives any claims, suits, or actions against the CITY on account of or arising from the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, California Civil Code Sections 1954.50 et seq. (“CHRHA”). Furthermore, the parties hereby acknowledge and agree that, without limitation, the Loan and any Project entitlements, permits, or approvals have conferred upon the DEVELOPER and/or the Project either a direct financial contribution or other form of assistance pursuant to Section 1954.52(b) of the CHRHA.

40. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE. This Regulatory Agreement shall be interpreted under and be governed by the laws of the State of California, except for those provisions relating to choice of law and those provisions preempted by federal law. Any action arising out of this Regulatory Agreement shall be brought in Placer County, California, regardless of where else venue may lie.

41. CONFLICTS. In the event of any conflict among the Loan Documents, the most restrictive requirements shall apply. In addition, the Project may be subject to the terms of other governmental subsidy programs. This Regulatory Agreement and the agreements entered into by DEVELOPER pursuant to these subsidy programs independently regulate the Regulated Units in the Project. If any provision of another regulatory agreement is found in conflict or in contradiction with the terms of this Regulatory Agreement in relation to the Regulated Units, the most restrictive requirement, providing the greatest affordability to the most tenants for the longest term, shall apply to those Regulated Units, except as otherwise specified.

42. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS. In the event that a legal or administrative action is brought to interpret or enforce the terms of this Regulatory Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover its reasonable litigation expenses, including but not limited to, court costs, expert witness fees, discovery expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

43. TIME. Time is of the essence in this Regulatory Agreement.

44. CONSENTS AND APPROVALS. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Regulatory Agreement, any consent or approval required under the Regulatory Agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

45. NOTICES, DEMANDS, AND COMMUNICATIONS. Formal notices, demands, and communications between DEVELOPER and the CITY shall be given by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid or delivered personally, to DEVELOPER and the CITY as follows, or at such other address as a party may designate by written notice to the other party:

CITY OF ROSEVILLE DEVELOPER

Economic Development Director
City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street

29 Roseville, CA 95678

with a copy to:

46. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS. All provisions of this Regulatory Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, administrators, executors, successors in interest, transferees, and assigns of DEVELOPER and the CITY, and shall run with the land for the full term of this Regulatory Agreement, regardless of any assignment, payment, prepayment, expiration, extinguishment of the Loan or Notes, any reconveyance of the Deeds of Trust, or any conveyance or transfer of the Property. Any successor in interest to DEVELOPER and any purchaser or transferee of the Property shall be subject to all of the duties and obligations imposed on DEVELOPER under this Regulatory Agreement for the full term of this Regulatory Agreement. The term “DEVELOPER” as used in this Regulatory Agreement shall include all such assigns, successors-in-interest, and transferees.

47. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES. The relationship of DEVELOPER and the CITY for this Project during the term of this Regulatory Agreement shall not be construed as a joint venture, equity venture, or partnership. The CITY neither undertakes nor assumes any responsibility or duty to DEVELOPER or to any third party with respect to the operation of the Property or the actions of DEVELOPER. Except as the CITY may specify in writing, DEVELOPER shall have no authority to act as an agent of the CITY or to bind the CITY to any obligation.

48. WAIVER. Any waiver by the CITY of any obligation in this Regulatory Agreement must be in writing. No waiver shall be implied from any delay or failure by the CITY to take action on any breach or default of DEVELOPER or to pursue any remedy allowed under this Regulatory Agreement or applicable law. Any extension of time granted to DEVELOPER to perform any obligation under this Regulatory Agreement shall not operate as a waiver or release from any of its obligations under this Regulatory Agreement. Consent by the CITY to any act or omission by DEVELOPER shall not be construed as the consent to any other or subsequent act or omission or to waive the requirement for the CITY’s written consent to future waivers.

49. OTHER AGREEMENTS. DEVELOPER represents that it has not entered into any agreements that would restrict or compromise its ability to comply with the terms of this Regulatory Agreement. DEVELOPER shall not enter into any agreements that are inconsistent with the terms of this Regulatory Agreement without an express written waiver by the CITY.

50. AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS. Any amendments or modifications to this Regulatory Agreement must be in writing, and shall be effective only if executed by both DEVELOPER and the CITY, following receipt of all required approvals, and only with the consent of the Senior Lenders.

51. SEVERABILITY. Every provision of this Regulatory Agreement is intended to be severable. If any provision of this Regulatory Agreement is held invalid, illegal, or

30 unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected or impaired.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS

52. ADMINISTRATIVE FEE. In the event of DEVELOPER’s breach or violation of any agreement, obligation or warranty under the Regulatory Agreement that is uncured within the cure periods provided herein, or in the event the Property is transferred in violation of paragraph 38 of this Regulatory Agreement, DEVELOPER shall pay annually, not later than April 15 of each year, a $10,000 fee (“Administrative Fee”). The CITY shall provide the DEVELOPER with notice and the right to cure, as set forth in above paragraph 32, any event which the CITY believes give rise to an obligation to pay the Administrative Fee. Such fee shall remain in effect during any period of breach or violation. The payment of such Administrative Fee shall be in addition to, and not to the exclusion of, the CITY’s other remedies contemplated in paragraph 33 of this Regulatory Agreement; provided however that this provision shall be subject to the nonrecourse provisions set forth in the Notes.

53. REFINANCING/RESYNDICATION REVIEW FEE. In the event that the Property and/or the Project is a tax credit project and is refinanced or resyndicated during the term of this Regulatory Agreement, DEVELOPER shall provide the CITY a prepayment in amount to be determined by the CITY, upon request by DEVELOPER, for CITY’s staff actual and documented costs in reviewing any refinancing or resyndication documentation submitted to the CITY for the CITY’s review and approval. Such prepayment shall be submitted by DEVELOPER prior to the CITY commencing any review and shall not exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00).

DEVELOPER shall not be entitled to receive a refund of any such fee in the event that DEVELOPER fails to complete such refinancing or resyndication.

54. TENANT MONITORING FEE. Commencing one (1) year after the date of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the Project and annually thereafter, DEVELOPER shall pay to the CITY, not later than March 31 of each year, a tenant monitoring fee equal to FORTY DOLLARS ($40) for each occupied, rent restricted, apartment unit within the Project. A penalty of ten percent (10%) per month shall be assessed against any fee not paid when due.

55. PARTICIPATION IN HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM. DEVELOPER agrees to accept tenants who qualify under the Housing Choice Voucher (“HCV”) program administered by the Roseville Housing Authority (the “Authority”) or its successor.

56. CHECKLIST FOR REGULATED UNITS. DEVELOPER agrees that each prospective tenant, prior to rental of a Regulated Unit, shall be required to complete forms required by Exhibit C, or DEVELOPER's equivalent as approved in writing by the CITY.

[Signatures Next Page]

31 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation, has authorized the execution of this Regulatory Agreement in duplicate by its City Manager and attested to by its City Clerk under the authority of Resolution No. , adopted by the Council of the City of Roseville on the day of , 2025, and DEVELOPER has caused this Regulatory Agreement to be executed.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a municipal corporation: ____________________________ __________, a ________________:

BY: BY:

DOMINICK CASEY NAME
City Manager Title

ATTEST: and

BY: BY:

CARMEN AVALOS NAME
City Clerk Title

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BY:

MICHELLE SHEIDENBERGER
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE:

BY:

MELISSA ANGUIANO
Economic Development Director

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The land described herein is situated in the State of California, County of Placer, City of Roseville, and is described as follows:

EXHIBIT B

UNIT CONFIGURATION AND INITIAL RENT RESTRICTIONS

Maximum Household Income ___% AMI

Bedroo
m size

Number
of Units

Gross
Rent
Less
TCAC
approved
CUAC*

Allowable
Contract
Rent
1 $ $ $
2 $ $ $
3 $ $ $

Bedroo
m size

Number
of Units

Gross
Rent
Less
TCAC
approved
CUAC*

Allowable
Contract
Rent
1 $ $ $
2 $ $ $
3 $ $ $

Bedroo
m size

Number
of Units

Gross
Rent
Less
TCAC
approved
CUAC*

Allowable
Contract
Rent
1 $ $ $
2 $ $ $
3 $ $ $

Bedroo
m size

Number
of Units

Gross
Rent
Less
TCAC
approved
CUAC*

Allowable
Contract
Rent
1 $ $ $
2 $ $ $
3 $ $ $

* California Utility Allowance Calculator (CUAC) is California’s energy consumption model for calculating utility allowance estimates. These estimates are approved by California’s Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and are limited to new construction projects in the design phase.

EXHIBIT C

CHECKLIST FOR AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS

The following documentation must be present in the Tenant’s file (in a form approved by the Housing Manager) for an “affordable renter.”

Certification of Affordable Rental Unit Eligibility
Calculation of Tenant Eligibility Form
Record of Rental Increases
Written, third party verification of all income sources, including:

Employment
Self-employment (tax return and profit & loss statement for current year)
Unemployment
AFDC (Welfare) Benefits
Child Support
Alimony
Social Security Benefits
Supplemental Security Income (SSK)
VA or Military Benefits
Pensions and/or Annuities
Retirement Funds
Savings Accounts (Interest Income)
Checking Accounts
Government Grants
Trust Funds
Stocks & Bonds (Cash Value)
Life Insurance (Cash Value)

Name Complex

Title Date

CERTIFICATION OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNIT ELIGIBILITY

Re:

Apartment Complex
Apt. #

I/we have read and answered truthfully, fully frankly and personally each of the following questions for all persons who are to occupy the unit being applied for in the above apartment project. Listed below are the names of all persons who intend to reside in the unit:

1) Name of Members of
the Household
2) Relationship
to head of
Household

3) Age

4) Social
Security No.

5) Place of
Employment

CERTIFICATION OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNIT ELIGIBILITY (CONT.)

INCOME COMPUTATION

6) The total anticipated income calculated in accordance with this paragraph 6, of all persons (except children under the age of 18 years) listed above for the 12- month period beginning the date that I/we plan to move into a unit is $ .

Included in the total anticipated income listed above are:

a. All wages and salaries, overtime pay, commissions, fees and other compensation for personal services, before payroll deductions.

Excluded from such anticipated income are:

a. Casual, sporadic or irregular gifts;

b. Amounts which are specifically for or in reimbursement of medical expenses;

c. Lump sum additions to family assets, such as inheritances, insurance payments (including payments under health and accident insurance and worker’s compensation), capital gains and settlements for personal or property losses;

d. Amounts of educational scholarships paid directly to the student or the educational institution and amounts paid by the government to a veteran for use in meeting the costs of tuition, fees, books, and equipment. Any amounts of such scholarships or payments to veterans not used for the above purposes are to be included in income;

e. Hazardous duty pay to a family member in the Armed Forces who is away from home and exposed to hostile fire;

f. Relocation payments under Title II of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970;

g. Foster child care payments;

h. The value of coupon allotments for the purchase of food pursuant to the Food Stamp Act of 1977.

7) This certificate is made with the knowledge that it will be relied upon by the Owner to determine maximum income for eligibility to occupy the unit; and I/we declare that all information set forth herein is true, correct and complete and based upon information I/we deem reliable and that the statement of total anticipated income contained in paragraph 6 is reasonable and based upon such investigation as the undersigned deemed necessary.

8) I/We will assist the Owner in obtaining any information or documents required to verify the statement made herein, including either an income verification from my/our present employer(s) or copies of federal tax returns for the immediately preceding calendar year.

Applicant

[All persons listed in number 2 above, except children under the age of 18 must sign this form]

CALCULATION OF TENANT ELIGIBILITY FORM

(FORM COMPLETION BY APARTMENT OWNER OR AGENT)

NAME: UNIT #

SOURCE MONTHLY ANNUAL
Social Security $ $
Social Security $ $
Civil Service $ $
Pension $ $ Interest
$ $ Wages
$ $ Tips
$ $ Wages
$ $ Tips
$ $
Child Support $ $
Welfare $ $
Stocks/Bonds $ $
Other
Other
$ $
$ $
TOTAL INCOME $ $
Monthly base rent $
Move-in date

BY
TITLE
DATE

AFFORDABLE TENANT

RECORD OF RENTAL INCREASES

(FORM COMPLETION BY APARTMENT OWNER OR AGENT)

NAME APT. NO.

MOVE-IN DATE INITIAL BASE RENT $

ANNUAL INCOME $

DATE OF

INCREASE

CURRENT
RENT
ANNUAL

ADJUSTMENT

FACTORS

NEW RENT
$ X 1. = $

$ X 1. = $
$ X 1. = $
$ X 1. = $
$ X 1. = $
$ X 1. = $
$ X 1. = $
$ X 1. = $
$ X 1. = $
$ X 1. = $
$ X 1. = $
$ X 1. = $
$ X 1. = $
$ X 1. = $
$ X 1. = $

AFFORDABLE TENANT
RECORD OF RENTAL INCREASES (For Tax Credit Projects Only)

(FOR COMPLETION BY APARTMENT DEVELOPER OR AGENT)

NAME: APT. #

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

State of California

County of

On before me, ,
(here insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared , who proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature

(Seal)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

State of California

County of

On before me, ,
(here insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared , who proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature

(Seal)

Attachment B

PROPOSER’S CERTIFICATION

I have carefully examined the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) and any other documents accompanying or made a part of this NOFA. The information contained in this proposal is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and is signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California. I further certify that I am duly authorized to submit this proposal on behalf of the firm as its authorized agent and that the firm is ready, willing, and able to perform if awarded the funding.

I further certify that this proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, connection, discussion, or conspiracy with any other person, firm or corporation submitting a proposal for the same funding that this proposal is fair and made without outside control, collusion, fraud or illegal action; that no officer, employee or agent of the City is financially interested in said proposal; that no undue influence or pressure was used against or in concert with any officer, employee or agent of the City in connection with the award or terms of the contract that will be executed as a result of this NOFA; and that the undersigned executed this Proposer’s Certification with full knowledge and understanding of the matters therein contained and was duly authorized to do so.

NAME OF APPLICANT ENTITY

AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

NAME & TITLE, TYPED OR PRINTED DATE

MAILING ADDRESS

TELEPHONE NUMBER EMAIL

EIN STATE OF INCORPORATION

Type of Organization:

Sole Proprietorship Corporation Non-Profit Organization Partnership Limited Liability Company

Attachment C
Commercial Corridors Maps

City Council
Communication
Meeting Date: 9/17/2025
Item #: VIII.18
File #: 0709-04
Item ID: 2025-655

Title: City of Roseville Homelessness Strategy and Response Plan Contact: Melissa Anguiano 916-774-5284 [email protected]

SUMMARY
Staff recommends approval of a Homelessness Strategy and Response Plan that outlines how the City manages and mitigates the impacts of homelessness while connecting individuals and families to housing, services, and long-term solutions. The Homelessness Strategy and Response Plan includes Roseville’s strategic framework to prevent and reduce homelessness; specific actions the City is taking under each strategy; the City’s role in regional collaboration and its position on emergency shelters; and key principles guiding future planning, investment, and communication. In Fiscal Year 2025–26, the City allocated more than $25 million toward homelessness-related initiatives. This included funding for voucher assistance, homelessness prevention, rapid rehousing, affordable and transitional housing development, interdepartmental staffing, and environmental cleanup efforts.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the City of Roseville Homelessness Strategy and Response Plan as well as affirming the City Council’s commitment to a comprehensive and compassionate approach to homelessness.

BACKGROUND
The City of Roseville takes a comprehensive and compassionate approach to preventing and addressing homelessness. With changes in state law, increasing service demands, and the potential for reductions in federal funding, it is more important than ever to clearly communicate the City’s core strategies, guiding philosophies, and interdepartmental coordination to address homelessness with clarity and consistency.

The Homelessness Strategy and Response Plan (Homelessness Strategy and Plan) outlines how the City manages and mitigates the impacts of homelessness while connecting individuals and families to housing, services, and long-term solutions.

This plan includes:
• Roseville’s strategic framework to prevent and reduce homelessness • Specific actions the City is taking under each strategy • The City’s role in regional collaboration and its position on emergency shelters • Key principles guiding future planning, investment, and communication

The Homelessness Strategy and Plan is built around eight key components: Prevention and Stability; Access to Support Services; Transitional Housing; Affordable Housing Supply; Community Partnerships; Public Safety and Crisis Response; Reducing Community Impacts; and Sustainable Funding. These eight pillars implement a multi-faceted, coordinated strategy to address homelessness and guide the City's day- to-day work and long-term planning.

The City participates in the Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC), which is a part of the Homeless Resource Council of the Sierras, a regional body that includes Lincoln, Rocklin, and Placer County. Through this partnership, the City works to align services, share data, and coordinate homelessness response across jurisdictional boundaries.

Roseville’s Homelessness Strategy and Plan is intended to align with the Placer County Homelessness Response Project, while reflecting the City’s own analysis of service outcomes and operational costs.

Based on this evaluation, the City does not consider traditional emergency shelters to be a cost-effective or sustainable solution. While such shelters may serve as temporary relief in specific circumstances, Roseville supports their development only when there is:
• A clearly demonstrated need;
• Comprehensive wraparound services;
• Regional funding agreements; and
• Robust operational standards.

The City is committed to a consistent, transparent, and collaborative approach to addressing homelessness. The City is committed to building public trust through clear, consistent communication, data-driven decision-making, and tracking measurable progress. We also continuously evaluate the effectiveness of our initiatives, including service delivery, housing placements, and efforts to mitigate community impacts.

Roseville’s response will continue to evolve as laws change, funding shifts, and community needs grow.

Our commitment remains the same – to reduce homelessness through proactive care, strong partnerships, and long-term solutions that strengthen the health, safety, and vitality of our community.

The accompanying Resolution further reinforces the City Council’s position and affirms Roseville’s values, priorities, and strategic direction in responding to homelessness. It provides a unifying policy statement that can guide community dialogue and external communication.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City continues to make a substantial and sustained investment in addressing homelessness and supporting housing stability. This commitment spans multiple departments and funding sources, including federal and state grants, local match contributions, personnel costs, and operational support.

In Fiscal Year 2025–26, the City allocated more than $25 million toward homelessness-related initiatives.

This included funding for voucher assistance, homelessness prevention, rapid rehousing, affordable and transitional housing development, interdepartmental staffing, and environmental cleanup efforts.

These investments reflect a coordinated, citywide approach focused on long-term solutions, service delivery, and public space stewardship. They underscore the City's ongoing commitment to a balanced and effective homelessness response that prioritizes prevention, partnership, and measurable impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment or is otherwise not considered a

project as defined by CEQA Statute §21065 and CEQA State Guidelines §15061(c)(3) and §15378. The approval of a Homelessness Strategy and Response Plan meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No additional environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN/OVERARCHING GOALS

1. Ensure a safe and healthy community

5. Support community engagement and advocacy

6. Deliver exceptional City services

Respectfully Submitted,
Melissa Anguiano, Economic Development Director

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 25-297

2. Homelessness Strategy Response Plan

REVIEWERS:

Melissa Anguiano, Economic Development Department Created/Initiated - 8/29/2025 Cary Camilleri, Economic Development Department Approved - 8/29/2025 Melissa Anguiano, Economic Development Department Approved - 8/29/2025 Gretchen Hakala, City Attorney Department Approved - 8/29/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Approved - 9/2/2025
Ryan DeVore, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/2/2025 Dennis Kauffman, City Manager Department - Assistant City Manager Approved - 9/4/2025 Michelle Sheidenberger, City Attorney Department Approved - 9/4/2025 Dominick Casey, City Manager Department - City Manager Approved - 9/5/2025 Katrina Six, City Clerk Department Final Approval - 9/5/2025

RESOLUTION NO. 25-297

ADOPTING THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY AND RESPONSE PLAN AND AFFIRMING THE CITY COUNCIL’S COMMITMENT TO A

COMPREHENSIVE AND COMPASSIONATE APPROACH TO HOMELESSNESS

WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council has identified homelessness prevention as a top priority, recognizing the need to ensure the health, safety, and flourishing of all its residents, housed and unhoused alike; and
WHEREAS, the Council affirms the dignity, worth, and potential of all individuals, and believes that our community is strongest when every resident has the opportunity to heal, grow, and thrive; and
WHEREAS, due to finite local resources, the Council supports prioritizing services for individuals with established ties to the community, and affirms that eligibility for City-supported homelessness services and housing programs may include reasonable residency requirements, such as proof of having lived in Placer County or the City of Roseville for at least one year, to ensure local resources are effectively directed toward those with a demonstrated connection to the region; and
WHEREAS, the Council prioritizes swift and effective responses for individuals and families who become newly unhoused, with a particular focus on those with children, recognizing the critical importance of stability during formative years; and the City’s strategy includes rapid rehousing, temporary shelter options, and wraparound services to maximize an individual’s ability to permanently exit homelessness; and WHEREAS, the Council acknowledges that many of those experiencing homelessness face complex, interrelated challenges, including mental illness, substance use disorders, and trauma which require thoughtful, coordinated, and sustained intervention; and WHEREAS, the Council recognizes that housing alone is not a sufficient solution, and that a multi-faceted strategy — including mental health and substance use treatment, outreach, family reunification, housing navigation, job training, and life skills development, is necessary to break the cycle of homelessness; and
WHEREAS, the City of Roseville has implemented a comprehensive citywide approach to homelessness, including the deployment of Police Department Social Services personnel, code enforcement partnerships, housing subsidies, debris and hazardous cleanup coordination, federal and state advocacy, and innovative pilot programs, to address both the causes and impacts of homelessness; and
WHEREAS, the City of Roseville has demonstrated its commitment through sustained financial investment in homelessness response and prevention efforts, dedicating resources across multiple departments to support housing programs, outreach services, encampment cleanup, interdepartmental coordination, and long-term stability strategies that advance a balanced and effective citywide approach; and