Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Folsom Council approves Toll Brothers’ 1,424‑unit Alder Creek plan after oak‑woodland and housing debate

City of Folsom City Council · June 23, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The City Council voted to approve Toll Brothers’ Alder Creek master plan, a three‑phase project proposing about 1,424 homes, parks, a school and backbone roads. The decision followed lengthy public comment over oak‑woodland impacts, detention basins under modern low‑impact standards, and whether in‑lieu housing fees are an adequate substitute for on‑site affordable units.

The Folsom City Council approved Resolution No. 11643 on June 23, 2026, authorizing the Toll Brothers Alder Creek master plan and approving related tentative maps, a planned‑development permit and a minor administrative modification for street geometry and park siting. The 5‑member council recorded four votes in favor (Kozlowski, Aquino, Rohrbough, Raithel) and one against (Leary).

The project covers roughly 464 acres on the western edge of the Folsom Plan area and is planned to develop in three phases. Toll Brothers proposes about 1,424 housing units across a mix of single‑family lots, smaller infill products the applicant termed “duets,” and higher‑density small‑lot types such as four‑packs and six‑packs; the plan also reserves land for an elementary school, parks and a future fire station and includes construction of backbone infrastructure such as extensions of Oak Avenue Parkway, Mangini Parkway and Alder Creek Parkway.

City planning staff said the project is consistent with the Folsom Plan Area specific plan and that, after technical review, no new significant environmental impacts were identified beyond those addressed in the original specific‑plan EIR; staff recommended adoption of a CEQA conformity finding under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 and approval of the map and permits with conditions.

Opponents and many public commenters urged the council to require more detailed environmental review and to reconsider mitigation, particularly for oak woodland canopy. Staff and Toll representatives explained that modern low‑impact development (LID) drainage standards and the engineering needed for current hydrology resulted in larger detention basins than the specific plan originally anticipated; those basins are among the principal drivers of the increased acreage of oak woodland identified as potentially impacted. Toll said it has reduced basin footprints where possible, redesigned lot layouts to preserve isolated heritage oaks and is proposing offsite mitigation via purchase and a conservation easement on acreage near the Deer Creek Hills preserve.

Affordable housing and timing of mitigation were also central issues. Under Folsom’s inclusionary ordinance the developer may build on‑site units, dedicate land, or pay an in‑lieu fee; Toll proposed paying the in‑lieu fee. Staff said the city has used prior in‑lieu funds and deed restricted land to produce affordable units (citing previous projects and approximately $30 million in gap financing programs), and that the funds for Alder Creek would be applied to planned deed‑restricted sites in the Folsom Plan area. Several public commenters—and one speaker representing survivors and unhoused residents—argued the in‑lieu payment is an inadequate substitute for on‑site affordable units and asked the council to require on‑site affordable housing.

Council discussion reflected the tradeoffs: members noted the project’s gains — backbone infrastructure, school and park sites and a builder willing to construct a large portion of the remaining Folsom Plan area — while also acknowledging public concern about oak woodlands, detention basins, and the equity questions around in‑lieu fees. The council approved the project with conditions addressing oak mitigation, monitoring, offsite preservation, trail siting and infrastructure phasing; the resolution and related staff report document the conditions and required follow‑up actions.

Next steps: the approval locks in the tentative map and plan‑development standards (vesting tentative map) but requires subsequent subdivision maps, construction permits, and implementation of the mitigation measures and monitoring programs set in the council conditions. The city and applicant will continue final engineering and environmental compliance for project elements that require additional permits or review.