Sierra Wilds Apartments
Design Review DR2025-0005
Environmental ENV2025-0008
Rocklin City Council
August 11, 2026
(Continued from May 12, 2026)
Nathan Anderson, Planning Division
2 3
4 5
Table 4-1 Summary of Land Use
Designations and Population
Density Standards
No individual parcel which has a
Mixed Use land use designation is
required to build a specific ratio of
residential to nonresidential.
Mixed Use designated parcels
may be all residential, all non-
residential, or a mix of residential
and nonresidential uses.
Mixed Use
Site 1-13 (St. Augustine - Wildcat)
6 Site 1-13 (St. Augustine - Wildcat)
7 May 12 City Council Hearing
• Council received presentations from staff, the applicant, and the applicant’s technical consultants
• Extensive discussion with staff and the applicant team • Before public comment began, Council continued the hearing to August 11 so there would be adequate time for public comment, additional questions, and deliberation
8 Council Follow-Up Items
• Traffic during school drop-off and pick-up
• Pedestrian connectivity between the church and school • Construction-related air quality and noise
• Wildfire evacuation and emergency vehicle access
• Fencing and buffering
• School garden
9 10
Emergency Access and Evacuation
• Project circulation was developed in
coordination with the Fire Department
• The prior environmental analysis evaluated
wildfire and evacuation issues
• The project creates an additional
emergency access route through the
development to Wildcat Boulevard
• The Fire Department determined that
required emergency vehicle access routes
can be maintained
11 15
12 13
EVA Fence Clarification
• A fence shown within the EVA
on earlier plans was a
drafting error and did not
reflect the applicant’s intent
• Staff added a condition
requiring all fencing and
gates associated with the
EVA, when fully open, to
remain entirely outside the
required emergency access
corridor
14 EVA Fence Clarification
• Condition 13.e: All fences, gates, walls, and
associated appurtenances adjacent to the
Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) shall be designed,
installed, and maintained such that, when any gate
is in the fully open position, no portion of the gate,
fence, or supporting hardware encroaches into or
obstructs the required width or clear path of the
Emergency Vehicle Access. All gates shall swing or
slide entirely outside of the designated EVA,
consistent with the EVA Gate Exhibit included as
part of Exhibit A, to ensure unobstructed emergency
vehicle access at all times. Any modifications to the
gate or fence configuration shall be subject to review
and approval by the Community Development
Director and Fire Department.
15 16
Condition 13.g: All fencing and walls
shall be substantially consistent with
the Sierra Wilds Fencing and Wall
Exhibit, which shall be incorporated
into the approved project plans as part
of Exhibit A. All fencing and walls shall
comply with applicable City standards.
The final location, height, materials, and
design of all fencing and walls shall be
subject to review and approval by the
Community Development Director.
17 18
19 Staff’s Approach
• Staff has proceeded consistent with how the project was previously processed and presented.
• The PC recommended approval, and the project was noticed and presented with CEQA review as part of that recommendation. • The CC packet continues to include the previously prepared 15183 analysis, environmental findings, and Notice of Exemption. • The Resolution does not take a position on the June 23 argument. 20 21
Existing
School
Existing
Church
22 Sierra Wilds Apartments
Design Review DR2025-0005
Environmental ENV2025-0008
Rocklin City Council
May 12, 2026
Nathan Anderson, Planning Division
16 CEQA – 15183 Consistency Checklist
With regards to mandatory findings of significant, the Consistency Checklist demonstrates that:
1. No peculiar impacts related to the proposed project or its site that were not analyzed as significant effects in the Prior FEIR have been identified.
2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not analyzed in the Prior FEIR.
3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the Prior FEIR.
4. No mitigation measures are necessary because the proposed project’s specific impacts would be less than significant. 35 17.72.070 – Design Review Decision
Any decision by the design review board or the council on a design review application shall be based on consideration of the following:
1. Relationship between the site design and the surrounding development, natural features and constraints and traffic flow;
2. Height, bulk and area;
3. Orientation of buildings and structures (with emphasis on energy consumption for heating, cooling, lighting);
4. Color scheme and materials;
5. Style, type and orientation of lighting;
6. Dimensions and placement of signs and graphics;
7. Landscaping (with emphasis on aesthetics, use of water and maintenance needs);
8. Parking design, including ingress and egress patterns;
9. Other design review criteria, which may be adopted from time to time by resolution of the council.
37 Government Code Section 65589.5
This section of the Housing Accountability Act provides that a local agency shall not disapprove an affordable housing project, or condition it in a way that makes it infeasible, unless it can make one of the following written findings based on substantial evidence:
1) The jurisdiction has a compliant Housing Element and has met or exceeded its RHNA for the applicable income category.
2) The project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, with no feasible way to mitigate it without rendering the project unaffordable. 3) Denial or conditioning is required to comply with state or federal law, and no feasible alternative exists. 4) The project is located on agricultural or resource land, or lacks adequate water or wastewater infrastructure.
5) The project is inconsistent with both the zoning ordinance and General Plan, and the jurisdiction has a compliant Housing Element (with important exceptions for identified Housing Element sites and emergency shelters).
6) The jurisdiction does not have a compliant Housing Element, and the project is not a builder’s remedy project.
Absent one of these findings, the City must approve the project and cannot impose conditions that would make it infeasible.38
7 22
PD-BP/C/LI (Stanford Ranch GDP)
City Parking Requirements
Project
Units
Ratio of Parking
Spaces Required
Total Parking
Spaces Required
1 bedroom 54 1.5 spaces / unit 81 spaces
2+ bedroom 66 2 spaces / unit 132 spaces
Guest -- .25 spaces / unit 30 spaces
Total 120 -- 243 spaces
23 MARKET
RATE
ONLY
City Parking Requirements
Density Bonus Parking Requirements
Project
Units
Ratio of Parking
Spaces Required
Total Parking
Spaces Required
1 bedroom 54 1 spaces / unit 54 spaces
2+ bedroom 66 1.5 spaces / unit 99 spaces
Guest -- 0 spaces / unit 0 spaces
Total 120 -- 153 spaces
Project
Units
Ratio of Parking
Spaces Required
Total Parking
Spaces Required
1 bedroom 54 1.5 spaces / unit 81 spaces
2+ bedroom 66 2 spaces / unit 132 spaces
Guest -- .25 spaces / unit 30 spaces
Total 120 -- 243 spaces
24 City Parking Requirements
Density Bonus Parking Requirements
Project
Units
Ratio of Parking
Spaces Required
Total Parking
Spaces Required
1 bedroom 54 1 spaces / unit 54 spaces
2+ bedroom 66 1.5 spaces / unit 99 spaces
Guest -- 0 spaces / unit 0 spaces
Total 120 -- 153 spaces
Project
Units
Ratio of Parking
Spaces Required
Total Parking
Spaces Required
1 bedroom 54 1.5 spaces / unit 81 spaces
2+ bedroom 66 2 spaces / unit 132 spaces
Guest -- .25 spaces / unit 30 spaces
Total 120 -- 243 spaces
Parking Proposed
180 spaces (1.5 spaces per unit)
25 Original
Submittal
Revised
Submittal
27 Original
Submittal
Revised
Submittal
28 12
• Apartment residents would not have
access to the church parking lot
• The existing St. Augustine entrance
would serve as one of two project
access points
• A potential right-turn deceleration
taper on Wildcat Boulevard may
continue to be evaluated as the
project proceeds toward construction
Traffic and School Circulation
Deceleration
Taper?
Pedestrian Connectivity
• The existing church-to-school path crosses church-owned property and is not supported by a recorded pedestrian easement
• The applicant has proposed a new pedestrian route, including a sidewalk along the school driveway and an opening through the proposed fencing
Construction Management
• The project will comply with applicable City and State requirements for dust control, construction hours, equipment maintenance, idling, and other best management practices
• Additional construction management measures will be developed during building permit review
• The applicant has agreed to make a good-faith effort to exceed minimum requirements where feasible and practicable due to the proximity of the school
31