Loomis planning commission backs lower "non‑like‑kind" in‑lieu fee, asks council to review ordinance thresholds

The Town of Loomis Planning Commission on May 20 recommended that the Town Council adopt an alternative, lower “non‑like‑kind” methodology for the town’s inclusionary housing in‑lieu fee and asked the council to review the ordinance’s thresholds and fractional rules.

Planning staff presented an updated application memo and fee study after discovering an error in a January memo that had applied a fractional multiplier incorrectly. Christy (planning staff) said the commission’s task was “to consider the inclusionary housing ordinance in‑lieu fee study of 2024,” and to recommend an in‑lieu fee to the council. She described the earlier memo error and the corrected calculations, and said the fee study itself remained correct.

The corrected estimates by consultant Matthew (AECOM) show an affordability‑gap ("like‑kind") estimate of roughly $17 per square foot for for‑sale projects and $22 per square foot for rental projects; staff also added a lower “non‑like‑kind” option meant to reflect smaller, less amenitized affordable units, at about $10 per square foot for for‑sale and $11 per square foot for rental projects. Christy told commissioners that the in‑lieu fee is meant to subsidize the gap between market prices and an affordability limit, not the full cost to build an affordable unit.

Commission discussion focused on two themes: clarity/simplicity for applicants and whether the fee should assume affordable units are "like kind" to Loomis’s existing larger homes or instead fund smaller, non‑like‑kind units (allowing the dollar to reach farther). Commissioner comments repeatedly urged simplicity; several commissioners favored the non‑like‑kind approach so the fee would be smaller and more likely to encourage use of the in‑lieu option rather than deter development.

Public commenters included three speakers who identified themselves as builders or development representatives. Stefan Hoest Traer of Premier Homes told the commission the study’s affordability gap approach should focus on the developer profitability shortfall — the subsidy needed to make a project financially viable — and said the non‑like‑kind option would “carry further.” Kevin Weitrip (Premier Homes) and a Zoom commenter identified as Jeff both urged simplicity and warned that very small per‑square‑foot fees (e.g., $2–$3) would not generate useful subsidy for affordable housing.

After discussion, the commission adopted a motion recommending the Town Council adopt the alternative (non‑like‑kind) calculation method and revised application memo. The roll call recorded Commissioner DePillo: Aye; Commissioner Kelly: Yes; Commissioner Lee: Yes; Commissioner Wilson: Yes; Chairman Onderko: No. The commission also asked staff to include in the report to council a request that the council consider a broader review of the ordinance’s fractional/threshold provisions (for example, the numeric thresholds governing when in‑lieu payment is allowed or required) so the council can consider whether the 5–9 unit and fractional rules should be revised. That second item was entered as commission direction to staff and incorporated into the materials sent to council.

Commissioners and staff reiterated practical points that will affect implementation: the affordability‑gap fee is sensitive to market conditions and will need an indexing or review strategy over time; in‑lieu fees normally fund gap subsidy, rehabilitation, or conversion programs rather than directly building like‑for‑like houses in the subdivision where the fee was collected; and the current Loomis ordinance (adopted March 8, 2022) requires on‑site units for each full 10‑unit block and allows in‑lieu payment only for the fractional remainder. Staff noted that the January 28, 2025 recommendation (Resolution 25‑01) had been based on the earlier memo that misapplied the fractional multiplier; the planning commission voted to repeal that recommendation and forward the corrected alternative to town council.

What happens next: the commission’s recommendation and the revised memo will be included in the staff report to the Town Council, which will consider adoption of the fee program and any ordinance changes. Staff told the commission it would prepare clearer public‑facing examples and simpler presentation materials to accompany the council submittal.

For now, Loomis’s in‑lieu fee remains a policy tool that commissioners say must be balanced between producing useful subsidy and not unduly discouraging development in a town with comparatively limited vacant land and many larger lots.