Loomis council adopts 2040 general plan, certifies EIR and approves land‑use change for school site

The Loomis Town Council voted unanimously to certify the final Environmental Impact Report for the town's proposed 2040 General Plan and to adopt the updated plan after a lengthy public hearing and council deliberation.

The plan update formalizes two decades of policy work, revises land‑use designations and adds implementation measures intended to align local rules with current state law and environmental guidance. Planning staff and AECOM consultant Matthew Gerken told council the draft had been revised in response to public and agency comments and that "none of those changes materially affect the conclusions of the environmental impact report." The planning commission had recommended certifying the EIR and adopting the general plan and sought a change reverting nine parcels on Betty and Martin lanes from tourist‑destination commercial back to rural residential; council voted to add a tenth parcel to that redesignation.

Why it matters: the general plan sets the town’s policy framework for growth, conservation and public facilities for the next 20 years. The EIR identifies some significant unavoidable environmental impacts and includes a statement of overriding considerations explaining why the town finds the plan’s public‑benefit priorities (infrastructure, housing and economic opportunity) justify adoption despite those impacts.

Public comment at the hearing was mixed. School‑district trustees and parents urged the council to help secure land for additional schools amid growing enrollment; Susan Wright, president of the Loomis Union School District board, thanked council for past cooperation and said the district looks forward to partnering with the town. Others raised process and traffic concerns, questioned whether rezoning should occur before formal agreements are finalized and urged that any approvals protect nearby neighborhoods from undesirable outcomes.

Council discussion produced several specific decisions. Members debated implementation details (including whether certain private amenities in multifamily projects should ever count toward park dedications) and agreed that specifics like park‑dedication formulas and any private‑amenity credits should be set later in municipal code ordinance language rather than embedded directly into the general plan. Council also voted to change the mission‑statement wording: replacing the word "slow" (which some members said was ambiguous and potentially litigable) with the word "deliberate." Councilmember Ring framed the change as eliminating a subjective term that could be read as a policy absolute.

On the contested land‑use item, land‑use committee lead Jan Clark and staff clarified the committee’s intent: when the parcel division is recorded the portion intended for a school would receive a public‑institution designation and the remainder of the property would be designated rural residential (one‑acre parcels). Developer representatives confirmed a lot‑line adjustment and a sale agreement were part of the package under negotiation. Staff emphasized that any future school or subdivision will require separate project applications and planning‑commission review before development can proceed.

Council members voted to adopt the two resolutions on the table: (1) certify the General Plan 2040 EIR and make the required CEQA findings, and (2) adopt the updated General Plan as modified at the hearing. The roll call showed unanimous support for adoption.

Next steps: staff told the council the zoning ordinance and municipal code will be updated after the general plan adoption to ensure consistency; that is a separate, often lengthier process that will include public review. Any specific subdivision, rezoning or school‑site application will return to the planning commission and council with the project‑level environmental review, conditions and developer obligations at that time.