Escalon City Council
August 3, 2026

82108.00102\42947873.2
NRBI-60157\3148007.1 8

6. Park Development and Additional Obligations.

6.1 Park Development. Developer shall be obligated to comply with the City’s park land dediction ordinance adopted pursuant to the authority of Government Code Section 66477 ("Quimby Act"). Developer will satisfy this obligation as follows:

6.1.1 By dedicating, and improving as described in sections 6.2 and 6.5, approximately 1.1 net acres of land within the Project for parks and recreational purposes purposes, the Project fully satisfies the City’s parkland dedication requirement as set forth in Municipal Code section 16.02.330.

6.2 Timing of Dedications and Improvements of Parks. Prior to the approval of the first final map for the Project, Developer shall show the park dedication on said final map as described in Section 6.1 of this Development Agreement. Required, nonreimburseable park improvements are identified in this section 6.2 and reimbursable park improvements are identified in section 6.5 below.

Required, non-reimbursable park improvements include:
• Expanded basin with irrigation, turf, tree and shrub planting, including horozontal drain to eliminate nuisance water
• Concrete walking paths along the perimeter of the park • Split-face masonry walls adjacent to residences
• Covered picnic table area
• Basketball half-court (striped for basketball and pickle ball) with fence

6.3 Affordable Housing Obligation. Developer and City have entered into an Inclusionary Housing Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit __. City acknowledges that Developer’s compliance with all the terms, conditions and requirements of this Inclusionary Housing Agreement shall fully satisfy Developer’s obligations to provide affordable housing or inclusionary housing or any related affordable housing fee or exaction associated with development of the Property.

6.4 Improvements. Site improvements, roads, utilities, etc., shall be provided consistent with the conditions of approval for tentative subdivision map approved by the City on ____________ by Resolution No. _______ attached hereto as Exhibit __.

6.5 Reimbursable Infrastructure Improvements. In addition to any other reimbursements the Developer is entitled to under applicable law, Developer shall be entitled to reimbursement and/or fee credits for the costs it incurs making the following improvements:
• Park improvements above the improvements consistent with a typical neighborhood park, are considered reimbursable infrastructure and serve a larger area than just the

82108.00102\42947873.2
NRBI-60157\3148007.1 9
project. These items are included in the City’ AB 1600 Fee Program, and as such, are subject to reimbursement of fee offsets, as appropriate. • Restroom facility (1 stall) in the park
• The existing storm basin discharge system shall be remodeled to remove the existing outfall structure, add a French drain discharge system, and install a flow meter to SSJID standards to measure the pump discharge to the SSJID facility. These costs shall be reimbursed to the developer at 62.7% of the actual cost, based on the prorated share of the existing 1.85-acre park and the proposed 1.10-acre addition. • Any reimbursements for oversized water lines are subject to the requirements in EMC

13.04.260. As provided for in the Conditions of Approval, Developer shall also be reimbursed for the costs to install a 4-inch sewer main and a 16-inch water main in Brennan Avenue, which will serve other developments.

Additional Obligations Following Annexation.

7.1 Funding for Project Infrastructure Maintenance and Public Services.

Developer is required to provide a source of funding for maintenance of Project Infrastructure and public services for the Project, the amount of such funding shall be determined by the fiscal analysis approved by the Finance Director. Developer is responsible for maintenance and public service costs including, but not limited to:

7.1.1. Public Safety, including public works, code enforcement and police personnel, equipment, and maintenance costs.

7.1.2. Public Services, including Library facilities and Community Center facilities. Developer shall be responsible for 100% of the total cost to maintain the park restroom facility.

7.1.3. Project Improvement maintenance, including water, drainage, park and park amenities, roads, sidewalks, mailboxes, sewer, lighting, landscaping, fences, walls, and street sweeping personnel, equipment, and maintenance costs.

7.2 Funding Mechanisms. Developer’s obligations under Section 7.1 may be satisfied in whole or in part through the formation of one or more funding mechanisms.

Developer may petition that the City initiate the formation of a Community Facilities District (“CFD”) formed pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Government Code section 53311 et seq.) or a Landscape and Lighting District (“LLD”) for the purpose of financing the maintenance and public services obligations of the Project. If a CFD or LLD is the selected funding mechanism for services, the trigger for special taxes to be levied with such a CFD shall be deferred until such time the City begins to incur such costs, as determined in the City’s sole discretion and as consistent with state law.

7.3 Timing. If the Developer seeks to provide financing for services and maintenance within the Project through a CFD, the formation of the CFD shall be complete by the date of the application for the first tentative small lot subdivision map for the Project. If the Developer seeks to provide financing for the services and maintenance within the project through another funding mechanism, such funding shall also be in place by the date of the application for the first final map for the Project.

82108.00102\42947873.2
NRBI-60157\3148007.1 10

7.4 Fiscal Analysis. The funding for public services, including maintenance of public improvements, for the Project shall be based on a fiscal analysis included in the CFD formation documents.

7.5 Obligation to Fund Cost of CFD Formation. Developer shall be responsible for payment of an amount up to but not exceeding $25,000 for the formation of the CFD or similar financing mechanism to provide maintenance of Project Infrastructure and public services as contemplated in this Agreement. Payment of the $25,000 is due to the City within prior to approval of the final map.

7.6 Contribution to Citywide Economic Development Strategic Plan.

Developer shall provide contribution for the cost of preparing a Citywide Economic Development Strategic Plan in an amount of $1,041.67 ($75,000 total upon Project buildout) for each Project home for which a building permit it issued. Payment of the per home contribution amount shall be due upon issuance of the first building permit for each Project home.

7.7 City Reservation of Discretion. It is expressly acknowledged, understood and agreed by the Parties that City shall act independently, reserving full and complete discretion with respect to formation of any CFD.

7.3 Developer’s Cooperation and Acknowledgement. If Developer requests and the City consents in the City's discretion, and a CFD or similar financing mechanism is utilized to fund the maintenance of Project Infrastructure and public services, Developer (i) will execute all necessary petitions and ballots and waive all election waiting and protest periods at City's request and prior to the issuance of any building permit on any phase of the Project, (ii) support City's adoption of local policies related to use of CFD financing, (iii) cooperate in the development of rate and method of apportionment or assessment formula, (iv) cooperate in formation of or annexation to, one or more such CFD’s or financing mechanisms or assessment districts for maintenance purposes, as chosen by the City (herein the “Services District(s)”), (v) consent herewith to the levy of such special taxes or assessments as are necessary to fund the maintenance obligations described in this Agreement, and (vi) for purposes of Article XIII D of the California Constitution, Developer acknowledges hereby that all the services described herein to be provided by such Services District(s) will provide a “special benefit” to the Property, as defined by said Article, and that the foregoing support and consent shall apply as to any claim that any portion of the services supported by the special tax does not provide special benefit to the Property.

7.4 Purpose of Services Districts. The Services District(s) shall provide City assured funding for the ongoing maintenance and operation of Project Infrastructure required herein or in the Entitlements as applicable and required for the Project, whether such facilities and improvements are located within or outside of the boundaries of the Project, including, but not limited to, public roads, public streets, bridges/culverts, traffic signals, traffic signs, striping and legends, ITS operation, street lights, public alleys and associated frontage improvements such as curb, gutter and sidewalks, intersection signals, and street signs; road special features (e.g. speed bumps, textured or painted surfaces, modified crosswalks, etc.); project monument signs; all public landscaping, including street frontage landscaping and road medians, including lanscaping; streetlights within the Property and upon the Property frontages and statuary, fountains or ornamental structures.

7.5 Payment Prior to Issuance of Bonds. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to preclude the payment by an owner of any of the parcels to be included within

82108.00102\42947873.2
NRBI-60157\3148007.1 11
the CFD of a cash amount equivalent to its proportionate share of costs for the improvements, or any portion thereof, prior to the issuance of bonds.

7.6 Private Financing. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit Developer option to install the Public Facilities, or other Project Infrastructure or improvements required by the Entitlements through the use of private financing.

7.7 Public Parcel Exclusion. Developer expressly agrees that any parcels conveyed or to be conveyed to the City will be excluded from any assessment to be imposed by the Services District.

7. Off-site Improvements (Acquisition). Developer may be required to perform offsite improvements to the extent required by the Entitlements and as consistent with state and federal law. If Developer is unable to secure sufficient title or interest for lands despite Developer’s best faith effort, nothing shall prohibit Developer from exercising any and all rights available to it pursuant to Government Code section 66462.5 prior to the filing of any final or parcel map for which such off-site improvement was conditioned.

8. Amendment or Cancellation.

8.1 Amendment by Mutual Consent, Minor Revisions. This Agreement may be amended in writing from time to time by mutual consent of the Parties hereto, and in accordance with the procedures of state law and the Municipal Code. Any amendment of this Agreement that does not constitute a Minor Revision as defined herein shall require amendment of this Agreement. Any such amendment that does not constitute a Minor Revision may be requested and made only as to a portion of the Property, in which case only the owner(s) of such portion of the Property subject thereto shall be required to apply for and sign such partial amendment of this Agreement. A Minor Revision shall mean any change to this Agreement which does not relate to the term (excluding automatic extensions), permitted uses, density or intensity of use, height or size of buildings, provisions for reservation or dedication of land, or monetary contributions by the Developer, or other similar or material provisions. The City Manager, with the consent of the Developer, has the discretion to approve Minor Revisions without the requirement for a public hearing or approval by the City Council.

9.2 Cancellation by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted herein, this Agreement may be canceled in whole or in part only by the mutual consent of the Parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with Municipal Code. Any fees paid pursuant to this Agreement and spent by City prior to the date of cancellation shall be retained by City.

9.3 Automatic Termination Upon Completion and Sale of Residential Unit. This Agreement shall automatically be terminated, without any further action by either party or need to record any additional document, with respect to any single-family residential lot for residential use, upon completion of construction and issuance by City of a final inspection for a dwelling unit upon such residential lot and conveyance of such improved residential lot by Developer to a bona-fide good faith purchaser thereof. In connection with its issuance of a final inspection for such improved lot, City shall confirm that: (i) all improvements which are required to serve the lot, as determined by City, have been accepted by City; and (ii) the lot is included within any financing districts or mechanisms required by Section 7 or other financing mechanism acceptable to City, to the extent required hereby. Termination of this Agreement for any such residential lot as provided for in this Section 9.3 shall not in any way be construed to

82108.00102\42947873.2
NRBI-60157\3148007.1 12
terminate or modify any assessment district or Mello-Roos Community Facilities District lien affecting such lot at the time of termination.

9.4 Termination upon Request. This Agreement may also be terminated, at the election of the then property owner, with respect to any legally subdivided parcel (other than parcels designated for public use) when receiving a certificate of occupancy or final inspection, whichever is applicable, by giving written notice to City of its election to terminate the Agreement for such parcel, provided that: (i) all improvements which are required to serve the parcel, as determined by City, have been accepted by City; (ii) the parcel is included within any financing districts or mechanisms required by Section 7, or other financing mechanisms acceptable to City, to the extent required hereby; (iii) all other financial obligations to City under this Agreement that are outstanding or may become outstanding upon subsequent development of the Property, or portion thereof subject to such termination, have been satisfied, including without limitation, satisfaction of all obligations under Sections 6 and 7 hereinabove that are then outstanding or may become payable upon further development of the Property or portion thereof subject to such termination; and (iv) the Developer of such portion of the Property is not in Default of this Agreement and no notice of Default has then been issued by City with respect to such portion of the Property. City shall cause any written notice of termination approved pursuant to this Section to be recorded with the San Joaquin County Recorder against the applicable parcel at Developer’s expense. Termination of this Agreement for any parcel as provided for in this Section 9.4 shall not in any way be construed to terminate or modify any assessment district or Mello-Roos Community Facilities District lien affecting such parcel at the time of termination.

9. Annual Review.

9.1 Annual Review. City shall annually monitor and review Developer’s good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement and the Entitlements, as required by Government Code Section 65865.1.

9.2 Monitoring. City has discretion to monitor the continuing compliance of the terms of this Agreement and the Entitlements by updating decision-makers, conducting field inspections, implementing and interpreting requirements, monitoring any litigation relating to the Property, and taking any other actions City may find appropriate.

9.3 Annual Review Date. City intends to conduct an annual review each year during the term of this Agreement in September of each year after the Effective Date.

9.4 Initiation of Review. City’s Planning Director initiates the annual review by giving Developer written notice that City will conduct the annual review. The Planning Director’s written notice will include an estimate of the total costs City expects to incur in connection with the review. Within thirty (30) days of City’s notice, Developer must provide evidence to the Planning Director to demonstrate good faith compliance with this Development Agreement. The burden of proof, by substantial evidence of compliance, is upon the Developer.

City’s failure to timely initiate the annual review is not a waiver of the right to conduct a review at a later date or otherwise enforce the provisions of this Development Agreement. Developer is not in default under this Agreement by virtue of a failure by City to timely initiate review.

9.5 Staff Reports. City shall deposit in the mail to Developer a copy of all staff reports and related exhibits concerning contract performance at least twenty (20) days prior to any annual review. City shall also, to the extent practicable, make reasonable efforts to

82108.00102\42947873.2
NRBI-60157\3148007.1 13
provide simultaneous notice to Developer by e-mail or other then-available means of electronic technology.

9.6 Costs. Costs reasonably and directly incurred by City in connection with the annual review and monitoring shall be paid by Developer in accordance with the City’s schedule of fees and billing rates in effect at the time of review. The costs that Developer may be required to pay are not limited to the amount in the Planning Director’s estimate.

10. Violation of Entitlements. In addition to complying with all terms of this Agreement, Developer agrees to conform and comply with all applicable terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the Entitlements. A failure by Developer to perform any applicable material term, condition, or requirement of the Entitlements or Subsequent Entitlements constitutes a violation of this Agreement.

11. Default and Opportunity to Cure. Subject to any applicable extension of time agreed to by the Parties in writing, failure by any Party to perform any term or provision of this Agreement required to be performed by such Party constitutes an event of default (“Event of Default”). For purposes of this Agreement, a Party claiming another Party is in default shall be referred to as the “Complaining Party,” and the Party alleged to be in default shall be referred to as the “Party in Default.” Except as provided in Section 9, a Complaining Party shall not exercise any of its remedies as the result of such Event of Default unless such Complaining Party first gives notice to the Party in Default as provided in Section 21, and the Party in Default fails to cure such Event of Default within the applicable cure period.

11.1 Notice of Default. If an Event of Default occurs, prior to exercising any remedies, the Complaining Party shall give the Party in Default written notice of such default. After City as the Complaining Party provides notice of an Event of Default by Developer, if such Event of Default is not cured within thirty (30) days after the Developer’s receipt of such notice, or as otherwise provided in Section 12.1.1 below, City may thereafter cease to issue any permit or approve any entitlement for which an application has been filed for any portion of the Property then owned or controlled by the Party in Default until the Default is cured pursuant to the procedures in this Section 12.

11.2 Cure. The Party in Default must cure the default within thirty (30) days from the Notice of Default. The Complaining Party may pursue all available remedies if the Party in Default fails to cure the default within the 30-day time period. If the nature of the alleged default is such that it cannot reasonably be cured within thirty (30) days, the 30-day time period will be tolled if: (a) the cure is commenced at the earliest practicable date following receipt of the notice; (b) the cure is diligently prosecuted to completion at all times thereafter; (c) at the earliest practicable date (in no event later than thirty (30) days after the Party in Default’s receipt of the notice), the Party in Default provides written notice to the Complaining Party that the cure cannot practicably be completed within such thirty- (30) day period; and (d) the cure is completed at the earliest practicable date. In no event shall Complaining Party be precluded from exercising remedies if a default is not cured within ninety (90) days after the first notice of default is given. If the Event of Default is discovered or determined in the course of the Annual Compliance Review, in addition to other remedies and potential cures, City shall have the statutory authority pursuant to Government Code section 65865.1 to decide to terminate or modify the Development Agreement following the opportunity to cure as provided in this Section 11.1.2.

82108.00102\42947873.2
NRBI-60157\3148007.1 14

11.3 Failure to Assert. Any failures or delays by a Complaining Party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies. Delays by a Complaining Party in asserting any of its rights and remedies shall not deprive the Complaining Party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert, or enforce any such rights or remedies.

11.4 Legal Proceedings. If the Party in Default fails to cure a default in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.1.2, the Complaining Party, at its option, may institute legal proceedings pursuant to this Development Agreement or terminate this Development Agreement. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, the Parties may pursue all other remedies at law or in equity, which are not otherwise provided for or prohibited by this Agreement or City’s regulations governing development agreements, expressly including the remedy of specific performance of this Development Agreement. In no event, except as provided in Sections 15 and 19 of this Agreement, will either Party be liable to the other Party for any monetary damage for claims arising out of this Agreement, and both Parties hereby expressly waive any such monetary damages. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City may immediately institute any legal proceedings relating to this Development Agreement without the notice and opportunity to cure required in the case of an emergency or immediate danger to public health, safety, or welfare.

12. Estoppel Certificate. Either Party may, at any time, and from time to time, deliver written notice to the other Party requesting that the other Party certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying Party: (i) this Development Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the Parties; (ii) this Development Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments; and, (iii) the requesting Party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Development Agreement, or if in default, describing therein the nature and amount of any such defaults. A Party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such estoppel certificate or give a written detailed response explaining why it will not do so, within thirty (30) days following the receipt of each such request. Each Party acknowledges that such an estoppel certificate may be relied upon by third parties acting in good faith. A certificate provided by City establishing the status of this Development Agreement with respect to the Property or any portion thereof shall be in recordable form and may be recorded at the expense of the recording Party.

13. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is for any reason held to be unenforceable, the rest of the Agreement remains fully enforceable. If, however, a provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable and the effect is to deprive a Party of an essential benefit of this Agreement, then the Party so deprived will have the option to terminate this entire Agreement upon written notice to the other Party.

14. Applicable Law. California law applies to this Agreement without regard for any choice-of-law rules that might direct the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction.

15. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in Legal Actions by Parties to the Agreement.

Should any legal action be brought by either Party for breach of this Development Agreement or to enforce any provisions herein, the prevailing party in the action is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs, and any other costs as may be fixed by the Court.

16. Agreement Runs with the Land. Except as otherwise provided for in this Development Agreement, all of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants, and obligations contained

82108.00102\42947873.2
NRBI-60157\3148007.1 15
in this Agreement are binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors and assignees, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. All of the provisions of this Development Agreement are enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable laws, including but not limited to Section 1468 of the California Civil Code. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property, or with respect to any owned property: (i) is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such properties; (ii) runs with such properties; and (iii) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and shall be a benefit to and a burden upon each Party and its property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an interest in such properties.

17. Indemnification from Construction, Improvement, Operation, and Maintenance Claims. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend with counsel selected by City, and hold harmless City, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, officials, agents, employees, and representatives, from any and all claims, costs (including legal fees and costs incurred by City or awarded to plaintiffs) and liability for any personal injury or property damage which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by Developer, or any actions or inactions of Developer’s contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Property or the Project. Developer has no indemnification obligation with respect to the gross negligence or willful misconduct of City, or its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, officials, agents, employees, and representatives or with respect to the maintenance, use, or condition of any improvement after the time it has been dedicated to and accepted by City or another public entity (except as provided in an improvement agreement or maintenance bond). The provisions of this Section 18 shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

18. Cooperation and Indemnification of City in Event of Legal Challenge to This Agreement or Entitlements. In the event of any legal or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by any third party challenging the validity of any provisions of this Development Agreement or the Entitlements, or seeking to overturn or invalidate any approval granted pursuant to this Agreement:

18.1 The Parties agree to cooperate in defending against the action or proceeding;

18.2 The Developer is solely responsible for its own costs and any reasonable costs incurred by City for such defense;

18.3 Developer will indemnify, defend with counsel selected by City and hold harmless City, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, officials, agents, employees, and representatives from any and all claims, costs (including legal fees and costs incurred by City or awarded to plaintiffs) and liability;

18.4 Neither Developer nor City shall settle any action or proceeding on grounds that include non-monetary relief or admissions of liability without written consent of the other Party. City agrees to not settle any action based upon monetary relief without the written consent of Developer, unless City is solely liable and agrees to pay such monetary relief.

82108.00102\42947873.2
NRBI-60157\3148007.1 16

18.5 The provisions of this Section 19 shall survive the termination of this Development Agreement.

21. Third Party Beneficiaries. This Development Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of Developer and City and their successors and assigns.

No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision in this Agreement.

22. Notices. All notices and other communications required or permitted under this Agreement, the enabling legislation, or the procedure adopted pursuant to Government Code section 65865, must be in writing and must be delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, or by facsimile or electronic mail.

Notice required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows:

CITY OF ESCALON
City Manager
2060 McHenry Avenue
Escalon, CA 95320
Phone: _________________
Fax: ___________________
E-mail: _______________
Notice required to be given to Developer shall be addressed as follows:

NRB INVESTMENTS, LLC
Randeep Bling
1701 W. March Lane, Suite D
Stockton, CA 95207
Phone: 209-473-1106
Fax: 209-473-4086
E-mail: [email protected]
Either Party may change the address stated herein by giving notice in writing to the other Party, and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address.

23. Assignment and Release. From and after recordation of this Agreement against the Property, Developer shall have the full right to assign this Agreement as to the Property, or any portion thereof, in connection with any sale, transfer or conveyance thereof, provided that (i) Developer has paid City any and all fees or amounts due at the time of assignment, to City arising out of this Agreement, the processing of the Entitlements, or the development of the portion of the Property to be assigned, and (ii) upon the receipt by City Planning Director, or designee, of the express written assignment by Developer and assumption by the assignee of such assignment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. Upon the payment of such fees or amounts due (which shall be acknowledged on the assignment by City Planning Director upon the request of Developer) and City’s receipt of the express written assignment by Developer, the assumption by the assignee of such assignment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, and the conveyance of Developer’s interest in the Property related thereto, Developer shall be released from further liability or obligation related to the portion of the Property so conveyed and the assignee will be considered the “Developer,” with all rights and obligations related thereto, with respect to such conveyed property (the “Assigned Property”).

82108.00102\42947873.2
NRBI-60157\3148007.1 17

24. Mortgagee Protection. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer, in any manner, at Developer’s sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device securing financing with respect to the Property. City acknowledges that lenders providing any such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications, and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with Developer and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification, provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement.

Any lender or other such entity (a “Mortgagee”) that obtains a mortgage or deed of trust against the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges:
(a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law. (b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, for which Mortgagee has submitted a request in writing to City in the manner specified herein for giving notices, may request to receive written notification from City of any Event of Default by Developer in the performance of Developer’s obligations under this Agreement.
(c) If City receives a timely request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of an Event of Default given to Developer under the terms of this Agreement, City shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of Event of Default to Developer. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the Event of Default during the remaining cure period allowed to Developer under this Agreement.
(d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part thereof, by any means, whether pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage, deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure or otherwise, shall take the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement; provided, however, notwithstanding anything to the contrary above, any Mortgagee, or successor or assign of such Mortgagee, who becomes an owner of the Property through foreclosure shall not be obligated to pay any fees or construct or complete the construction of any improvements, unless such owner desires to continue development of the Property consistent with this Agreement and the Entitlements, in which case the owner by foreclosure shall assume the obligations of Developer hereunder in a form acceptable to City.
(e) The foregoing limitation on Mortgagees and owners by foreclosure shall not restrict City’s ability pursuant to specifically enforce against such Mortgagees or owners any dedication requirements under this Agreement or under any conditions of the Entitlements.

25. Priority of Enactment. In the event of conflict between this Development Agreement and the Entitlements, this Development Agreement is controlling and the Parties will meet and confer in good faith to amend the Entitlements accordingly.

26. Form of Agreement; Recordation; Exhibits. City will record this Agreement and any subsequent amendment to this Agreement, with the County Recorder within ten (10)

82108.00102\42947873.2
NRBI-60157\3148007.1 18
days of the Effective Date. City will also record any termination of any parts or provisions of this Agreement, except when this Development Agreement automatically terminates due to the expiration of the Term of this Agreement. Any amendment or termination of this Development Agreement that affects less than all of the Property must describe the portion of the property that is the subject of the amendment or termination. This Agreement is executed in three duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Agreement consists of __ pages and __ exhibits, which constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties.

27. City Manager Authorization. The City of Escalon, a municipal corporation, has authorized this Development Agreement to be executed in duplicate by its City Manager and attested to by its City Clerk under the authority of Ordinance No. __________ adopted by the Council of the City on the _____ day of _________, 20__, and has caused this Agreement to be executed.
“CITY”

CITY OF ESCALON,
a municipal corporation
By: _________________________________
Name:

Its: City Manager
Date: _______________________________
“DEVELOPER”

NRB INVESTMENTS, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By: ___________________________
Name: Randeep Bling
Its: Manager
Date: _______________________________
ATTEST:
__________________________________
, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Frank A. Splendorio
City Attorney
Date: ____________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Travis A. Brooks
Miller Starr Regalia
Attorney for Developer
Date: ____________________________

82108.00102 NRBI-60157\3148007.1 \42947873.2

EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit A-1: Legal Description of the Property
Exhibit A-2: Map of the Property
Exhibit B: Form of Assignment

82108.00102 NRBI-60157\3148007.1 \42947873.2
Exhibit A-1
Legal Description of the Property

82108.00102 NRBI-60157\3148007.1 \42947873.2
Exhibit A-2
Map of the Property

82108.00102 NRBI-60157\3148007.1 \42947873.2
Exhibit B
Form of Assignment
(Exhibit Forthcoming. Available for Council Meeting)

Ord.XXX PD Zone – NRB Investments, LLC. (Adopted xx/xx/2026) Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. XXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ESCALON AMENDING THE ZONING MAP UNDER ESCALON MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.10.040 TO

APPROVE A PREZONE FOR THE MURPHY RANCH RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, PARCEL NUMBERS: 225-040-280 AND 225-040-290
Applicant: NRB Investments, LLC., Florsheim Homes
Location: SE Corner of Intersection of State Route 120 and Brennan Avenue WHEREAS, the Escalon City Council, at its duly noticed public hearing on August 3, 2026, considered approval of a Prezone for the Murphy Ranch Annexation Project; and WHEREAS, the Escalon City Council adopted this Ordinance approving the Prezone for the Murphy Ranch Annexation Project at its duly noticed public hearing on August 17, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Project encompasses the annexation of approximately 17.98 acres of unincorporated land in San Joaquin County into the City of Escalon. The Project also includes the pre-zoning of all the approximate 17.98 acres, a Tentative Subdivision Map, a Specific Plan, a Planned Development (PD-4), an Inclusionary Housing Agreement, and a Development Agreement for the Tentative Subdivision Map; and
WHEREAS, the Escalon Planning Commission, at its duly noticed Public Hearing of October 14, 2025, adopted Resolution 2025-XX, recommending that the City Council approve the Annexation and Prezone for the Project’s 17.98 acres; and WHEREAS, the Escalon Planning Commission is a recommending body to the Escalon City Council for all components of the Project, and the Escalon City Council may, at their discretion approve or deny the project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 17.61.030 of the Escalon Municipal Code, whenever land is proposed for annexation to the city, the map of such land, which accompanies the proposal, shall include proposed precise zoning for all such land. Prior to annexation of any property to the city, the property shall be prezoned to a district that is compatible with the general plan designation of the property; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project is comprised of 17.98 acres of property which includes a development area made up of APNs: 225-040-280 and 225-040-290; and WHEREAS, the proposed prezoning designations of the development area parcels APNs 225-040-280 and 225-040-290 (PD) Planned Development, which is shown on the prezoning map included as Exhibit A; and Attachment 3

Ord.XXX PD Zone – NRB Investments, LLC. (Adopted xx/xx/2026) Page 2 WHEREAS, the prezoning designations are consistent with the Escalon General Plan and will ensure that future development within the annexation area is compatible with the City’s adopted land use policies; and
WHEREAS, the prezoning shall become effective only upon completion of annexation proceedings and recordation of the Certificate of Completion by the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), pursuant to Government Code section 56375; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (SCH# 2025091127) that includes a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), and CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Escalon City Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meeting of the City Council identified herein, including supporting reports by City Staff and public comment and on XXXXXX XX, 2025 the City Council adopted this Ordinance approving the Prezone for the Murphy Ranch Annexation Project.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ESCALON DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: Findings. The City Council hereby adopts, as its own, the findings required to approve the Prezoning designations for the Project area which includes a development area made up of APNs: 225-040-280 and 225-040-290, in accordance with Escalon Municipal Code Sections 17.61.040 contained in the Planning Commission Staff Report (dated October 14, 2025) and supporting documents, which is hereby incorporated by reference into this Ordinance.

SECTION 2: CEQA. The City Council adopted a resolution 2026-__ making the necessary findings and certifying the Murphy Ranch Project IS/MND (SCH # 2025091127), and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, prepared for the Murphy Ranch Annexation Project encompassing an application for an Annexation, Prezone, Planned Development, Tentative Subdivision Map, Specific Plan, Inclusionary Housing Agreement, and Development Agreement.

SECTION 3: Amendment. The Zoning Map is hereby amended to allow for the Prezoning designation of the development area parcels APNs 225-040-280 and 225-040-290 to Low Density Residential (R-1), as depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

SECTION 4: Severability. If any section, sub-section, subdivision, paragraph, clause or phrase in this Ordinance, or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections or portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, sub-section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance,

Ord.XXX PD Zone – NRB Investments, LLC. (Adopted xx/xx/2026) Page 3 irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub-sections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5: Typographical or Clerical (Scrivener) Errors. Any typographical or clerical errors in this Ordinance may be remedied by the City Attorney with the assistance of the City Clerk and shall not constitute an alteration.

SECTION 6. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 36933.

SECTION 7: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following adoption.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on August 03, 2026 and PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Escalon, State of California, on August 17, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
____________________________
ANDREW HAGAN, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
DIANA TREJO, Deputy City Clerk

Ord.XXX PD Zone – NRB Investments, LLC. (Adopted xx/xx/2026) Page 4

EXHIBIT A

PREZONING MAP

HOGAN PARK

SANCHEZ

BRENTWOOD PARK

SUNRISE PARK

SWANSON PARK
REED

SHADOWOOD
MAIN
LATTA

FARINELLI PARKWAY

DINOSAUR

CROSSROADS

STREET PARK

MANOR PARK
PARK
BASIN
PARK
PARK
PARK

ESCALON HIGH SCHOOL

DENT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

EL PORTAL MIDDLE SCHOOL

USD YARD
1140

ESCALON

FIRST ST

MCHENRY AVE

MAIN ST

YOSEMITE AVE

COLEY AVE

VINE AVE

ULLREY AVE

ESCALON AVE

IRWIN AVE

CALIFORNIA ST
YOSEMITE AVE (SR 120)

CLOUGH RD

MISSION ST

STANISLAUS ST

M TI CHELL AVE

JUSTIN DR

NONI AVE

SOPHIE LN

ULLREY AVE

MCHENRY AVE

SANCHEZ WY

JAMES ST

MILLER AVE

R EI SLING WY
JACKSON AVE (SR 120)

EDMART ST

BRENNAN AVE

WALNUT AVE

ARTHUR RD

COUNTRYWOOD LN

PARK AVE

EL ZI ABETH AVE

BRAYTON AVE

DAV DI DR

JILL AVE

LA MESA ST

JONES AVE

ST CLAIR ST

OKLAHOMA AVE

DEBORAH CT

R EI SL NI G WY

FISK AVE

AUTUMN LN

SPRING DR

ROSINA ST

CATHERINE WY

SULTANA WY

CAR GI NANE WY

KERN ST

DANIELLE ST

CAMPBELL AVE
JUDITH
WY

DENT ST

NARCISSUS WY

JESSICA CIR
THIRD
ST

WEISS WY
MAIN ST (SR 120)

REILE AVE

DEBORAH CIR
FOURTH
ST

ROOSEVELT AVE

CARDINAL DR

S EI RRA DR

ZINFANDEL DR

PLAZA AVE

CHIANTI CT

NORTH ST

BONDS CT

THADDEOUS DR

ADRIANA WY

MATTHEW LN

JERRY AVE

LYDIA ST

MICHELLE
WY

BURGUNDY DR

FARINELLI PKWY NORTH

FARINELLI PKWY SOUTH

JORDANOLO ST

BAKER AVE

CAROLYN AVE

BROOK ST

DAN EI LS AVE

SAN MIGUEL ST

NORTHWOOD ST

LIBBY DR

TOKAY AVE

VALDEPENA WY

DIAS ST

OAKWOOD DR

FRANKLIN ST
CALIFORNIA ST (SR 120)

BLIXT ST

COUGAR WY

VIKING ST

SAN JOAQUIN ST
FIR CT

JENN FI ER DR

THOMPSON WY

SACRAMENTO ST

CHARDONNAY CT

CARIGNANE WY

TAMARA CT

JONATHON DR

CRESTWOOD DR

CROCE DR

ARROYA ST

EDGEWOOD AVE

VERNON DR

BRIARWOOD AVE

RIBIER DR

FIFTH ST

ASHWOOD DR

CHABLIS DR

HARVEST LN

CHALANE ST

VALDEPENA CT

TIFFANY CT

MOSSWOOD AVE

TRACEY LN

PIONEER ST
ELM ST

BARBERA CT

WESTBROOK LN

GWENDOLYN ST

EDGETOWN ST

LILLIAN AVE

CHENIN BLANC AVE

MUSCAT CT

AUTUMNWOOD CT

GENEVIEVE DR

GLENWOOD CT

LANITA CT

ALBERTO LN

NATHANIEL DR

SILVERWOOD ST

JONATHON CT

FALLBROOK CT

CENTER ST

PALOMINO CT

CABERNET CT

COLOMBARD CT

MATTHEW CT

LYDIA CT

ST JOHN AVE

WINTERBROOK ST

ALICANTE CT

THOMPSON CT
SELMA
CT

ALLISON CT
JUDITH
CT

MISSION
CT
ARLENE
CT

CEL VI O

WY EMPEROR CT

CONCORD CT

SANTA FE AVE
BYRAN
AVE

YOSEMITE AVE

NATHANIEL DR

CAMPBELL AVE

MISSION ST

JOHN ST

CALIFORNIA ST

COUNTRYWOOD LN

DAN EI LS AVE

CALIFORNIA ST

PIONEER ST

CHELESTINA LN

PROSPECT ST

GRENACHE

IRWIN AVE
WY

STANISLAUS ST

YOSEMITE AVE

YOSEMITE AVE

COLEY AVE

COLEY AVE

AUTUMN LN

ARROYA ST

VINE AVE

MAIN ST

MAIN ST

MAIN ST
YOSEMITE AVE (SR 120)

JACKSON AVE
(SR 120) JUDITH WY

DEBORAH CIR

COUNTRYWOOD LN

SOPHIE LN

SWANSON DR

MCHENRY AVE

MCHENRY AVE

MCHENRY AVE
O

JAMES ST

KLAHOMA AVE

RI WIN AVE

RHINE CT

SANCHEZ WY

FIRST ST FIRST ST

CALIFORNIA ST

WALNUT AVE

NATHANIEL CT THADDEOUS CT

ESCALON AVE ESCALON AVE

FIRST ST
SECOND
ST

FIRST ST

MEL SI SA WY MELISSA CT
GIN
C
A
T

CALIFORNIA ST

JONES AVE

CATHERINE WY
1483

CITY OF ESCALON
³
Legend
City Boundry
Parcels
Zoning
C2
CM
M1
M2
OS
PD
PF
R1
R2
R3
City of Escalon
Community Development Department
1/2017
ZONING
4 2
1 3

MURPHY RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
CITY OF ESCALON | CA
SEPTEMBER 2025

2 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Prepared For:

NRB Investments, LLC
1701 W. AugustLane, Suite D
Stockton, CA 95207
209-473-1106
Contact:

John Pronoitis
209-595-1703
[email protected]
Prepared By:

WHA, Inc
680 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949-250-0607
Contact:

Julia Malisos
949-622-8772
[email protected]

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION

1. 1 OVERVIEW.............................................................................................5

1. 2 PURPOSE ...............................................................................................6

1. 3 AUTHORITY ..........................................................................................6

1. 4 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY..........................................6

1. 5 CEQA COMPLIANCE...................................................................... 7

1. 6 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.......................................................... 7 CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS

2. 1 PROJECT LOCATION......................................................................9

2. 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS.............................................................11

2. 3 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN.....................................................17

2. 4 EXISTING ZONING .......................................................................18

2. 5 FARMLAND.........................................................................................19

2. 6 EXISTING UTILITIES ....................................................................20 CHAPTER 3 — THE SPECIFIC PLAN

3. 1 LAND USE...........................................................................................23

3. 2 PROPOSED ZONING .................................................................24

3. 3 CIRCULATION..................................................................................26

3. 4 INFRASTRUCTURE.......................................................................28 CHAPTER 4 — DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

4. 1 PERMITTED USE............................................................................33

4. 2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS .............................................34

4. 3 PROJECTIONS (EMC SECTION 17.41.120).....................35

4. 4 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS .......................................36 CHAPTER 5 — DESIGN GUIDELINES

5. 1 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES......................................................37

5. 2 LANDSCAPE .....................................................................................42

5. 3 MONUMENTS, WALLS, AND FENCES...........................47 CHAPTER 6 — IMPLEMENTATION

6. 1 METHODS AND INTERPRETATION ................................49

6. 2 APPLICABILITY ...............................................................................50

6. 3 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ............................................50

6. 4 ANNEXATION & PRE-ZONE ..................................................50

6. 5 MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS.........................50

6. 6 APPROVAL PROCESS.................................................................51

6. 7 APPEAL PROCESS .......................................................................52

CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION
4 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
Page Intentionally Left Blank

CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION
Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 5

1. 1 OVERVIEW
Nestled in San Joaquin Valley and north of Stanislaus River, City of Escalon is a tranquil town that brings agricultural heritage, natural open space, and close-knit community
together. With its picturesque farmlands, quaint downtown area, safe neighborhood, and strong sense of community, It embodies the spirit of small-town living.

The Murphy Ranch Specific Plan is a 18-acre site located in an unincorporated area west of City of Escalon. It is bounded on three sides by the city’s jurisdictional boundary. The land will be designated as Low Density Residential with a density range of 2-10 du/ac. The Specific Plan will include 72 conventional single-family detached homes ranging in size from 1,562 square feet to 3,068 square feet. The site also includes a 1.10 acre open space, adjacent to Shadowood Park, used as a stormwater retention basin.

Chapter 1 —

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION
6 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA

1. 2 PURPOSE
The Murphy Ranch Specific Plan provides the City of Escalon with a planning document to direct the orderly development of the Specific Plan Area. It provides a comprehensive
description of land use, circulation, infrastructure, design guidelines, development standards and implementation
processes to guide future development of this area, ensuring that it is developed in a manner consistent with the goals, objectives, principles, and policies of the City’s General Plan.

Upon approval, the Specific Plan and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) will provide the necessary regulations and environmental documentation so that subsequent
development applications may be processed and approved
by the City as a coordinated planning document, subject to City ordinances and any other regulations or policies that may be applicable.

This document serves as a direct link between the policies of the Escalon General Plan and the Murphy Ranch project proposal, and assures that future development will remain consistent with the General Plan.

1. 3 AUTHORITY
California state law authorizes a local government to prepare a Specific Plan to implement its General Plan.

According to State law, a Specific Plan includes detailed text and diagrams that specify all of the following:
• Existing and proposed land uses;
• The location of transportation, infrastructure (such as sewage, water, drainage) and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area;
• Standards and criteria by which development will
proceed;
• Programs and financing measures necessary to
implement the new development.

Once the Plan is adopted, all development shall be governed by the Specific Plan. Where the regulations of a Specific Plan are silent or not specifically referenced, the comparable regulations of the Escalon Zoning Ordinance shall apply, unless otherwise declared by the Planning Commission.

1. 4 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Per California State law (Section 65450- 65457), Specific Plans must be internally consistent with the jurisdiction’s General Plan. Specific Plans must demonstrate consistency in regulations, guidelines and programs with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan.

The Murphy Ranch Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and planning principles identified in the General Plan, most specifically, in the Land Use Element, Housing Element, Noise Element, and Community Design Element.

The Murphy Ranch Specific Plan will be concurrently adopted as an amendment to the City of Escalon’s General Plan and establishes goals, planning principles and a land use plan through the General Plan Amendment approval and the MND process.

CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION
Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 7

1. 5 CEQA COMPLIANCE
An MND was prepared and certified by the City of Escalon for this Specific Plan in accordance with CEQA that addressed potential impacts associated with development under the Specific Plan.

All subsequent approvals to develop the property must be consistent with the Specific Plan and associated environmental documents.

1. 6 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
• Enhance and maintain the suburban/rural identity of
the community.
• Provide high quality housing that includes a variety of floor plans and architectural styles creating a traditional neighborhood with an interesting street scene.
• Establish development regulations to ensure that
this residential neighborhood is compatible with the
surrounding area.

8 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS
Page Intentionally Left Blank

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 9
CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS
Chapter 2 —

EXISTING CONDITIONS

2. 1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Murphy Ranch Specific Plan is located in the unincorporated area of the City of Escalon, a city of approximately 7,600 residents rested in the southeast corner of the San Joaquin Valley and just north of the City of Modesto (Refer to Figure 1).

As shown inFigure 2,the site is bordered by California State Route 120 (Yosemite Avenue) and the Union Pacific railway to the north, Edgewood Drive to the east, California Avenue to the south and Brennan Avenue to the west. The major access to the site is via SR -120 (Yosemite Avenue) and Brennan Avenue.

10 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS
Figure 1. Regional Context
San Joaquin
County Boundary
Escalon
Stockton
Lodi
Modesto
Manteca
Tracy
SITE

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 11
CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS

2. 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Specific Plan Area encompasses 2 parcels (APN 22504280 and APN 22504290) with a total of approximately 18.0 acres (Refer to Figure 3). The site consists mainly of Prime Farmland with a small amount of Farmland of Local Importance, and is currently used for grazing. The site is surrounded by a railroad and State Route 120 on the north side, existing residential housing to the east and south, and agricultural uses to the west across Brennan Road. The location of the site makes any intensive farming impractical. There are two existing homes Figure 2. Surrounding Context
located at the southwest corner of the site. The remainder of the site is currently used for grazing and agriculture.

North of the site is Highway 120 (Yosemite Avenue), railroad tracks, agricultural farmland and row crops. East of the site is an existing single-family residential subdivision featuring standard sized lots and community park space. South of
the site is California Avenue and single-family residential subdivisions which have recently been constructed. West of the site are several orchards and a few rural home sites (Refer to Figure 2 and the site photos on the following pages).

FARMLAND

RAILROAD

FARMLAND

FARMLAND /

ORCHARDS SINGLE FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL
SITE
City Boundary

12 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 13
CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS

14 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 15
CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS

16 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS
Figure 3. Parcel Map
Shadowood
Park
APN #: 22504280

1.86 ACRE APN #: 22504290

16.11 ACRE
City Boundary

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 17
CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS

2. 3 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
Although the site is located in unincorporated land outside of the City’s limit, it has been included in the City of Escalon General Plan (adopted in 2006) as a proposed growth area for future expansion.

The General Plan identifies this area as Low Density Residential with up to 21 persons/acre or 2 to 10 dwelling units net acre.

The Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan on the land use and density. Figure 4 illustrates the General Plan Land Use Designations.

Figure 4. City of Escalon General Plan (2006)
General Plan Land Use
Low Density Residential
Commercial
Light Industrial
Open Space / Park
Project Boundary
City Limit

18 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS

2. 4 EXISTING ZONING
The current zone designation is Agriculture-Urban Reserve (AU-20) shown on the San Joaquin County Zoning Map. This zone is intended to remain for agriculture, but planned for future urban development in order to facilitate compact, orderly growth, and to assure the proper timing and economical provision of services and utilities. The minimum parcel size within the AU zone is 20 acres. Refer to Figure 5 which illustrates the 2010 San Joaquin County Zoning Designation.

Upon the approval of the Specific Plan, the site will change to a Planned Development (PD) zone under the City of Escalon. The approval of the Specific Plan will also be required for the annexation process in the future.

Figure 5. San Joaquin County Zoning (2010)
Zoning
Au-20 (Agriculture-Urban Reserve)
City Limit
Ag-40 (General Agriculture)
Project Boundary

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 19
CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS

2. 5 FARMLAND
The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (DOC FMMP) uses eight classifications to identify the importance of the state farmland based on the location, soil quality, water supply, and productions. The top four which are Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance are regarded as “Important Farmland.“
The site consists mainly of Prime Farmland with a small amount of Farmland of Local Importance. Given the geolocation of the site and that it is already within the City’s SOI, this farmland will be converted to urban. Refer to Figure 5.

Figure 6. Important Farmland (2018)
R
F
State Important Farmland
Prime Farmland
Statewide Importance
Local Importance
Urban

20 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS

2. 6 EXISTING UTILITIES
The irrigation district of the site is South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID). The fire district is Escalon Fire District. The school District is Escalon Unified.

A water and sewer impact report was prepared for the project to determine demand on existing City services. The results of the report indicate adequate supply of water and sewer capacity to serve the proposed Plan.

Domestic Water
A 10” water main line exists in California Street, directly south of the project site; a 16” water main line exists in Brennan Avenue, directly east of the project site; and a 12” water main line exists in First Street south of California Street. These water lines will remain in place and provide connections for new water lines to serve the project site.

Sanitary Sewer
Existing sanitary sewer lines run north and south from the project site via Celivo Way and Riesling Way. These lines are 8” and run directly to the existing sanitary sewer lift station located in First Street, halfway between Walnut Avenue and Carignane Way. These lines will remain in place and provide connections for new sanitary sewer lines to serve the project.

Storm Water Drainage
A storm drain basin that was constructed for the Farinelli Ranch project exists at the intersection of California Street and Edgewood Avenue just southeast of the project site with the development of the Farinelli Ranch project an 18” storm drain line stub in Riesling Way will be utilized as part of Murphy Ranch storm drain system. This basin measures approximately

3.26 acres and was designed to handle a 10 year storm event.

Murphy Ranch will be expanding the existing basin capacity to accommodate the 10-year storm drain event for Murphy Ranch .

Refer to Figure 8 for existing wet utilities.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 21
CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS
Figure 7. Existing Irrigation

CALIFORNIA STREET
YOSEMITE AVENUE / HWY 120
B
R
ENN
A
N
A
V
E
NUE

PROJECT AREA

EXISTING IRRIGATION

EXISTING

DETENTION STORM

DRAIN BASIN

22 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS
Figure 8. Existing Wet Utilities

CALIFORNIA STREET
YOSEMITE AVENUE / HWY 120
B
R
ENN
A
N
A
V
E
NUE

PROJECT AREA

EXISTING WET UTILITIES

EXISTING

DETENTION STORM

DRAIN BASIN

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 23
CHAPTER 3 — THE SPECIFIC PLAN
Chapter 3 —

THE SPECIFIC PLAN

3. 1 LAND USE
The Murphy Ranch Specific Plan aims to maintain its small town atmosphere and create a unique and attractive community identity. The plan consists of 72 detached single family homes with a diverse mix of architectural styles on lots averaging approximately 7,200 square feet. A 1.10 acre park/basin will be preserved at the south east corner. The project will meet the City’s affordable housing requirement per Escalon Municipal Code, Chapter 17.50 Affordable Housing.

The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 10.

24 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 2 — EXISTING CONDITIONS
Figure 9. Proposed Zoning
Zoning
(PD) Planned Development
City Limit
AG-40 (General Agriculture)
Project Boundary

3. 2 PROPOSED ZONING
Upon approval of a pre-zone request, the parcel will be zoned PD, Planned Development. The approval of the Specific Plan will also be required for the annexation process in the future. The single-family residential land use is allowed by right in the low density residential and Planned Development land uses.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 25
CHAPTER 3 — THE SPECIFIC PLAN
Figure 10. Proposed Site Plan

26 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 3 — THE SPECIFIC PLAN

CALIFORNIA STREET
YOSEMITE AVENUE / HWY 120
B
R
ENN
A
N
A
V
E
NUE

CIRCULATION DIAGRAM

EXISTING

PARK/BASIN

PARK/BASIN

EXPANSION

3. 3 CIRCULATION
The site will be accessed from the south using two existing streets Celivo Way and Riesling Way. The proposed circulation inside the project consist of two loop roads. The loop roads have a 50-foot right-of-way with 36 feet curb-to-curb that includes onstreet parkings on both sides, except for the section along the railroad where parking will be provided only on the residential side. 5’ Sidewalks, separated from the curb by a 4’ landscape, will be located within a 2’ street easement on both side of the street.

The project will also include improvement of Brennan Avenue on the project side. The improvement includes a 11-foot frontage road separated by a future 6-foot landscape island and a 8-foot trail inside a 22-foot parkway. The proposed circulation and street sections are shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12.

Figure 11. Proposed Circulation Plan

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 27
CHAPTER 3 — THE SPECIFIC PLAN

LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET

BRENNAN AVENUE

ENTRY RESIDENTIAL STREET

SECTION D

SECTION A SECTION B

PARKWAY RESIDENTIAL STREET

SECTION C

LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET

BRENNAN AVENUE

ENTRY RESIDENTIAL STREET

SECTION D

SECTION A SECTION B

PARKWAY RESIDENTIAL STREET

SECTION C

LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET

BRENNAN AVENUE

ENTRY RESIDENTIAL STREET

SECTION D

SECTION A SECTION B

PARKWAY RESIDENTIAL STREET

SECTION C

LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET

BRENNAN AVENUE

ENTRY RESIDENTIAL STREET

SECTION D

SECTION A SECTION B

PARKWAY RESIDENTIAL STREET

SECTION C
Figure 12. Proposed Street Sections

28 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 3 — THE SPECIFIC PLAN

3. 4 INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure and public utilities are essential to the successful development of Murphy Ranch. Utility providers and local agencies will supply clean water, sanitary sewer service, storm drainage, public safety, and solid waste collection. All required infrastructure and utility connections will be in place to meet the project’s anticipated demand.

The City of Escalon MSR and Sphere of Influence water and sewer impact reports confirm that there is sufficient water and sewer capacity to support the proposed development.

These reports were approved and adopted on March 9, 2023 (Resolution 23-1514 and 23-1515).

3.4.1 Water
The project is located within boundary of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) and within the sphere of influence of the City of Escalon. The Specific Plan area is currently undeveloped land used for agriculture. SSJID currently does not provide domestic water service to the Specific Plan area.

However, domestic water lines exist on adjacent streets. A 10” water main line exists in California Street, directly south of the project site; a 16” water main line exists in Brennan Avenue, directly east of the project site; and a 12” water main line exists in First Street south of California Street.

An 8-inch water line is planned for the future streets, except along the extension of Reisling Way, where a 10-inch main will be installed. The existing water lines will remain in place and provide connections for new water lines to serve the project site. The existing 16” water line in Brennan Avenue will be extended northward to the end of the project frontage. Refer to Figure 13 for the proposed water line layout.

3.4.2 Sewer
Existing sanitary sewer lines run north and south from the project site via Celivo Way and Riesling Way. These lines are 8” and run directly to the existing sanitary sewer lift station located in First Street, halfway between Walnut Avenue and Carignane Way. These lines will remain in place and provide connections for new sanitary sewer lines to serve the project.

Because the area is undeveloped and used for agricultural purposes, there are currently no sewers located in the Specific Plan area. The area is shown to be part of the City of Escalon Sewer System. A 4” sewer force main will be installed as a dryline for future use by the City along the project frontage on Brennan Avenue. Refer to Figure 13 for the proposed sewer line layout.

3.4.3 Stormwater
A 12” storm drain line with a terminal catch basin at the designed low point shall be installed in Brennan Avenue.

Project proposed streets will connect to the existing
storm drain stubs at Riesling Way and Celivo Way and
utilize the existing outfall structure that will be modified to accommodate a French drain system to minimize nuisance
water accumulation in the basin.

An existing storm drain basin, constructed as part of the Farinelli Ranch project, is located at the intersection of California Street and Edgewood Avenue, just southeast of the project site. This basin encompasses approximately 3.26 acres and was originally designed to accommodate a 10-year storm event. Murphy Ranch will expand this basin to meet additional capacity needs. Refer to Figure 15 for the proposed drainage layout.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 29
CHAPTER 3 — THE SPECIFIC PLAN

CALIFORNIA STREET
YOSEMITE AVENUE / HWY 120
B
R
ENN
A
N
A
V
E
NUE

WATER SYSTEM

EXISTING

PARK/BASIN

PARK/BASIN

POINT OF CONNECTION
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W

STUB FOR FUTURE
Figure 13. Proposed Domestic Water System

30 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 3 — THE SPECIFIC PLAN

CALIFORNIA STREET
YOSEMITE AVENUE / HWY 120
B
R
ENN
A
N
A
V
E
NUE

WASTEWATER SYSTEM

EXISTING

PARK/BASIN

PARK/BASIN

POINT OF CONNECTION
S S
S
S
S S S
S
S
S
S

STUB FOR FUTURE

STUB FOR FUTURE
Figure 14. Proposed Sewer System

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 31
CHAPTER 3 — THE SPECIFIC PLAN

CALIFORNIA STREET
YOSEMITE AVENUE / HWY 120
B
R
ENN
A
N
A
V
E
NUE

STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM

EXISTING

PARK/BASIN

PARK/BASIN

EXPANSION
SD
Figure 15. Proposed Storm Drainage System

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 33
CHAPTER 4 — DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Chapter 4 —

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

4. 1 PERMITTED USE
The Specific Plan will be using the standards under R-1 Low Density Residential in the Escalon Zoning standards.

34 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 4 — DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Table 1. Permitted Use
Uses C – Requires approval of a
conditional use permit
P – Permitted (other
planning approvals may
be required)
T – Temporary use land
permit required
N – Entry in a column
means that the listed use
is not permitted
Accessory buildings and uses P
Home occupation/business/
office
P
Accessory dwelling unit P
Single-family dwelling P
Two-family dwelling on corner
lot where entrances front on
opposite streets
P
Model home centers C
Garage sales P
Employee housing P
Park, playground P
Residential care facility, small P
Temporary structures for use
during construction
P

4. 2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Any development in the Specific Plan Area should follow the regulations in Escalon Municipal Code Section 17.14.040.

A. Minimum Lot Area: 6,000 square feet for an interior lot and 7,000 for a corner lot, except as provided for in EMC 17.12.060.

B. Density Standard: Minimum of two/maximum of six dwelling units per net acre. In a PD, seven to 10 units.

C. Maximum Building Lot Coverage: 65 percent.

D. Minimum Lot Width: 60 feet.

E. Minimum Lot Frontage:

Interior lot: 60 feet.

Corner lot: 70 feet.

Cul-de-sac lot: 30 feet.

F. Minimum Lot Depth: 90 feet.

G. Maximum Height: Two stories, but not exceeding 35 feet.

H. Minimum Setbacks:

Front: 15 feet when a front porch is provided; 20 feet when no porch is provided, and the minimum depth of a front
porch shall be six feet and a minimum of 60 square feet.

When the garage door is facing the street, the garage shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line, and a minimum of five feet back from the closest
front wall of the structure to the front property line, or as otherwise approved by the approving authority.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 35
CHAPTER 4 — DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Side: Five feet. A corner lot shall have a side yard abutting a street of not less than 10 feet. If the side yard not abutting a street is to be used for driveway purposes, the minimum width shall be 12 feet.

Rear: 20 feet. .

I. Minimum Floor Area:
• Studio units: 450 square feet.
• One-bedroom units: 650 square feet.
• Two-bedroom units: 800 square feet.
• Three-bedroom units: 900 square feet.
• Four-bedroom units: 1,000 square feet.

4. 3 PROJECTIONS (EMC SECTION 17.41.120)
A. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, required yards are to be unobstructed by any building structure or other improvement constructed on, over, or under the ground. No part of a yard required by this title shall be included as part of a yard required for any other lot.

B. Cornices, eaves, sills, canopies, bay windows, chimneys or other similar architectural features may extend or project into a required side yard not more than 24 inches and may extend or project into a required front or rear yard not more than 30 inches.

C. Uncovered porches or stairways, fire escapes or landing places may extend into any required front or rear yard a distance not exceeding six feet and into any required side yard a distance not exceeding one-half the width of the required side yard
D. Decks and patios structurally supported entirely by earth at no higher than finished grade, then natural grade, may extend into a side or rear yard to within one foot of any property line.

E. Open, unenclosed balconies, not covered by a roof or canopy may project into a front or rear yard up to six feet.

F. If building permits are not required, small storage/utility buildings 120 square feet or less in floor area and less than nine feet in total height may be allowed in the required rear and side yard setbacks.

G. Trellises, arbors and gazebos shall be allowed in rear and side yards if more than three feet away from any property line.

Swimming pools and spas must be a minimum of three feet to water’s edge from the property line.

H. Private driveways that do not provide necessary access to any other lot shall be permitted within setbacks.

I. Ramps for access by handicapped persons from grade
to a raised ground floor structural entry shall be allowed in setbacks.

J. Mechanical equipment such as air condition compressors or equipment, swimming pool pumps and filters, and similar items shall not be located in any required front or side yard.

36 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 4 — DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

4. 4 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
The Site allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) in compliance with
California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22.

The regulations shall follow the State requirement and Escalon Municipal Code Section 17.41.140.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 37
CHAPTER 5 — DESIGN GUIDELINES
Chapter 5 —

DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following design guidelines are intended to assist the project designers in understanding the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan. The guidelines will be utilized during the City’s design review process to encourage the highest level of design quality while at the same time providing the flexibility necessary to encourage creativity on the part of project designers.

5. 1 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES
The building design, materials, colors, and textures establish its theme and character. Architecture shall be compatible with the adjacent residential and maintain cohesive neighborhood identity.

38 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 5 — DESIGN GUIDELINES
Starting with the authentic and transforming to a progressive version of the base style is acceptable. Traditional styles tend to have defining features that should be consistently implemented across the product offering. Moving to a
more contemporary version of traditional styles should still embrace defining features so that the style is recognizable but understood to be a contemporary interpretation.

Key provisions of the architectural styles include:

1. Ensure scale, massing, fenestration, materials, and colors are consistent with the building’s architectural style and compatible with the overall design in the Specific Plan area.

2. Avoid blank walls by providing articulation on building elevations visible from a public right-of-way through
elements such as cornices, parapets, expression lines, and changes in materials and/or colors.

3. Provide the greatest level of articulation on the front facades that are visible from the public rights-of-way and at the main entrances.

4. Corner lot homes shall feature extended front elevation designs that wrap around the side façade, continuing
along any portion visible from public view.

5. Two-story homes backing onto Brennan Avenue shall
incorporate enhanced rear elevation treatments to improve visual appeal from the public right-of-way.

6. Design entry features as a significant aspect of a
building’s overall composition through massing, detailing, architectural treatments, and/or special materials and
colors.

7. Employ recessed or covered building entrances to provide shade and visual relief.

8. Employ a minimum of three different colors, materials, and/or textures on each building.

9. Avoid terminating a change in material or color at a building edge; instead, select a logical termination point in relation to the architectural features or massing.

10. Paint exposed downspouts, service doors, and mechanical screens the same color as the adjacent wall.

ORANGE COUNTY . LOS ANG
MURPHY RANCH A1.3

ESCALON, CA
0 4 8 16
DESIGN SUBMITTAL © 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2023310 | 08-11-25 Note: Floorplans and elevations are conceptual and subject to updates per code & market

PLAN A ENHANCED RIGHT ELEVATIONS
B | Ranch C | Boutique
A | Vineyard
Architectural Detail Area. Furred Wall & Horizontal Siding Visible from street on corner lot conditions.

Architectural Detail Area. Furred Wall.

Visible from street on corner lot conditions.

Architectural Detail Area. Vertical Siding Visible from street on corner lot conditions.

MURPHY RANCH

ESCALON, CA
Note: Floorplans and elevations are conceptual and subject to updates per code & market
PLAN 2X ENHANCED LEFT ELEV
B | Ranch
A | Vineyard
Architectural Detail Area. Furred Wall & Horizontal Sidin Visible from street on corner lot conditions.

P4 A | Vineyard
Architectural Detail Area. Vertical Siding
Visible on lots backing to Brennan Ave.

MURPHY RANCH

ESCALONCA
Note: Floorplans and elevations are conceptual and subject to updates PLAN 3X ENHANCED REAR ELEVATIONS
B | Ranch C | Boutique
A | Vineyard
Architectural Detail Area. Furred Wall & Horizontal Siding.

Visible on lots backing to Brennan Ave.

Architectural Detail Area. Furred Wall & Vertical Siding.

Visible on lots backing to Brennan Ave.

Enhanced rear elevations with sideing, furred
wall or trim on lots backing onto Brennan.

Wraparound elevations on corner lots are visible
from the street.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 39
CHAPTER 5 — DESIGN GUIDELINES
Boutique
The Boutique style is bold and elegant. It’s contemporary but with a warmth and richness of form and material, as opposed to other modern interpretations. The use of wall veneers and hip roofs give a progressive feel to traditional homes.

Inspired by warmly lit architecture, the Boutique style utilizes asymmetrical compositions of multiple finishes in a balanced presentation of horizontal and vertical.

Table 2. Boutique Menu of Common Features
Element Feature
Roof Low roof pitch (hips are typical)
3:12 to 5:12 roof pitch
Flat concrete tiles
Walls Stucco
Horizontal siding, brick, or stone accents
Windows Vertically proportioned or horizontal windows
Grouped windows with belt course
Details Horizontal banding or belt course
Accent material
Simple stucco columns at entry
Trim elements emphasizing the horizontal
Doors Paneled front doors (glass panels permitted)
Horizontally paneled garage door (windows
optional; solid panels permitted)

40 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 5 — DESIGN GUIDELINES
Ranch
The Ranch House was the primary focus of the large ranches developed by the early Californians in the late 1800s when cattle raising was the principal occupation. In the mid1930s Designer, Cliff May, began adapting the ranch house design and layout to fit the needs of family living. Design considerations maintained much of the authentic character of the early “ranchos,” but started using contemporary materials.

Additionally, Ranch homes typically show an asymmetric form and prominent single-story elements.

Table 3. Ranch Menu of Common Features
Element Feature
Roof Hip and gable roofs
4:12 to 5:12 roof pitch
Dormers
Flat concrete tiles or tiles with shingled
appearance
Walls Stucco
Horizontal siding, brick, or stone accents
Windows Vertically proportioned
With or without divided lites
Details Gable end details
Accent material
Simple stucco columns at entry
Trim elements emphasizing the horizontal
Doors Paneled front doors (glass panels permitted)
Doors with side lites
‘Ranch’ garage door (windows optional; solid
panels permitted)

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 41
CHAPTER 5 — DESIGN GUIDELINES
Vineyard
The Vineyard style captures the spirit of the California agrarian living. Homes reflect an airy connection to the outdoors with simple forms and vertical windows. The style uses a play of materials from light to earthy stone colors and a mix of old traditional and new progressive materials. The style is based on familiar farm house shapes that suggest the home grew with a vineyard. Gable and cross gable roof forms are accented by shed dormers. Use of materials connect the style to the agricultural past with stucco, stone and siding materials and metal roof accents.

Table 4. Vineyard Menu of Common Features
Element Feature
Roof Steep roof pitch (gable is typical)
4:12 to 6:12 roof pitch
Front facing gables, dormers
Flat concrete tiles or tiles with shingled
appearance
Metal roof accents
Walls Stucco
Board and batt, horizontal siding, brick, or
stone accents
Windows Vertically proportioned
Details Material accents
Trimmed windows
Simple posts if porch is applied
Doors Paneled front doors (glass panels permitted)
Paneled or planked garage door (windows
optional; solid panels permitted)

42 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 5 — DESIGN GUIDELINES

5. 2 LANDSCAPE
Landscape design plays a vital role in shaping the visual character and enhancing the overall livability of the
neighborhood. This section outlines guidelines for streetscape, park/basin, and front yards, ensuring consistency, sustainability, and community identity throughout the Specific Plan.

Figure 16. Conceptual Landscape Plan, Figure 17. Conceptual Park Plan, and Figure 18. Conceptual Streetscape Plan illustrate the landscape design concept envisioned in the Specific Plan. Figure 19 highlights preliminary concepts for front yard landscaping and layout.

Streetscape
• Use climate-appropriate, drought-tolerant plants to
reduce maintenance and water use.
• Avoid obstructing sightlines at intersections, driveways, and pedestrian crossings.
• Plant material and streetscape design shall comply with city’s standards.
• Incorporate sustainable features into streetscape
design, such as mulchand groundcover, efficient
irrigation system.
• Ensure consistency in plant species and lighting
fixtures.
• Ensure continuity and harmony in landscaping.

Basin/Park
• Ensure the basin meets local stormwater detention
requirements.
• Maintain gentle slopes to ensure safety and
accessibility.
• Incorporate shade trees along pathways and gathering
areas.
• Select materials and plantings that require minimal
maintenance and resist vandalism.

Front Yard
• All front yards and yards abutting streets must be
landscaped.
• Landscaping must be continuous except for driveways
and pedestrian access.
• Avoid large expanses of turf; encourage native,
drought-tolerant plantings and permeable surfaces.
• Use layered planting to add depth and visual interest. • Install low-level, downward-facing lighting to illuminate pathways and entryways without creating glare.
• Avoid tall, opaque barriers that isolate the home from the street.
• Use sustainable irrigation methods like smart systems or drip lines to conserve water.
• Harmonized with building’s facade and neighborhood
context.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 43
CHAPTER 6 — IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 16. Conceptual Landscape Plan

44 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 6 — IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 17. Conceptual Park Plan

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 45
CHAPTER 6 — IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 18. Conceptual Street Streetscape Plan

46 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 6 — IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 19. Front Yard Design Concepts
10 3
odellengineering.com
of
1165 Scenic Drive, Suite A
Modesto, CA 95350
10 4
odellengineering.com
of
1165 Scenic Drive, Suite A
Modesto, CA 95350
10 6
odellengineering.com
of
1165 Scenic Drive, Suite A
Modesto, CA 95350

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 47
CHAPTER 6 — IMPLEMENTATION

5. 3 MONUMENTS, WALLS, AND FENCES
Monuments, walls, and fences serve not only functional
purposes but also play a vital role in establishing a sense of place. Entry features can be simple and attractive, but should reflect the overall identity of the neighborhood. Project icons, thematic pilasters, and specialty landscaping can be incorporated to create strong entry statements that reinforce neighborhood character.
• Use trees, shrubs, or vines to soften the visual impact of walls and fencing.
• Entry features should be located at primary
neighborhood entry points, and may include
monuments, groupings of trees, or pilaste and wall
details.
• Monuments and signage, if proposed, should be
consistent with and reflect the overall character of the neighborhood.
• All walls and fences must adhere to Escalon Municipal Code Section 17.41.030 – Fences, Hedges, and Walls.
• Solid barriers (walls, fences, hedges) exceeding three feet in height are prohibited within the front setback
area.
• Perimeter fencing shall be considered a part of the
overall development and allows for ingress and egress
from the development.
• Wall and fencing shall not block access to fire hydrants or water connections used by emergency services.
• Acceptable wall materials include CMU block, wood,
simulated wood, vinyl (for good neighbor fencing),
tubular steel, wrought-iron, brick.
• Prohibited materials are chain link, corrugated metal, and barb-wire.

See Figure 20, Conceptual Wall Plan for proposed wall types and locations.
odellengineering.com
1165 Scenic Drive, Suite A
Modesto, CA 95350
1 DECORATIVE FENCING
2 LOT FENCING
10 2
of
odellengineering.com
1165 Scenic Drive, Suite A
Modesto, CA 95350
1 DECORATIVE FENCING
2 LOT FENCING
10 2
of

48 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 6 — IMPLEMENTATION
3 2
4 4
1 Figure 20. Conceptual Wall Plan

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 49
CHAPTER 6 — IMPLEMENTATION
Chapter 6 —

IMPLEMENTATION

6. 1 METHODS AND INTERPRETATION
The California Government Code (Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 et seq.) grants authority to cities to adopt Specific Plans for purposes of implementing the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an outline of the steps necessary to implement the Murphy Ranch Specific Plan.

Following the approval by the City of Escalon, the Murphy Ranch Specific Plan will serve as the implementation tool for the City’s General Plan as well as the zoning for the Specific Plan area. Concurrently with the adoption of the Specific Plan, the City Planning Commission will also approve tentative tract

50 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 6 — IMPLEMENTATION
maps establishing legal residential lots within the Murphy Ranch Specific Plan area.

Development within the Specific Plan area shall be
implemented through the approval by the City of final tract maps and through a Development Plan Review process as
established in the City’s Municipal Code. The implementation process described below provides the mechanisms for review and approval of development projects within the Murphy
Ranch Specific Plan area.

6. 2 APPLICABILITY
All development within the Specific Plan shall comply with the requirements and standards established in this Specific Plan and will be subject to the implementation procedures established herein. Wherever a conflict exist between this Specific Plan and the City’s Municipal Code, the provisions of the Murphy Ranch Specific Plan shall take precedence.

Where the Specific Plan is silent, the Zoning Code regulations and all adopted ordinances of the City shall apply, as deemed appropriate by the Director of the Planning Department.

6. 3 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning
Commission, may grant annexation into the City if the Council finds that granting of such annexation will not adversely affect properties in the vicinity and will not be contrary to the public interest, and that the proposal land use and overall development plan is consistent with the approved Specific Plan and development agreement.

6. 4 ANNEXATION & PRE-ZONE
City of Escalon requires that any project site over 5 acres shall gain approval of a Specific Plan prior to annexation to the City.

As a condition of approval, the applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the city.

Unincorporated lands for the Specific Plan will require the approval of an annexation application through the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). All of Murphy
Ranch is currently outside the corporate limits of the City and will require adjustment of the city limit line.

6. 5 MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS
The Murphy Ranch Specific Plan is intended to be flexible in order to respond to changing conditions and expectations during the course of its implementation. To address this intent, the Specifc Plan provides for both Minor and Major Specific Plan Amendments. The City Planner may authorize a Minor Specific Plan Amendment administratively.

A Major Specific Plan Amendment shall be reviewed by
the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council.

The City Planner shall determine whether a proposed
Specific Plan Amendment is minor or major. Any proposed amendment may, at the sole discretion of the City Planner, be referred to the Planning Commission and City Council for action. Determinations and actions by the City Planner may be appealed to the Planning Commission.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA 51
CHAPTER 6 — IMPLEMENTATION
Minor Specific Plan Amendment
A Minor Specific Plan Amendment may be processed at staff level if determined by the City Planner to be in substantial conformance with:
• The overall intent of the Specific Plan
• The applicable Specific Plan development agreement(s) • The City of Escalon General Plan
• The Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
Examples of Minor Specific Plan Amendments include, but are not limited to:
• The addition of new or updated information that does
not substantively change the Specific Plan.
• Minor adjustments to land use boundaries and street
alignments where the general land use pattern is
maintained.
• Variation in permitted use types and development
standards if such variations do not substantively change the character of the Specific Plan.
• Changes to the provision of public infrastructure and facilities that do not impact the level of service provided or affect the development capacity in the Plan Area.
• Changes to phasing boundaries that do not impact
infrastructure sizing, financing districts or the provision of adequate services to associated development.
• Modifications to the Design Standards, such as
revisions to design treatments or changes in specified
plant materials, if it is determined that such changes
achieve the design intent of the Specific Plan.
• Minor architectural plan revisions.
• Setback variances
Major Specific Plan Amendment
If the City Planner determines that a proposed amendment does not meet the criteria of a Minor Specific Plan Amendment, a Major Specific Plan Amendment shall be required. A Major Specific Plan Amendment shall be processed and reviewed in the same manner as the initial Specific Plan adoption.

6. 6 APPROVAL PROCESS
In order to create a distinct vision for Murphy Ranch, a development approval process was created to help guide
the project through build out. This system is centered on flexibility to respond to an ever changing housing market, cost limitations, and housing types and designs. In the following sections, each item in the process is examined and explained to provide a general framework of the approval process.

Tentative Maps
A tentative map shall be submitted for all residential areas within Murphy Ranch. These maps divide land for the purpose of sale, lease or financing. All tentative maps submitted on behalf of Murphy Ranch will be subject to the City’s Subdivision Ordinance and the California Subdivision Map Act.

Conditional Use Permits (CUP)
Once approval is granted on tentative maps, special uses not

52 Murphy Ranch Specific Plan | City of Escalon, CA
CHAPTER 6 — IMPLEMENTATION
necessarily classified in the Specific Plan may be approved by securing a CUP. A CUP requires a public hearing and approval by the Planning Commission.

Variances
A variance shall only be granted if a geographical limitation exists on a parcel and no other approval mechanism qualifies.

The Planning Commission must approve a request for a
variance after certain findings have been made and a public hearing has been held.

Revocation and Cancellation
CUP and variances may be revoked and/or cancelled should any of the following apply:
• The approval was obtained fraudulently.
• The use for which an approval was granted does not exist or is not being conducted in an appropriate manner.
• The approval is not being administered using conditions of approval set forth by the governing body
The project approval is detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare or creates a nuisance. An administrative approval or amendment of any kind may be revoked by the City Planner as he or she sees fit. The Planning Commission has the
authority to revoke or cancel a CUP or variance as it sees fit upon the completion of a public hearing.

6. 7 APPEAL PROCESS
Any decision by an authorized staff member may be appealed to the Planning Commission subject to the appeals process outlined in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Any decision made by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City
Council subject to the same zoning ordinance section.

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ESCALON MAKING THE

NECESSARY FINDINGS AND CERTIFYING THE MURPHY RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH # 2025091127) AND ADOPTING

A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE MURPHY

RANCH ANNEXATION PROJECT
The City Council of the City of Escalon does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

WHEREAS, a development application was filed by NRB Investment, LLC, Florsheim Homes 1701 W. March Lane, Ste. D, Stockton, CA 95207, for an Annexation, Prezone, Tentative Subdivision, Specific Plan, Planned Development, Inclusionary Housing Agreement, and Development Agreement for the Murphy Ranch Annexation Project (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project encompasses the annexation of approximately 17.98 acres of unincorporated land in San Joaquin County into the City of Escalon. The Project includes the prezoning of all the approximate 17.98 acres, a Tentative Subdivision Map encompassing all of the approximate 17.98 acre of the annexation area; and
WHEREAS, the City completed a preliminary review of the Project consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15060 and determined that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (hereafter “IS/MND”) was the appropriate environmental analysis for the project in order to analyze the impacts associated with the Project; and
WHEREAS, Basecamp Environmental assisted the Applicant and City with the preparation of the IS/MND for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub.

Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), and CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to make recommendations on an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project was circulated on September 24, 2025, to the State Clearinghouse, other public agencies, organizations and interested parties; and WHEREAS, the IS/MND was made available for a 20-day public review on September 24, 2025, inviting the public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties to review and comment on the IS/MND from September 24, 2025, through October 13, 2025; and WHEREAS, the City received two comment letters regarding the IS/MND; and WHEREAS, the IS/MND and supporting documents have been made available for public review on the City of Escalon website; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts and constitute the environmental analysis for the Project; and, WHEREAS, a staff report and the IS/MND for the Project were presented to the Planning Commission and made available to members of the public prior to the public hearing; and Attachment 4

WHEREAS, at the duly noticed public hearing on October 14, 2025, the Escalon Planning Commission reviewed the IS/MND, received public testimony, and recommended that the City Council certify the IS/MND and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, the Project would have significant effects on the environment, all of which can be substantially reduced through mitigation measures; therefore, approval of the Project must include a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the IS/MND is a bound document, incorporated herein by reference, and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and California Code of Regulations, title 14, Section 15091, under the custodial of the Development Service Department located at 2060 McHenry Avenue, Escalon, CA 95320; and
WHEREAS, the Escalon City Council considered the IS/MND and MMRP at its duly noticed public hearing on August 3, 2026, and subsequently certified the IS/MND and adopted the MMRP at its duly noticed public hearing on August 17, 2026; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to adopt the foregoing resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Escalon City Council hereby certifies the Murphy Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2025091127) and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Murphy Ranch Annexation Project.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17
th day of August 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Andrew Hagan, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Diana Trejo, Deputy City Clerk

PUBLICE REVIEW DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

FOR THE
SEPTEMBER 2025
Prepared for:

City of Escalon
2060 McHenry Avenue
Escalon, CA 95320
BaseCamp Environmental, Inc.

PUBILC REVIEW DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

FOR THE
MURPHY RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
Escalon, CA
SEPTEMBER 2025
Prepared for:

CITY OF ESCALON
2060 McHenry Avenue
Escalon, CA 95320
209-691-7430
Prepared by:

BASECAMP ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
802 W. Lodi Avenue
Lodi, CA 95240
209-224-8213
www.basecampenv.com

City of Escalon
2060 McHenry Ave
Escalon, Ca. 95320

NOTICE OF INTENT TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
Notice is hereby given that the City of Escalon has prepared an Initial Study (IS) of environmental effects and intends to recommend adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring/ Reporting Plan (MMRP) for the Murphy Ranch project.

The City of Escalon is the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The project includes an Annexation, Pre-Zoning, Specific Plan, Tentative Subdivision Map, Planned Development, CEQA Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the development of two parcels totaling 17.98 acres, which are proposed to be subdivided into 73 lots with one and two-story single-family residential units, including underground utilities, street improvements, sound wall, landscape improvements, and park expansion.

The IS/MND analyzes the potential environmental effects of the project in the environmental issue areas specified in the State CEQA Guidelines.

Based on this analysis, the Public Review Draft IS/MND finds that the project will not involve any significant environmental effects, provided that the mitigation measures described in the IS/MND are implemented. The project proponent has agreed to the mitigation measures, and these measures are included in a MMRP to be adopted by the City of Escalon in conjunction with the IS/MND and approval of the project. There are no sites identified under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code located on or near the project site.

Copies of the IS/MND are available for public review at the City of Escalon Planning Department at the address shown above and at the City’s website:
https://www.cityofescalon.org/government/departments/development_services/planning The City will accept public and agency comments on the IS/MND during a 20-day review period that will begin on September 24, 2025 and end on October 13, 2025. Comments may be submitted by mail or e-mail to the City at the address shown below:

City of Escalon Planning Department, 2060 McHenry Ave., Escalon, Ca. 95320 or [email protected]
At the conclusion of the 20-day public review period, the document will be submitted to the City of Escalon Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council on adoption. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 2060 McHenry Ave, Escalon, California, on Tuesday, October 14, 2025 at 6:30 PM to consider recommendations of adoption of the IS/MND, MMRP, and the project.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Notice of Intent i
Mitigated Negative Declaration vii
Chapter 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 Project Brief 1-1

1.2 Purpose of Initial Study 1-1

1.3 Project Background 1-2

1.4 Environmental Evaluation Checklist Terminology 1-3

1.5 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 1-4 Chapter 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1

2.1 Project Location 2-1

2.2 Project Details 2-1

2.3 Permits and Approvals 2-4
Chapter 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3-1

3.1 Aesthetics 3-1

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources 3-3

3.3 Air Quality 3-6

3.4 Biological Resources 3-11

3.5 Cultural Resources 3-16

3.6 Energy 3-19

3.7 Geology and Soils 3-20

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-27

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-31

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality 3-35

3.11 Land Use and Planning 3-40

3.12 Mineral Resources 3-43

3.13 Noise 3-43

3.14 Population and Housing 3-49

3.15 Public Services 3-51

3.16 Recreation 3-54

3.17 Transportation 3-55

iii

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources 3-59

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems 3-61

3.20 Wildfire 3-64

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance 3-66
Chapter 4.0 REFERENCES 4-1

4.1. Document Preparers 4-1

4.2 Documents Cited 4-1

4.3 Persons Consulted 4-5
Chapter 5.0 Notes Related to Evaluations of Environmental Impacts 5-1

APPENDICES
A. Air Quality Modeling Results
B. Biological Resource Materials
C. Central California Information Center Letter
D. Geotechnical Report
E. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
F. Noise Report
G. Traffic Technical Memorandum
H. Tribal Consultation Resources

iv

LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Regional Location Map 1-5
1-2 Street Map 1-6
1-3 USGS Map 1-7
1-4 Aerial Photo 1-8
1-5 Assessor Parcel Map 1-9
2-1 Proposed Tentative Subdivision Map 2-6
2-2 Circulation Plan 2-7
2-3 Street Sections 2-8
2-4 Overall Landscape Plan 2-9
3-1 Soil Types 3-23
3-2 General Plan Map 3-41
3-3 Recommended Noise Mitigation Measures 3-46

LIST OF TABLES
1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1-10 3-1 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status 3-7
3-2 SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds and Project Air Pollutant Emissions 3-9 3-3 GHG Emissions from Project 3-30
3-4 Construction Equipment Noise 3-47
3-5 Groundborne Vibration Thresholds 3-48

v

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT AB Assembly Bill
ADU Accessory Dwelling Unit
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
ARB California Air Resources Board
BMP Best Management Practice
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Cal Fire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
dB decibel
dBA decibel, A-weighted
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GAMAQI Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GHG greenhouse gas
gpm gallons per minute
HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JADU Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission
Ldn Day-Night Average Sound Level
LID Low Impact Development
LOS Level of Service
mgd million gallons per day
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company

vi
PM10 particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
ROG reactive organic gases
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SJCOG San Joaquin Council of Governments
SJMSCP San Joaquin County Multi-Species Open Space and Habitat Conservation Plan
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SSJID South San Joaquin Irrigation District
STC Sound Transmission Class
SWMP Storm Water Management Program
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
VERA Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
VMT vehicle miles traveled

vii
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. General Project Information
Project Title: Murphy Ranch Specific Plan
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Escalon
2060 McHenry Avenue
Escalon, CA 95320
Contact Person and Phone Number: Diana Trejo, Assistant Planner 209-691-7422
Project Location: Southeast of intersection of State Route 120 and Brennan Avenue west of Escalon; APNs 225-040-
28 and 225-040-29.

Project Sponsor Name and Address: Florsheim Homes
1701 W. March Lane, Suite D
Stockton, CA 95207
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (City) Low Density Residential (County)
Zoning: AU-20: Agriculture-Urban Reserve, 20-acre
minimum (County)
Project Description: The project proposes City approval of a Specific Plan to guide the development of two parcels
totaling 18.00 acres, which are proposed to be
subdivided into 72 lots for single-family residential
development. Approximately 1.10 acres would be
set aside in the southeastern corner of the project
site for a combined park and drainage basin. To
implement the Specific Plan, the project also
includes a Tentative Subdivision Map that would
subdivide the two parcels in accordance with the
proposed Specific Plan. The project would require
annexation of the two parcels to the City of Escalon
along with pre-zoning by the City, which would
pre-zone the project site as PD, Planned
Development.

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is in unincorporated San Joaquin County adjacent to the western city limits of

viii
Escalon. Existing single-family residential
development is located east and south of the project
site. Agricultural lands with associated buildings
and scattered rural residential development are
located west and north of the site. These nearby
lands are designated for commercial development
in the Escalon General Plan. Railroad tracks owned
by the Union Pacific Railroad run along the
northern boundary of the project site. Adjacent to
and north of these tracks is State Route 120.

Other Public Agencies Whose
Approval is Required: San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (annexation)
Have California Native American Requesting tribes have been notified; no tribes traditionally and culturally consultation has been requested by the tribes. affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section
21080.3.1? If so, has consultation
begun?
B. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” prior to mitigation, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
!" Aesthetics !" Agriculture/Forestry
Resources
!" Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources !" Energy
Geology/Soils !" Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials
!" Hydrology/Water Quality !" Land Use !" Mineral Resources Noise !" Population/Housing !" Public Services
!" Recreation !" Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources !" Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire !" Mandatory Findings of Significance

ix
C. Lead Agency Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
⬜ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 🔳 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
⬜ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
⬜ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ⬜ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

CITY OF ESCALON

Jaylen French, City Manager Date
■
■
■
■
■

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 1-1 September 2025

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Brief
This document is an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Murphy Ranch Specific Plan Project (project) which is adjacent to and west of Escalon, California. The 18.00-acre project site is located near the southeast corner of the intersection of Brennan Avenue and State Route 120 (Figures 1-1 to 1-5). The project applicant is Florsheim Homes. This IS/MND has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For the purposes of CEQA, the City of Escalon (City) is the Lead Agency for the project.

The project proposes a Specific Plan to guide development of two adjacent parcels into 72 lots on which single-family residences would be constructed. A park/retention basin would be installed in the southeast corner of the site. Access to the proposed development would be from extensions of Celivo Way and Riesling Way north of California Street. Water, sewer, and storm drainage services would be provided by the City of Escalon upon anticipated annexation to the City. A Tentative Subdivision Map is proposed to permit the proposed residential development of the two parcels in accordance with the Specific Plan.

The project would require Specific Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map approval from the City Council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission, along with annexation approval by the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) with pre-zoning by the City. The applicant would enter into a Development Agreement with the City.

1.2 Purpose of Initial Study
CEQA requires that public agencies consider and document the potential environmental effects of the agency’s actions that meet CEQA’s definition of a “project.” Briefly summarized, a “project” is an action that has the potential to result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. A project includes the agency’s direct activities as well as activities that involve public agency approvals or funding. Guidelines for an agency’s implementation of CEQA are found in the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations).

Provided that a project is not exempt from CEQA, the first step in the agency’s consideration of its potential environmental effects is the preparation of an Initial Study.

The purpose of an Initial Study is to determine whether the project would involve “significant” environmental effects as defined by CEQA and to describe feasible mitigation measures that would avoid significant effects or reduce them to a level that would be less than significant. If the Initial Study does not identify significant effects, or if it identifies mitigation measures that would reduce all the significant effects of the project to a lessthan-significant level, then the agency prepares a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. If the project would involve significant effects that cannot be readily

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 1-2 September 2025
mitigated, then the agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The agency may also decide to proceed directly with the preparation of an EIR without preparation of an Initial Study.

The Murphy Ranch project is a “project” as defined by CEQA and is not exempt from CEQA consideration. The City has determined that the project involves the potential for significant environmental effects and requires preparation of this Initial Study. The Initial Study describes the proposed project and its environmental setting, it discusses the potentially significant environmental effects of the project, and it identifies feasible mitigation measures that would avoid the potentially significant environmental effects of the project or reduce them to a level that would be less than significant. The Initial Study considers the project’s potential for significant environmental effects in the following subject areas:
● Aesthetics
● Agricultural Resources
● Air Quality
● Biological Resources
● Cultural Resources
● Energy
● Geology and Soils
● Greenhouse Gas Emissions
● Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
● Hydrology and Water Quality
● Land Use and Planning
● Mineral Resources
● Noise
● Population and Housing
● Public Services
● Recreation
● Transportation/Traffic
● Tribal Cultural Resources
● Utilities and Service Systems
● Wildfire
● Mandatory Findings of
Significance
The Initial Study concludes that the project would have significant environmental effects, but that recommended mitigation measures would reduce all these effects to a level that would be less than significant. As a result, the City has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and notified the public of the City’s intent to adopt the IS/MND. A copy of the City’s Notice of Intent is shown just inside the cover of this document. As of the distribution of the IS/MND for public review, the applicant has accepted all the recommended mitigation measures. The time available for comment on the IS/MND is shown in the Notice of Intent prepared for the project.

1.3 Project Background
The project site is in unincorporated San Joaquin County adjacent to a developed area of western Escalon. The property is comprised of two contiguous parcels. The smaller parcel, occupying the northwest corner of the property, contains a residence (18092 Brennan Avenue) in the northeast corner of the parcel and several dilapidated sheds and shade structures that surround the residence. A second residence (18112 Brennan Avenue) is in the southwest portion of the larger parcel. An animal barn of concrete masonry unit construction is also located in the southwest portion of the property, southeast of the southern residence near the southern property boundary. The remainder of the project site

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 1-3 September 2025
is vacant and is predominantly in use for livestock pasture. The project site has been used for agricultural production but appears to have been fallow since 1993 (Baez Geotechnical Group 2023a).

Single-family residential development has occurred east and south of the project site.

Adjacent to and north of the project site are State Route 120 and railroad tracks operated by the Union Pacific Railroad. Beyond the tracks and the highway are agricultural fields and limited residential and commercial development. Agricultural land is also located west of the project site, across Brennan Avenue.

The Escalon General Plan, adopted in 2005 and updated in 2010 and 2019, has designated the project site for Low Density Residential use. However, the project site is currently unincorporated under the planning jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. However, the San Joaquin County General Plan, adopted in 2016, also designates the site for Low Density Residential development. The existing zoning for the project site is AU-20, AgricultureUrban Reserve, 20-acre minimum parcel size. The Agriculture-Urban Reserve zone is intended to retain in agriculture those areas planned for future urban development in order to facilitate compact, orderly urban development and to assure the proper timing and economical provision of services and utilities.

The Escalon General Plan Housing Element, an element of the Escalon General Plan, was adopted in 2019. Escalon was allocated a new construction need of 425 housing units in the San Joaquin County Regional Housing Needs Plan, prepared by the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), for the 2014 to 2023 planning period. Of the allocated housing units, 192 are for above moderate-income households, while the remainder is allotted to housing for moderate- and lower-income households. As of adoption of the Housing Element, 7 moderate-income and 37 above moderate-income units have been constructed, with an additional 6 above moderate-income units under construction and 9 moderate-income units entitled (City of Escalon 2019a).

In 2022, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approved the Regional Housing Needs Plan submitted by SJCOG for the 6th Cycle Housing Element, 2023-2031. Under this new plan, Escalon was allocated a new construction need of 367 housing units. Of these allocated housing units, 90 are identified for very low-income households, 56 for low-income households, 66 for moderate-income households, and 155 for above moderate-income households (SJCOG 2022c). It is expected that the Housing Element will be updated accordingly.

1.4 Environmental Evaluation Checklist Terminology
The project’s potential environmental effects are evaluated in the Environmental Evaluation Checklist shown in Chapter 3.0. The checklist includes a list of environmental considerations against which the project is evaluated. For each question, the City determines whether the project would involve: 1) a Potentially Significant Impact, 2) a Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated, 3) a Less Than Significant Impact, or 4) No Impact.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 1-4 September 2025
A Potentially Significant Impact occurs when there is substantial evidence that the project could involve a substantial adverse change to the physical environment; i.e., that the environmental effect may be significant, and mitigation measures have not been defined that would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. If there is at least one Potentially Significant Impact identified in the Initial Study, an EIR is required unless mitigation can be applied.

An environmental effect that is Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated is a Potentially Significant Impact that can be avoided or reduced to a level that is less than significant with the application of mitigation measures.

A Less Than Significant Impact occurs when the project would involve effects on an area of environmental concern, but the project would not involve a substantial adverse change to the physical environment and no mitigation measures are required.

A determination of No Impact is self-explanatory.

There are certain existing regulatory requirements that have been established by the City and other agencies with jurisdiction, which are routinely implemented in conjunction with new development; these measures have a mitigating effect that would have the potential to reduce or avoid the potential environmental impacts of a project. These requirements are described in this IS/MND as a part of the existing regulatory setting. If these requirements are not considered adequate to reduce or avoid an environmental impact, this IS/MND identifies additional mitigation measures needed to address the impact. These mitigation measures are described in the appropriate technical section of Chapter 3.0 and are summarized in Table 1-1. All mitigation measures described in this IS/MND are considered feasible and would reduce potentially significant environmental effects of the project to a level that would be less than significant. As of the publication of the Notice of Intent, these mitigation measures have been accepted by the project applicant.

1.5 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures The pages following the figures contain Table 1-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The table summarizes the results of the Environmental Checklist Form and associated narrative discussion of the project’s potential environmental effects in Chapter

3.0. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed project are summarized in the left-most column of this table. The projected level of significance of each impact without mitigation is indicated in the second column. Mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant environmental effects are shown in the third column, and the significance of the impact, after mitigation measures are applied, is shown in the fourth column.

BaseCamp
BaseCamp Environmental
San Diego Imperial
Orange
Riverside
San Bernardino
Ventura Los Angeles
Santa Barbara
Kern San Luis
Obispo
Inyo
Tulare
Kings Monterey
Fresno
San
Benito
Mono
Madera
Mariposa
Tuolumne
Calaveras
Amador
El Dorado
Sacramento
Alpine
Santa
Clara
San
Joaquin
Contra
Costa
Merced
Marin
Napa
Yolo
Solano
Sutter
Sonoma
Stanislaus Alameda
Santa Cruz
San Mateo
San Francisco
www.csac.counties.org
Figure 1-1

REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
Figure 1-1

REGIONAL LOCATION MAP

CITY OF ESCALON

PROJECT SITE
~! ................. ,,.,.!
lj. ••••••• ~
....... :
............. -. -
-...
' ~.:
;,. ........ :..

BaseCamp
Figure 1-2
BaseCamp Environmental STREET MAP

PROJECT SITE
SOURCE: Google Maps
, .. ,••••••• .. ·••••••• .. •• .. ••• .. u••••••• .. ••••• .. •• .. •• .. •••••••••• ................. -.J. : California St Callfo,_.,.
n ~~
d:,
iii
;
::r
~
m
f Farinel[I Pkwi,
Ci!
1stSl
Sultana Way
1st St
:a:, 0......... 11t•••••••••••••••flt•••••••••••••••••• ........... ~1•1t111-.•••'". . ...
a
Ill
g
...
u
Gh1.:Jreh of Ct
:E Northwood St Ot
Chablis Dr
-:a t.
'!.
i
,..
l
1\1
Yoga Liz!:
&Goa
~ 1StS1.
n
m
:::?.

IC
::JI
i;p.
~
Ill
::
l'okay Ave ~
El

BaseCamp
Figure 1-3
BaseCamp Environmental USGS MAP

PROJECT SITE
SOURCE: USGS Quadrangle Map, Avena CA , 2021
c:::s r-,, - ]:-
!E
:!Ji
~
r'\ 0,
irr, :,;j, 11"1'1 i:::i,
31 ::I:,
;.t)
0 ~--ESCALO
S1 ~
::,.,
-.:i:;
~
~ - ...
~ •
6 ULL.REY AVE

CLOUG, AVE

BaseCamp
Figure 1-4
BaseCamp Environmental AERIAL PHOTO

PROJECT SITE
SOURCE: Google Earth

Figure 1-5
BaseCamp Environmental ASSESSOR PARCEL MAP
PROJECT SITE 31
6 ...
(Bk\
~
I
I
'
~
FAR/NEi
~;(( sl ~(Ni'IN.;:::;::::;:::'.ri
Tm4 JJ.L_ WAY
·1~ - 25
~---
(_) - ~. CT.
11-----.&--~,,,;:,,_,,;:;,.---'-.J...."-t---r,

I '-'--'---'
I
h,
II
I
I
I
I I .

3. I ~ ~I" i 1 ~,.·
l
I~ ... l ~

1. illl,l.f'
+-lJAHLIN Ai-£
TfllS MAP IS FOR
ASSfSSMfN:r US£ ONLY 225-04
POR. SECTION 5, T.2S. R.9£., M.D.B.&M.
·"'-
,,
( !
~
~ -.:
18 11
JrHr.t::$
PARC{I 2
AVENU[
.f:i'JE
:Ii~ © t1~ '"'
~,~·
II~.,,,,,_ (v '°""' """'r /Qll'f"""
"'..,..

MX.1'-
S.WJJ'I.. ~· ,,.,..
iii
~
8 I~
1l;
Iii
"' fl
6 l; '
11 @
IAE.CM.fi.S: nn'OF N' ,/Z(#;l'c! 1/<ft;f' ~
- P. ;,. Bk. 25 Pq. 155 _ - f' M, 8k. 2!> Pg, I~
C - R. S. !Ile. Zl Pg. f.50
E' - R. S. Bk. 1f Pg. f.5.J
A - P. "'- 111<-05 Pg. ftl2
NO'JE: A8-!h:3,ssor's P<N-<:61 Hamb&ni SQo,..n #t C;rohJ& As:sitS!iO("s 9",'od N.umt:ie,rs Sf'iOW/1 iD ipet:18..

HOtES'T ,V.M. I.SEO
"'E.t.=t P~R.. ~ P.t-.R.. I, ~"'-~ .,.., ,, 87-88
p-,., " " f'f--11 ,, t.f-J~ "
Assessor's Map Bk.225 Pg. 04
County of San Joaquin, Calif.

TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 1-10 September 2025
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures

3.1 AESTHETICS
a) Scenic Vistas LS None required -
b) Scenic Resources LS None required -
c) Visual Character and Quality LS None required -
d) Light and Glare LS None required -

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
a) Agricultural Land Conversion LS None required -
b) Agricultural Zoning and Williamson Act LS None required - c, d) Forest Land Conversion and Zoning NI None required - e) Indirect Conversion of Farmland of Forest Land NI None required -

3.3 AIR QUALITY
a) Air Quality Plan Consistency LS None required -
b) Cumulative Emissions LS None required -
c) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Pollutants LS None required - d) Odors and Other Emissions NI None required

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a) Special-Status Species LS None required -
b) Riparian and Other Sensitive Habitats NI None required - c) State and Federal Jurisdictional Wetlands LS None required -

TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 1-11 September 2025
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures
d) Fish and Wildlife Movement LS None required -
e) Local Biological Requirements NI None required -
f) Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plans NI None required -

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Historical Resources PS CULT-1: Prior to final site plan approval, a qualified architectural historian shall review the two existing structures on the project site and provide a report on their historical significance. If one or both structures are determined to be a significant historical resource, then the architectural historian shall provide in the report recommendations on the disposition of the identified resource, which shall be incorporated within the final site plans or made conditions of approval for the project.

LS
b) Archaeological Resources PS CULT-2: If any subsurface cultural resources are encountered during project construction, all construction activities within 50 feet of the encounter shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can examine these materials, determine their significance, and, if significant, recommend mitigation measures that would reduce potential effects to a level that is less than significant. Recommended measures could include, but are not limited to, 1) preservation in place, or 2) excavation, recovery, and curation by qualified professionals. The City of Escalon Community
Development Department shall be notified, and the project developer shall be responsible for retaining qualified professionals, implementing recommended mitigation
measures, and documenting mitigation efforts in a written report to the City’s Community Development Department,
consistent with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines. If burial resources or tribal cultural resources are discovered, the City shall notify the appropriate tribal representative, LS

TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 1-12 September 2025
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures
who may examine the materials with the archaeologist and advise the City as to their significance and disposition. c) Human Burials LS None required -

3.6 ENERGY
a) Project Energy Consumption LS None required -
b) Consistency with Energy Plans. LS None required -

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a-i) Fault Rupture Hazards NI None required -
a-ii, iii) Seismic Hazards LS None required -
a-iv) Landslides NI None required -
b) Soil Erosion PS GEO-1: Prior to commencement of construction activity, the developer shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project and file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in compliance with the Construction General Permit and City of Escalon storm water
requirements. The SWPPP shall be available on the construction site at all times. The developer shall incorporate an Erosion Control Plan consistent with all applicable provisions of the SWPPP within the site improvement and building plans. The developer also shall submit the SWRCB Waste Discharger’s Identification Number to the City prior to approval of development or grading plans.

LS
c) Geologic Instability PS GEO-2: The project shall incorporate into its design and construction the recommendations of the geotechnical LS

TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 1-13 September 2025
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures
report Geotechnical Investigation, Murphy Ranch
Residential Subdivision, 18092 & 18112 Brennan Road, Escalon, California, prepared by Baez Geotechnical Group on August 31, 2023, or a comparable study. The design and construction plans shall be reviewed by the City for consistency with the recommendations in the geotechnical report and shall be approved prior to final subdivision map approval.
d) Expansive Soils NI None required -
e) Adequacy of Soils for Wastewater Disposal NI None required - f) Paleontological Resources and Unique Geological
Features
PS GEO-3: If any subsurface paleontological resources are encountered during construction of the project, all construction activities within 50 feet of the encounter shall be halted until a qualified paleontologist can examine these materials, determine their significance and, if significant, recommend further mitigation measures that would
reduce potential effects to a level that is less than significant. Recommended measures may include, but are
not limited to, 1) preservation in place, or 2) excavation, recovery, and curation by qualified professionals. The City of Escalon Community Development Department shall be
notified, and the project developer shall be responsible for retaining qualified professionals, implementing
recommended mitigation measures, and documenting
mitigation efforts in a written report to the City’s Community Development Department, consistent with the
requirements of the CEQA Guidelines.

LS

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a, b) Project GHG Emissions and Consistency with
GHG Reduction Plans
LS None required -

TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 1-14 September 2025
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a) Hazardous Material Transport, Use, and Storage LS None required - b) Release of Hazardous Materials PS HAZ-1: Prior to the start of demolition of the residences and the barn, the contractor shall screen for the presence of asbestos-containing building materials in and around these structures. If asbestos-containing building materials are found, then a demolition permit from the City shall include a Demolition Permit Release Form from the SJVAPCD prior to its issuance. The Demolition Permit Release Form certifies that the proposed demolition complies with the requirements of the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), which govern asbestos removal, and with SJVAPCD Rule 4002. All of the regulated asbestos abatement shall be completed by a state-certified asbestos abatement contractor prior to the start of demolition.

HAZ-2: Prior to the start of demolition of the residences and the barn, the contractor shall screen for the presence of lead-based paints in and around these structures. If leadbased paints are found, then they shall be removed in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 8, Sections 35001-36100. This requires that work on any structure built before January 1, 1978 must use lead-safe work practices, including containment and cleaning the work area after the project is completed. The regulations also cover accreditation of training providers and certification of individuals to perform lead abatement and set work practice standards for lead hazard evaluations and the abatement of lead hazards. The lead-based paint abatement shall be
completed prior to the start of demolition.

LS

TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 1-15 September 2025
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures
c) Hazardous Materials Releases near Schools NI None required - d) Hazardous Materials Sites LS None required -
e) Public Airport Operations NI None required -
f) Emergency Response and Evacuations PS HAZ-3: Prior to the start of project construction, the developer shall prepare and implement a Traffic Control Plan, which shall include such items as traffic control requirements, resident notification of access closure, and daily access restoration. The contractor shall specify dates and times of road closures or restrictions, if any, and shall ensure that adequate access will be provided for emergency vehicles. The Traffic Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Department of Public Works and shall be coordinated with the Escalon Police Department and the Escalon Consolidated Fire Protection District if construction will require road closures or lane restrictions.

LS
g) Wildland Fire Hazards NI None required -

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a) Surface Water Quality LS None required _
b) Groundwater Supplies and Recharge LS None required - c-i, ii, iii) Drainage Patterns and Runoff LS None required - c-iv) Flood Flows NI None required -
d) Other Flooding Hazards LS None required -
e) Conflict with Water Quality or Groundwater
Plans
NI None required -

TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 1-16 September 2025
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Division of Established Communities NI None required - b) Conflicts with Plans, Policies and Regulations Mitigating Environmental Effects
LS None required -

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
a, b) Availability of Mineral Resources NI None required -

3.13 NOISE
a) Exposure to Noise Exceeding Local Standards PS NOISE-1: The project shall install a noise barrier at the locations identified in Figure 2 in the report Environmental Noise Assessment, Murphy Ranch Residential Development Escalon, California, prepared by Bollard Acoustical Consultants September 8, 2023. The noise barriers could take the form of masonry wall, earthen berm, or a combination of the two. A wood or wood composite fence
would also be a sufficient noise barrier, provided that the fence slats overlap by a minimum of two inches and are screwed to the framing rather than nailed.

NOISE-2: For the lots identified in green in Figure 2 in the Bollard Acoustical report, the project shall install window and door assembly upgrades of Sound Transmission Class
(STC) 32 for any upper floors of residences. At the firstfloor building facades and at second-floor building facades further removed from roadway and railroad without an annotated STC rating recommendation on Figure 2,
standard STC 27 window and door assemblies would be adequate.

NOISE-3: All equipment used on the construction site during all project phases shall be fitted with mufflers in LS

TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 1-17 September 2025
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures
accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. Mufflers shall be installed on construction equipment at all times on the construction site.
b) Exposure to Groundborne Vibration or Noise LS None required - c) Public Airport and Private Airstrip Noise NI None required -

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Unplanned Population Growth LS None required -
b) Displacement of Housing or People LS None required -

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Fire Protection LS None required -
b) Police Protection LS None required -
c) Schools LS None required -
d, e) Parks and Other Public Facilities LS None required -

3.16 RECREATION
a, b) Recreational Facilities LS None required -

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
a) Conflict with Transportation Plans, Ordinances
and Policies
LS None required -

TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 1-18 September 2025
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures
b) Conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3(b)
LS None required -
c) Traffic Hazards LS None required -
d) Emergency Access LS None required -

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a, b) Tribal Cultural Resources PS Mitigation Measure CULT-1. LS

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) Relocation or Construction of New Facilities LS None required - b) Water Systems and Supply LS None required -
c) Wastewater Treatment Capacity LS None required -
d, e) Solid Waste Services LS None required -

3.20 WILDFIRE
a) Emergency Response Plans and Emergency
Evacuation Plans
PS Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. LS
b) Exposure of Project Occupants to Wildfire
Hazards
NI None required -
c) Installation and Maintenance of Infrastructure NI None required - d) Risks from Runoff, Post-Fire Slope Instability, or
Drainage Changes
NI None required -

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 1-19 September 2025
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures
a) Findings on Biological and Cultural Resources PS Mitigation measures in Sections 3.4 and 3.5. LS b) Findings on Individually Limited but
Cumulatively Considerable Impacts
LS None required -
c) Findings on Adverse Effects on Human Beings LS None required - Notes: NI = No Impact; LS = Less Than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 2-1 September 2025

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Location
The project site is located immediately west of the City of Escalon, near the southeastern corner of the intersection of State Route 120 and Brennan Avenue (see Figures 1-1 to 1-5).

The 18.00-acre project site is on two adjacent parcels identified as Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 225-040-28 and APN 225-040-29. The site is shown on the U.S.

Geological Survey’s Avena, California, 7.5-minute quadrangle map as within Section 5, Township 2 South, Range 9 East, Mt. Diablo Base and Meridian. The approximate latitude and longitude of the project site is 37º 47' 52" North and 121º 42' 00" West, respectively.

2.2 Project Details
The project proposes City approval of a Specific Plan that would guide the development of the identified two parcels, currently located in unincorporated San Joaquin County and totaling 18.00 acres. For the purposes of this CEQA document, the project site is the Specific Plan area.

The Specific Plan proposes the subdivision of the two parcels into 72 lots that would allow for the subsequent development of detached single-family homes (Figure 2-1). The homes would have a diverse mix of architectural styles and would be constructed on lots ranging in size from 6,048 square feet to 10,172 square feet. The Specific Plan adheres to the development standards listed for the R-1, Low Density Residential District as set forth in the Escalon Zoning Ordinance Section 17.14.040, including:
• Minimum lot area 6,000 square feet for interior lots and 7,000 square feet for corner lots.
• Minimum density of two/maximum density of six dwelling units per net acre. • Maximum building lot coverage 65 percent.
• Minimum lot frontage 60 feet for interior lots, 70 feet for corner lots, 30 feet for cul-de-sac lots.
• Minimum lot depth 90 feet.
• Maximum height two stories, not exceeding 35 feet.

The Specific Plan also defines various setback requirements depending on residence layout, and minimum floor areas depending on number of bedrooms per unit. The Specific Plan allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) in compliance with California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22.

The Specific Plan contains design guidelines that would apply to residential development.

Three housing styles would be allowed: Boutique, Ranch, and Vineyard. Elements of each style are defined in the Specific Plan, along with design standards for other features such as walls and fences. In accordance with City requirements, a wood fence approximately

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 2-2 September 2025
seven feet in height would be installed along the southern and eastern boundaries of the project site that are adjacent to existing residences outside the site.

Approximately 1.10 acres in the southeastern corner of the Specific Plan area have been designated as a park site, adjacent to the existing Shadowood Park managed by the City of Escalon. The park acreage meets the minimum required park land as set forth in Escalon Municipal Code Section 16.02.330. The park site would serve dual uses as a park and a storm drainage basin to collect and detain drainage anticipated to be generated by project development. The park site would expand the existing Shadowood Park and enlarge the existing storm drainage basin to accommodate runoff from the proposed development. A split-face masonry wall, approximately six feet in height, would be placed along the western, northern, and eastern boundaries of the park.

Access
Access to the Specific Plan area is proposed from extensions of existing Celivo Way and Riesling Way, both of which currently end just north of California Street (Figure 2-2). All new streets would have curb, gutter, and sidewalk installed in accordance with City specifications and with Escalon Municipal Code Chapter 12.04.

An internal street loop connecting to these street extensions would provide access to each lot. For the portion of the loop adjacent to the Union Pacific railroad tracks, a “parkway street” would be developed (Figure 2-3). The parkway street, to be constructed within a 50-foot right-of-way, would consist of two travel lanes: one 10 feet wide, and the other 14 feet wide. North of the travel lanes would be an 11-foot-wide parkway, which would be landscaped. A portion of this landscaped area would be set aside for future use as a bore pit for the future installation of water and sewer lines beneath SR 120. The date of this installation has not been determined. A masonry wall, approximately eight feet tall, would separate the parkway from the tracks. On the south side of the parkway street, an on-street space approximately eight feet wide would be available for parking, and a sidewalk approximately 5.5 feet wide would be installed next to the parking area.

The remaining loop would be constructed as a local residential street. This portion of the loop would also be constructed within a 50-foot right-of-way, but the two travel lanes would each be 10 feet wide. An on-street area for parking, approximately eight feet wide, would be available on both sides, along with a sidewalk approximately 5.5 feet wide.

The Celivo Way extension to the project site would be constructed within a 50-foot rightof-way. The extension would consist of two travel lanes, each 12 feet wide. On each side of the travel lane area, a four-foot-wide shoulder, a four-foot-wide parkway, and a fivefoot-wide sidewalk would be installed. The Riesling Way extension would be constructed within a 54-foot right-of-way. Like the Celivo Way extension, there would be two travel lanes 12 feet in width. Each side of the travel lane area would have a shoulder, parkway, and sidewalk of the same width as the Celivo Way extension, except the parkways associated with the Riesling Way extension would be six feet in width.

The proposed improvements by the project along its Brennan Avenue frontage would occur within an existing 78-foot right-of-way. They would consist of a 12-footwide travel lane,

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 2-3 September 2025
a seven-foot landscape strip, an 8-foot-wide pedestrian/bicycle trail, and another landscape strip seven feet in width. A masonry wall, approximately six feet in height, would be placed adjacent to this landscape strip, thus separating the Brennan Avenue frontage from the remainder of the project site. A raised median that would eventually be expanded to 10 feet in width is proposed in the center of Brennan Avenue. The Brennan Avenue frontage would have curb, gutter, and sidewalk installed in accordance with City specifications and with Escalon Municipal Code Chapter 12.04.

Utilities
All public utilities would be installed underground within 10-foot-wide easements, provided along public street frontages, and in accordance with City of Escalon standards.

Water and sewer services would be provided to the project by the City of Escalon. The project would connect to existing City water and sewer lines beneath California Street, Riesling Way, and Celivo Way. These connections would be contingent on the annexation of the project site to the City, which would be pursued in a separate action following City Specific Plan and Tentative Map approvals. An 8-inch diameter looped water line would be installed in the future planned streets. New sewer lines, also installed in the streets, would connect to existing 8-inch diameter sewer lines. water and sewer lines would be constructed in conformance with the City’s Water System and Sewer System Master Plans, respectively.

Storm drainage would be collected from the project by on-site drainage lines that would ultimately connect to the proposed detention basin. The new basin would expand the capacity of the existing and adjacent Shadowood Park basin. The storm drainage system would be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards and with the City’s Storm Drainage Ordinance (Escalon Municipal Code Chapter 13.15).

The project would connect to existing electrical and natural gas lines provided by Modesto Irrigation District and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), respectively. Street lighting would be installed in accordance with City standards.

Other Project Features
The project proposes the installation of landscaping on the residential lots and along the internal street and the Brennan Avenue project site frontage (Figure 2-4). Landscaping would be installed in the front of the residential lots, with shrubs that provide screening.

Street landscaping would consist mainly of street trees planted at specific intervals along both sides of the streets. The parkway area in the north is proposed to be planted with shrubs and low groundcover along with trees. The Brennan Avenue frontage would have a variety of trees, grasses, and low groundcover. Landscape design will be required to comply with the landscape standards set forth in the Escalon Municipal Code.

The park/basin area would consist of mostly grass turf, with smaller trees planted along the proposed loop and larger shade trees within the site. A concrete path and a picnic table area would be installed. A hard court is proposed for installation in the northeast corner of the park.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 2-4 September 2025
Tentative Subdivision Map
As part of implementation of the Specific Plan, the project proposes a Tentative Subdivision Map that would subdivide the two parcels into the 72 proposed single-family residential lots and the lot for the park/basin (see Figure 2-1). The map would dedicate nine feet of roadway right-of-way along the Brennan Avenue frontage of the project site for road widening, so that the improved street matches the existing Brennan Avenue roadway configuration south of the project site.

All improvements proposed in the Tentative Subdivision Map will conform to the City of Escalon Improvement Standards. Public utilities would be installed underground in easements. Proposed street lighting will be installed in accordance with City standards.

Project Construction
It is anticipated that project construction would generally be conducted in three stages. The first stage would include the demolition of the existing on-site structures, grading, excavation and site preparation, and installation of utilities. The first stage would be followed by installation of streets, sidewalks, and landscaping. Installation of improvements would be followed by new home construction on individual lots. Types of construction equipment expected to be used at the site include dozers, backhoes, loaders, forklifts, cranes, haul trucks, and graders.

Existing buildings, structures, wells, and septic tanks shall be removed in accordance with the standards of San Joaquin County and the City of Escalon. All encroachment of structures, including fencing, berms, irrigation lines, and power lines, shall be removed unless otherwise conditioned by the City. An existing electrical building owned by the Union Pacific Railroad that is in the northwestern corner of the project site would be relocated within the railroad right-of-way.

2.3 Permits and Approvals
The Specific Plan requires the approval of the Escalon City Council upon recommendation by the Escalon Planning Commission. In accordance with Escalon Municipal Code Section

17.49.080, public hearings on the Specific Plan will be held by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Should it be approved, the Specific Plan will serve as the implementation tool for the City’s General Plan as well as City zoning for the Specific Plan area.

Like the Specific Plan, the Tentative Subdivision Map would be submitted to the Escalon Planning Commission for its review and recommendation to City Council. In accordance with Escalon Municipal Code Section 16.04.080(E), the Planning Commission must find that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Escalon General Plan, that the site is suitable for the proposed type and density of development, and that the subdivision design and proposed improvements would not substantially damage the environment or cause serious public health issues, among other findings. Also, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 16.04.080(F), a Tentative Subdivision Map shall not be recommended for approval unless the Planning Commission finds that the proposed subdivision complies

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 2-5 September 2025
with Municipal Code Section 16.02.300, which requires the design of a subdivision to provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities within the subdivision. Final approval of the map would come from the Escalon City Council.

As noted, the project site is within the unincorporated area of San Joaquin County. For the City to provide services, the project site must be annexed to the City of Escalon. Proposed annexations are submitted to the San Joaquin LAFCo, which must review and decide upon the annexation request including its consistency with state and local LAFCo policies and standards. In determining the appropriateness of a proposed annexation, LAFCo considers whether the project would constitute a logical expansion of a city boundary and whether a proposed annexation area would be provided with public utilities and services in an efficient manner. LAFCo’s policies with respect to proposed annexations are specified in its Change of Organization Policies and Procedures, adopted in 2007 and subsequently amended (San Joaquin LAFCo 2012).

As part of the annexation application, the City shall be required to pre-zone the project site.

It is expected that the City would pre-zone the project site as PD, Planned Development.

The use of this zone would be consistent with Escalon Municipal Code Section

17.24.060(C), which requires all new residential projects over one acre to have a PD zone.

The City of Escalon requires that any project site over five acres shall gain approval of a Specific Plan prior to annexation to the City. As a condition of approval, the applicant is required to enter into a Development Agreement with the city. Also, in accordance with Escalon Municipal Code Chapter 17.50, the project applicant shall enter into an Inclusionary Housing Agreement with the City to provide affordable housing. Section 3.14, Population and Housing, discusses affordable housing requirements in more detail.

Figure 2-1
BaseCamp Environmental PROPOSED TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP lfUl!Mll!l!ln"",P,-._~ -- ., ... l'J.:...i:o=-~~
~ ... ...... ~ ..... 1111-&ll'l.ila ... ~
• Al"W,ru:.i CD'I~ .,. ....,. .,._
...
..

Figure 2-2
BaseCamp Environmental CIRCULATION PLAN
YOSEMITE AVENUE/ HWY l2:0

IA STREET

PAIRK/IRASI N
IEXIP·ANSION
EXISTIIING L_

IP'ARK/BASIN
~
~

Figure 2-3
BaseCamp Environmental STREET SECTIONS
:,,

1.5' 15,:5,' b' 1,0 1 ~o• &1 "-"' 1.!J.t
~ ~11!1 tNI! -UH! _,Mo ~

SECTIOIN A-A
T'fP [ GA!- !!IO ' S"TREET ~-n ON

LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREET
(c;;nY OF"~ &'IV. ~1'l!L. ie)
c:RI~ QJ;i!l!!li ""l'Y'P.

FRa£1i't "1ilJ' I
SJ I!>' I 10' I~•• I IP
91'1 -U~-.il.LHE -.il.LNE
2!1' ~ 25' - 50

SECTION C-C
1"'1'Plc:;AI. !jC' $~ $cc:;TlON

PARKWAY RESIDENTIAL STREET
2•--wu.

Nl"1H-i-RME
'Jl?Tl lflldHT ~• 1"H.I.

RA.TL'DIO
IC,l,L~nP. Kri PRlKIR'I" :E!NTR'I' HtD
6lllE'l'HiP LOT OH:.'I'

SECTION B-B
T'fl"[ GAi- !!IO' ~1'R!E!T SSG-TlON
ENTRY RESIDENnAL STREET
11 1 1• ..,,
IVin..A!~-- ~UM! LS 11111; l!follfl LS
ISHO f---n,--l---;i;i--,----1
SECTION 0-0

BRENNAN AVENUE

Figure 2-4
BaseCamp Environmental OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN
MU:RPHY RANCH
~ allmlD'IDlllill.
--
a&llU
EX1$;'11NG IIIMS
IiillBJ!ll
-- IIE--
-IIM,
11i1111lU

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-1 September 2025

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following environmental evaluation considers the potential environmental effects of City approval of the proposed project, as described in Chapter 2.0, Project Description. The format of this evaluation is based on the Environmental Checklist presented in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.

3.1 AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? !" !" !" b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
!" !" !"
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
!" !" !"
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
!" !" !"
Environmental Setting
The project site is mostly vacant, but a single-family residence and other structures are on the site. Vegetation, including trees, is found along the Brennan Avenue frontage. As described in Chapter 1.0, Introduction, residential development that is part of the City is east and south of the project site, while agricultural lands are to the north and west. Lands to the north are separated from the project site by State Route 120 and the railroad tracks.

Existing lighting in the project vicinity consists of street lighting along nearby residential streets and outdoor lighting from nearby residences.

The recently revised Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines mentions California Public Resources Code Section 21099, which states that the aesthetic and parking impacts of residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center projects on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant effects under CEQA. While the project proposes residential development, it is not considered an infill project and is not in a transit priority area. Therefore, Public Resources Code Section 21099 does not apply. v
v

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-2 September 2025
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Scenic Vistas.

Scenic vistas have been defined as vantage points with a broad and expansive view of a significant landscape feature, such as a mountain range or coastline. The project proposes residential development, structures associated with which have the potential to partially obstruct distance views. However, given their location, they would not substantially obstruct views of mountain ranges to the west and east. Project impacts on scenic vistas would be less than significant.
b) Scenic Resources.

The project site is mostly a grazing field. It has no trees or other outstanding scenic resources. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) list of designated scenic highways under the California Scenic Highway Program, there are only two officially designated state scenic highways within San Joaquin County: Interstate 5 from the Stanislaus County line to Interstate 580, and Interstate 580 from Interstate 5 to the Alameda County line (Caltrans 2019). The project site is not on either of these State Scenic Highways. Neither the San Joaquin County General Plan nor the Escalon General Plan has designated any roadways in the project vicinity as scenic. Project impacts on scenic resources would be less than significant.
c) Visual Character and Quality.

As viewed from public streets and highways near the project site - Brennan Avenue and State Route 120 - the current visual quality of the project site is generally poor. The site contains mostly grasses and weeds, with some structures in the western portion. There are trees and shrubs near the western boundary of the project site with some scenic value; however, this vegetation is ornamental and not unique to the area. The project would allow for the development of new single-family residences with landscaping and a park area. The overall result may be considered a visual improvement of the project site as viewed from the nearby streets and highways.

Development on the project site would be required to comply with the design standards of the Specific Plan, which incorporates applicable provisions of Escalon Municipal Code Chapter 17.41. As discussed in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, the proposed Specific Plan sets forth general requirements for development, including building heights; fences, hedges, and walls; lighting; and landscapes. Compliance with the design guidelines of the Specific Plan would ensure that proposed development would be consistent in height and design with the existing residential development to the south and east. Project impacts on visual quality would be less than significant.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-3 September 2025
d) Light and Glare.

The project would add lighting to a site that currently has no lights, except for limited lighting from the existing residence. As noted, there is existing street lighting and security lighting from surrounding development. Lighting associated with proposed development would be similar to that of existing residential development in the area. However, project lighting would result in substantial changes in ground level night views for residences along the project site.

Escalon Municipal Code Section 17.41.065 provides guidelines on lighting. These guidelines include that lighting fixtures located on any property in or adjacent to any residential zone shall be arranged and shielded so that the light will not shine directly on land in such residential zone, nor shall the light shine on the public roadway. Compliance with Section 17.41.065 would reduce project impacts on light and glare to a level that would be less than significant.

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? !" !" !"
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
!" !" !"
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
!" !" !"
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
!" !" !"
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use, or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
!" !" !"
Environmental Setting
According to topographic maps and aerial photographs, the project site was predominantly in agricultural use for vineyard, orchard tree, and row crop farming prior to 1993. Row crop farming appeared to begin prior to 1937 and continued until sometime between 1968 and 1975. Orchard tree farming appeared to begin prior to 1957 and continued until the v
v

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-4 September 2025
mid-1990s (Baez Geotechnical Group 2023a). The undeveloped portion of the project site is currently being used for cattle grazing.

As noted, agricultural fields are located north and west of the project site. However, the project site is surrounded by urban development to the south and east. Also, as noted, the project site is separated from agricultural land to the north by State Route 120 and the railroad tracks, and from agricultural lands to the west by Brennan Avenue.

The Important Farmland Maps, prepared by the California Department of Conservation as part of its Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, designate the viability of lands for farmland use, based on the physical and chemical properties of the soils and other factors.

The maps categorize farmland, in decreasing order of soil quality, as "Prime Farmland," "Unique Farmland," and "Farmland of Statewide Importance." Collectively, these categories are referred to as “Farmland” in the CEQA Checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and in this document. There are also designations for grazing land and for urban/built-up areas, among others. According to the 2018 Important Farmland Map of San Joaquin County, the most recent map available, the project site is designated mostly as Prime Farmland, with a small portion designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance (California Department of Conservation FMMP 2018).

In processing annexation applications, the LAFCo evaluates potential impacts on prime agricultural land as defined in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, which sets forth procedures for annexations. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act provides several definitions of “prime agricultural land”, including land that qualifies for 80 through 100 Storie Index rating and land that qualifies, if irrigated, for rating as class I or class II in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification. Under these criteria, two soil types on the project would qualify as prime agricultural land: Honcut sandy loam and Veritas fine sandy loam (see Section 3.7, Geology and Soils). These two soil types cover approximately 95% of the project site.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Farmland Conversion.

As noted, the project site has land designated as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, both of which are Farmland as defined by CEQA Guidelines Appendix G definition of Farmland. Development of the project site would convert this Farmland to non-agricultural use. In addition, the project would convert a project site that consists mostly of prime agricultural land, as defined by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act, to a non-agricultural use.

The Escalon General Plan EIR analyzed potential environmental impacts of development under the General Plan. This analysis encompassed the Planning Area of the General Plan, which included the project site. The General Plan EIR concluded that conversion of Farmland was a significant and unavoidable impact of General Plan implementation, and no feasible mitigation to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level was identified (City of Escalon 2005). A Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact was adopted by the Escalon City Council in conjunction with adoption of the General Plan.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-5 September 2025
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(d), where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a plan, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the plan should limit the project EIR or negative declaration to effects which were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR, or are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means. The project impacts on agricultural resources were already examined as significant impacts in the General Plan EIR, and the project would not have any new or more severe impacts than those described in the General Plan EIR. The project impacts are not susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance – the same determination made about agricultural resource impacts in the General Plan EIR.

The project site has been designated for residential development under the current Escalon General Plan as well as under the previous General Plan adopted in 2005, and it has been located within the 2025 growth area designated on the General Plan map. Project development would be consistent with adjacent urban development to the south and east.

While the project site is currently used for grazing, its long-term viability for agriculture is questionable, given its size, proximity to residential development, and isolation from other agricultural fields. Given all this, project impacts on Farmland conversion are considered less than significant.
b) Agricultural Zoning and Williamson Act.

As noted, the project site is zoned AU-20, which is an agricultural zone, but one that acknowledges the probability of future urban development. Proposed development would be consistent with this understanding of the AU-20 zone.

The Williamson Act is State legislation that seeks to preserve farmland by offering property tax breaks to farmers who sign a contract pledging to keep their land in agricultural use.

Neither parcel within the project site is under a Williamson Act contract. Project impacts related to agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts are less than significant. c, d) Forest Land Conversion and Zoning.

The project is in a developed urban area; there are no forest lands on the project site or in the vicinity. No land in the project vicinity is zoned as forest land or timberland. The project would have no impact on forest lands.
e) Indirect Conversion of Farmland and Forest Land.

The project site is adjacent to urban development to the south and east. Agricultural land to the north is separated from the project site by railroad tracks and State Route 120, and land to the west is separated by Brennan Avenue. The project would use existing infrastructure in the vicinity; no new infrastructure would be installed that could encourage future development on agricultural lands to the north and west. As previously noted, there are no forest lands in the vicinity. The project would have no impact on indirect conversion of Farmland or forest land.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-6 September 2025

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan?
!" !" !"
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
!" !" !"
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
!" !" !"
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
!" !" !"
Environmental Setting
Air Quality Status
The project site is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), which includes Escalon, has jurisdiction over most air quality matters in the Air Basin. The SJVAPCD is tasked with implementing programs and regulations required by both the federal and California Clean Air Acts. Under their respective Clean Air Acts, both the State of California and the federal government have established ambient air quality standards for six criteria air pollutants: ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead. California has four additional criteria pollutants under its Clean Air Act.

Table 3-1 shows the current attainment status of the Air Basin relative to the federal and State ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants. Except for ozone and particulate matter, which are discussed below, the Air Basin is in attainment of, or unclassified for, all federal and State ambient air quality standards.

Air Pollutants of Concern
The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is designated a non-attainment area for ozone. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air. It is formed when reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), referred to as “ozone precursors,” react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. To attain federal ambient air quality standards for ozone, the SJVAPCD currently has a 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard and the 2023 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard. v
v

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-7 September 2025
The Air Basin is also designated a non-attainment area for respirable particulate matter, a mixture of solid and liquid particles suspended in air, including dust, pollen, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets. Health concerns associated with suspended particulate matter focus on those particles small enough to reach the lungs when inhaled; consequently, both the federal and state air quality standards for particulate matter apply to particulates 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10) and to particulates less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), which are carried deeper into the lungs. Acute and chronic health effects associated with high particulate levels include the aggravation of chronic respiratory diseases, heart and lung disease, coughing, bronchitis, and respiratory illnesses in children.

The SJVAPCD currently has a 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards to attain federal ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 and the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan to maintain its current PM10 attainment status.

TABLE 3-1

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS
Criteria Pollutant
Designation/Classification
Federal Primary Standards State Standards
Ozone - One hour No Federal Standard Nonattainment/Severe Ozone - Eight hour Nonattainment/Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Attainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide (NOx) Attainment/Unclassified Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SOx) Attainment/Unclassified Attainment Lead No Designation/Classification Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
Source: SJVAPCD 2023.

Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless gas that is highly toxic. It is formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels and is emitted directly into the air, unlike ozone. The main source of CO in the San Joaquin Valley is on-road motor vehicles (SJVAPCD 2015). The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is in attainment/unclassified status for CO; as such, the

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-8 September 2025
SJVAPCD has no CO attainment plans. High CO concentrations may occur in areas of limited geographic size, sometimes referred to as “hot spots,” which are ordinarily associated with areas of highly congested traffic.

In addition to the criteria pollutants, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) has identified other air pollutants as toxic air contaminants (TACs) - pollutants that may cause acute serious, long-term effects, such as cancer, even at low levels. Diesel particulate matter is the most common TAC, generated mainly as a product of combustion in diesel engines. Other TACs are less common and are typically associated with industrial activities.

Air Quality Rules and Regulations
As previously noted, the SJVAPCD has jurisdiction over most air quality matters in the Air Basin. It implements the federal and California Clean Air Acts, and the applicable attainment and maintenance plans, through local regulations. The SJVAPCD has developed plans to attain State and federal standards for ozone and particulate matter, which include emissions inventories to measure the sources of air pollutants and the use of computer modeling to estimate future levels of pollution and make sure that the Valley will meet air quality goals (SJVAPCD 2015). A State Implementation Plan for carbon monoxide has been adopted by the ARB for the entire state.

The SJVAPCD regulations that would be applicable to the project are summarized below.

Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust PM10 Prohibitions)
Rules 8011-8081 are designed to reduce PM10 emissions generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and track out, landfill operations, etc.

Rule 4101 (Visible Emissions)
This rule prohibits emissions of visible air contaminants to the atmosphere and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants.

Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review)
Rule 9510, also known as the Indirect Source Rule, is intended to reduce or mitigate construction and operational emissions of NOx and PM10 generated by new development, either directly and/or by payment of off-site mitigation fees.

Construction emissions of NOx and PM10 exhaust must be reduced by 20% and 45%, respectively. Operational emissions of NOx and PM10 must be reduced by

33.3% and 50%, respectively. All projects subject to Rule 9510 are required to submit an Air Impact Assessment to the SJVAPCD. Rule 9510 applies to residential development projects of at least 50 units, so project development would be subject to Rule 9510.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-9 September 2025
For some projects, particularly large projects, a project proponent and the SJVAPCD may agree to and implement a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA), which is a voluntary contractual agreement between a developer and SJVAPCD to mitigate a development project’s impact on air quality, going beyond reductions achieved by compliance with Rule 9510. Under a VERA, the developer provides funds to SJVAPCD to administer the implementation of the VERA. The SJVAPCD then identifies emission reduction projects, funds those projects, and verifies that the specified emission reductions have been successfully achieved. Given that project emissions are less than significant (see below), the project is not pursuing a VERA.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
In 2015, the SJVAPCD adopted a revised Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). GAMAQI defines an analysis methodology, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures for the assessment of air quality impacts for projects within SJVAPCD’s jurisdiction. Table 3-2 shows the CEQA thresholds for significance for pollutant emissions within the SJVAPCD. The significance thresholds apply to emissions from both project construction and project operations.

TABLE 3-2

SJVAPCD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS AND

PROJECT AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Significance Thresholds1 10 10 100 27 15 15
Construction Emissions2 0.45 1.41 1.86 <0.01 0.28 0.15 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Operational Emissions3 1.11 0.67 4.61 0.01 0.98 0.26 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Note: All figures are in tons per year.
1 Applies to both construction and operational emissions. 2 Maximum unmitigated emissions in a calendar year.
3 Annual unmitigated emissions.

Sources: CalEEMod Version 2022.4.0, SJVAPCD 2015.
a) Air Quality Plan Consistency.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to estimate both construction and operational emissions associated with the development proposed under the Specific Plan. The CalEEMod results are shown in Appendix A of this document, and Table 3-2 shows the maximum project construction emissions in a calendar year and the annual operational emissions based on the CalEEMod run. As indicated in Table 3-2, project construction and operational emissions would not exceed the applicable SJVAPCD

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-10 September 2025
significance thresholds, including those for ozone precursors, particulate matter, and CO.

Because of this, project impacts related to air quality plans would be less than significant.

While project construction emissions would not be significant, the project would still be required to comply with applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations that would reduce emissions. As noted, SJVAPCD Regulation VIII contains measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions during construction. Dust control provisions are also routinely included in site improvement plans and specifications, along with construction contracts. Implementation of Rule 9510 would reduce both construction and operational project emissions of NOx and PM10. These rules and regulations would further reduce project impacts related to air quality plans that are already less than significant.
b) Cumulative Emissions.

As described above, the project would not generate operational emissions above SJVAPCD significance thresholds. The significance thresholds are applied to evaluate regional impacts of project-specific emissions of air pollutants. Regional impacts of a project can be characterized in terms of total annual emissions of criteria pollutants and their impact on SJVAPCD’s ability to attain criteria pollutant standards. On that basis, the proposed project would not result in a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative air quality impact in the Air Basin. Project impacts related to cumulative emissions would be less than significant.
c) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Pollutants.

As defined in GAMAQI, sensitive receptors include residences, schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, and hospitals (SJVAPCD 2015). The project site is adjacent to residential areas to the east, south, and west. As noted, project construction and operational emissions would be below SJVAPCD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. Implementation of applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, especially Regulation VIII, would further reduce emissions, making them less likely to reach these sensitive land uses.

A CO hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. CO hotspots have the potential to expose receptors to emissions that violate state and/or federal CO standards even if the broader Basin is in attainment for federal and state levels. The GAMAQI indicates that a project would create no violations of the CO standards if neither of the following criteria are met (SJVAPCD 2015):
● A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to LOS E or F; or
● A traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity (See Section 3.17, Transportation, for an explanation of LOS).

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-11 September 2025
As noted in Section 3.17, Transportation, LOS at the SR 120/Brennan Avenue intersection would experience LOS levels of E or F without or with the project. However, Caltrans is currently preparing an Intersection Control Evaluation for the SR 120/Brennan Road intersection, which will evaluate various control options and identify the most appropriate control option and lane configurations for the intersection. Also, funding has been identified for improvements to this intersection (SJCOG 2022a). It is expected that implementation of the recommended option would improve LOS at this intersection to a level above E, as the minimally acceptable LOS for Caltrans facilities is D. Therefore, the project would have no adverse impact related to CO emissions.

Overall, the pollutant emissions estimated to be generated by the project are unlikely to reach nearby sensitive receptors at levels that would have an adverse impact. The potential exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutant emissions would be less than significant. d) Odors and Other Emissions.

Residential development does not generate substantial odors that would affect nearby land uses. It also would not generate other significant emissions of TACs, which are generally associated with industrial operations. The one exception is diesel particulate matter, which is generated mainly by diesel engine combustion. The project would not generate any significant traffic that would use diesel engines, such as heavy-duty trucks. The project would have no impact related to odors or other emissions.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
!" !" !"
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
!" !" !"
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
!" !" !"
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
!" !" !"

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-12 September 2025
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
!" !" !"
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
!" !" !"
Environmental Setting
The project site is currently vacant except for a single-family residence and abandoned structures in the southwestern corner and some outbuildings in the northwestern corner. As noted in Section 3.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, the project site has been used for agricultural production, and a portion is currently in use for cattle grazing. Outside of the developed area, the predominant vegetation on the project site is mostly grasses and weeds, although a tree and shrub were identified near the southeastern corner of the project site.

Within the developed area are trees and shrubs, especially along Brennan Avenue. These trees and shrubs are ornamental in character and do not appear to be native to the project site. The project site has been disturbed by previous agricultural and development activities.

The southern and eastern sides of the project site are adjacent to development with high levels of activity and nearby roads with vehicle traffic, particularly State Route 120. A very limited variety of mammals and reptiles are likely to occur in the project site due to these surrounding land uses. No bodies of water or streams were seen on the project site, so fish and amphibians are unlikely to occur. While no birds were observed during a site visit, the existing trees are considered potential nesting sites.

Special-Status Species
Special-status species are plant or wildlife species that are in one or more of the following categories:
● Legally protected under the federal Endangered Species Act, the California Endangered Species Act, or other regulations.
● Designated rare, threatened, or endangered species and candidate species for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
● Considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or denning locations, communal roosts, and other essential habitat. ● Considered rare or endangered under the conditions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15380, such as species identified on Lists 1A, 1B and 2 in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California by the California Native Plant Society, and species that are considered sensitive or of special concern due to

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-13 September 2025
limited distribution or lack of adequate information to permit listing or rejection for state or federal status, such as those included on List 3 in the California Native Plant Society Inventory.

A search was conducted of the USFWS IPaC database, and the California Natural Diversity Database maintained by the CDFW to determine the presence of special-status species in the vicinity of the project site. The results of these searches are available in Appendix B of this IS/MND.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Special-Status Species.

The IPaC search indicated the presence of five species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act in the project vicinity. The species and their likelihood of occurring on the project site are described below:
● California tiger salamander (Threatened) – Unlikely: habitat is grasslands and low foothills with pools or ponds, which are not available on the project site. ● Monarch butterfly (Candidate) – Unlikely: found in channels and sloughs of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The project site is not on or near any channels or sloughs.
● Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Threatened) – Unlikely: requires elderberry shrubs, which are not found on the project site. Project site is not within identified critical habitat area.
● Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Threatened) – Unlikely: requires vernal pools, which are not found on the project site.
● Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Endangered) – Unlikely: requires vernal pools, which are not found on the project site.

The California Natural Diversity Database identified 14 special-status species as potentially occurring in the project vicinity. One of these, the California tiger salamander, was also identified in the IPaC database and was considered unlikely to occur. Seven special-status species were fish species unlikely to occur, as there are no streams or bodies of water on or near the project site. The other special-status species included the following:
● Swainson’s hawk (State Threatened) – Potentially could occur. ● Burrowing owl (State Species of Special Concern) – Potentially could occur. ● Western bumble bee (State Candidate Endangered) – Potentially could occur, but unlikely.
● American bumble bee (no status identified) – Unlikely; range is in the eastern United States.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-14 September 2025
● Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (federal Threatened) – Unlikely; no blue elderberry shrubs exist on the project site.
● Northern California legless lizard (State Species of Special Concern) – Unlikely; prefers oak-annual grass association and lupine-stable dune association, neither of which exists on the project site.

Two special-status species have been identified as potentially occurring on the project site.

Swainson’s hawk, a bird species listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act, requires suitable foraging habitats such as grasslands or alfalfa fields supporting rodents. The project site does contain potential foraging habitat, albeit marginal, and trees on the project site could potentially provide nesting habitat. Burrowing owl, a State Species of Special Concern, typically requires burrows made by ground squirrels for nesting. No ground squirrels or burrows were observed on the project site; however, it is possible both could occur there. In addition, there is grassland that would provide potential burrowing owl habitat, albeit marginal.

As discussed below, the project would be required to participate in the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Open Space and Habitat Conservation Plan (SJMSCP), a comprehensive plan for assessing and mitigating the biological impacts of converting open space or biologically sensitive lands to urban development in San Joaquin County and its incorporated cities. The SJMSCP contains Incidental Take Minimization Measures for both Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl, which are designed to reduce potential take of these species. Implementation of the applicable Incidental Take Minimization Measures, which are determined by the SJCOG, would reduce project impacts on these two specialstatus species to a level that would be less than significant.

A third species, western bumblebee, could find floral resources on the project site that could provide nectar and pollen, mainly along the western boundary. However, more such resources are available in nearby agricultural fields, so the potential loss of onsite floral resources would not significantly affect western bumblebee. In addition, western bumblebee requires nesting habitat that occurs primarily in underground cavities such as old squirrel or other animal nests, which were not observed on the project site. Therefore, western bumblebee is considered unlikely to occur on the project site.

Overall, project impacts on special-status species would be less than significant, with implementation of the applicable SJMSCP Incidental Take Minimization Measures. b) Riparian and Other Sensitive Habitats.

As noted, there are no streams on the project site; therefore, no riparian habitat exists. No potential vernal pools or other sensitive habitats were observed and are considered unlikely to occur, given past activities on the site. The project would have no impact on riparian and other sensitive habitats.
c) State and Federal Jurisdictional Wetlands.

Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, are broadly defined under 33 Code of Federal Regulations 328 to include navigable waterways, their tributaries, and adjacent wetlands.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-15 September 2025
“Waters of the State”, subject to oversight by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) with jurisdiction over the affected water, include isolated wetlands not covered by federal regulations.

As noted, no waters were observed on the site. A search of the National Wetlands Inventory indicated only one potential Water of the U.S. in the vicinity – a ditch along the railroad tracks. The project would not disturb this ditch, as it is within the railroad right-of-way.

Project impacts on State or federal jurisdictional wetlands would be less than significant. d) Fish and Wildlife Movement.

There are no streams either on or adjacent to the project site, so no fish movements would be affected by the project. Due to the presence of large trees near the site and potential foraging habitat (i.e., open fields) on and near the site, it is possible one or more pairs of raptors and smaller birds, such as songbirds, could potentially nest within the project site.

Some of these birds may be migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Development of the project could lead to a loss of nesting and foraging habitat of these protected migratory birds and could potentially disrupt their nesting activities. This is a potentially significant impact. As with potential project impacts on special-status species as discussed above, potential impacts on migratory birds would be reduced to a less than significant level with the required implementation of the applicable SJMSCP Incidental Take Minimization Measures.

Level of Significance: Less than significant
Mitigation Measures: None required
e) Local Biological Requirements.

Chapter 12.12 of the Escalon Municipal Code, also known as the Tree Ordinance, sets forth procedures designed to preserve, maintain, and protect mature trees. However, this ordinance applies only to street trees. Therefore, this ordinance would not cover the existing trees on the project site. No other local biological requirements have been enacted by the City. The project would have no impact on local biological requirements. f) Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plans.

As noted in a) above, the SJMSCP is a comprehensive plan for assessing and mitigating the biological impacts of converting open space or biologically sensitive lands to urban development in San Joaquin County and its incorporated cities. For the conversion of open space to non-open space uses that affect covered plant, fish, and wildlife species, the SJMSCP provides three compensation methods: preservation of existing sensitive lands, creation of new comparable habitat on the project site, or payment of fees that would be used to secure preserve lands outside the project site. In addition to fee payments, the SJMSCP identifies Incidental Take Minimization Measures - protection measures that avoid direct impacts of development on special-status species - with which projects are required to comply (SJCOG 2000). The SJCOG implements the SJMSCP on a project-byproject basis.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-16 September 2025
The City participates in the SJMSCP, as set forth in Escalon Municipal Code Chapter

15.50, which states that new development in general will pay approximately 60 percent of total SJMSCP costs. As such, the project would be required to comply with applicable provisions and measures of the SJMSCP, as determined by SJCOG. No other habitat conservation plans apply to the project site. The project would have no impact related to conflict with habitat conservation plans.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
!" !" !"
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? !" !" !"
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
!" !" !"
Environmental Setting
The project site, along with the City of Escalon, lies within the traditional territory of the Northern Valley Yokuts, whose lands once extended from the San Joaquin River near Mendota north to the confluence of the San Joaquin and Calaveras Rivers. Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, discusses the Yokuts and potential tribal cultural resources in more detail.

The first Euro-American known to have settled in what would become Escalon was John Wheeler Jones. Jones and his family arrived in California in 1852 and in 1855, Jones settled on what was then government land close to the well-traveled French Camp Road which at the time was a major transportation route to the foothill mines. He took up farming and began expanding his land holdings and raising livestock, eventually owning up to 40,000 acres, 4,000 acres of which were in the Escalon area. In 1894, the son of John Wheeler Jones, James Wesley Jones, learned that the Valley Railroad planned to build a rail line across his land, so he hired a surveyor and laid out a town. He named the town Escalon, a Spanish word for “stepping stone”. The town grew throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries and eventually incorporated in 1957.

The Central California Information Center conducted a search of its records for any prehistoric or historic resources recorded on the project site. The results of the search, available in Appendix C, found no record of any on-site resources. No prehistoric or historic resources in the immediate vicinity of the project site have been reported to the Central California Information Center (CCIC 2023).

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-17 September 2025
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Historical Resources.

As noted, a records search conducted by the Central California Information Center found no documented historic resources on the project site. However, a check of the USGS Avena topographic map from 1952 indicated the presence of two buildings on the project site.

Further research on the County assessor website indicates that a residence was built on APN 225-040-28 in 1957. The Central California Information Center defines a historical resource is defined as a building or structure over 45 years old (CCIC 2023). Given the apparent date the residence was constructed, it is a potential historical resource that would be directly affected by the project. Mitigation described below would require review of the existing buildings by an architectural historian to determine their historical value and actions to be taken if the structures are historically significant. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce project impacts on historical resources to a level that would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures:

CULT-1: Prior to final site plan approval, a qualified architectural historian shall review the two existing structures on the project site and provide a report on their historical significance. If one or both structures are determined to be a significant historical resource, then the architectural historian shall provide in the report recommendations on the disposition of the identified resource, which shall be incorporated within the final site plans or made conditions of approval for the project.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
b) Archaeological Resources.

The records search conducted by the Central California Information Center found no documented archaeological resources on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site.

However, it is conceivable that ground disturbances associated with project construction could unearth archaeological materials of significance that are currently unknown.

Procedures to address archaeological discoveries if they should occur are set forth in the mitigation measure below. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce potential impacts to a level that would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures:

CULT-2: If any subsurface cultural resources are encountered during project construction, all construction activities within 50 feet of the encounter shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can examine these materials, determine their significance, and, if significant, recommend

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-18 September 2025
mitigation measures that would reduce potential effects to a level that is less than significant. Recommended measures could include, but are not limited to, 1) preservation in place, or 2) excavation, recovery, and curation by qualified professionals. The City of Escalon Community Development Department shall be notified, and the project developer shall be responsible for retaining qualified professionals, implementing recommended mitigation measures, and documenting mitigation efforts in a written report to the City’s Community Development Department, consistent with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines. If burial resources or tribal cultural resources are discovered, the City shall notify the appropriate tribal representative, who may examine the materials with the archaeologist and advise the City as to their significance and disposition.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
c) Human Burials.

As with other cultural resources, it is not expected that any human burials, particularly those of Native Americans, would be uncovered by construction on the project site, given its extensive disturbance and distant location from probable Native American settlements.

However, it is conceivable that excavation associated with the project could uncover a previously unknown burial.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) describes the procedure to be followed when human remains are uncovered in a location outside a dedicated cemetery. All work in the vicinity of the find shall be halted, and the County Coroner shall be notified to determine if an investigation of the death is required, in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If it is determined that the remains are Native American in origin, then the County Coroner must contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.

The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the most likely descendants of the deceased Native American, and the most likely descendants may make recommendations on the disposition of the remains and any associated grave goods with appropriate dignity. If a most likely descendant cannot be identified, the descendant fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendations of the most likely descendant, then the landowner shall rebury the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance.

Compliance with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) would ensure that any human remains and associated grave goods encountered during project construction would be treated with appropriate dignity. Project impacts on human remains would be less than significant.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-19 September 2025

3.6 ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? !" !" !"
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
!" !" !"
Environmental Setting
Electricity and natural gas are major energy sources for residences and businesses in California. In San Joaquin County, electricity consumption in 2022 totaled approximately 5,608 million kilowatt-hours, of which approximately 3,483 million kilowatt hours were consumed by non-residential uses and the remainder by residential uses (CEC 2023a). In San Joaquin County, natural gas consumption in 2022 totaled approximately 186 million therms, of which approximately 96 million therms were consumed by non-residential uses and the remainder by residential uses (CEC 2023b). Motor vehicle trips also account for substantial energy usage. The SJCOG estimated countywide daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was approximately 17 million miles in 2016, which led to the consumption of approximately 471 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel (SJCOG 2022b).

The State of California has adopted comprehensive energy efficiency standards as part of its Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24. The State has also adopted the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). CALGreen sets forth mandatory measures, applicable to new residential and nonresidential structures as well as additions and alterations, on water efficiency and conservation, building material conservation, and interior environmental quality. It also mentions energy efficiency, although CALGreen defers to Title 24 for implementation measures. The City has adopted the 2022 version of CALGreen.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Project Energy Consumption.

Project construction would involve fuel consumption and use of other non-renewable resources. Construction equipment used for such improvements typically runs on diesel fuel or gasoline. The same fuels typically are used for vehicles that transport equipment and workers to and from a construction site. However, construction-related fuel consumption would be finite, short-term and consistent with construction activities of a similar character. This energy use would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-20 September 2025
Electricity may be used for equipment operation during construction activities. It is expected that more electrical construction equipment would be used in the future, as it would generate fewer air pollutant emissions. This electrical consumption would be consistent with construction activities of a similar character; therefore, the use of electricity in construction activities would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary, especially since fossil fuel consumption would be reduced. Moreover, under California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard, a greater share of electricity would be provided from renewable energy sources over time, so less fossil fuel consumption to generate electricity would occur. Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, discusses the Renewables Portfolio Standard in detail.

The most recent Residential Energy Consumption Survey by the U.S. Energy Information Administration found that average annual energy consumption by single-family residences located in the western United States was 10,330 kilowatt-hours of electricity per household and 527 hundred cubic feet of natural gas per household (EIA 2018). Based on these factors, proposed development on the project site would consume approximately 743,760 kilowatt-hours of electricity and 37,944 hundred cubic feet of natural gas annually.

The project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of Title 24 and the adopted CALGreen in effect at the time of project approval. The provisions of these codes are intended to increase energy efficiency of buildings, thereby reducing energy consumption. Compliance with these standards would reduce energy consumption of the proposed residences. Overall, project construction and operations would not consume energy resources in a manner considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Project impacts related to energy consumption would be less than significant. b) Consistency with Energy Plans.

The City has not adopted any renewable energy or energy efficiency plans. However, the City has adopted the 2022 version of CALGreen, which contains provisions that promote energy efficiency. The project would be required to comply with the applicable requirements of CALGreen and Title 24, which are designed to improve energy efficiency of structure, thereby forwarding State energy conservation goals. Project impacts related to energy plans would be less than significant.

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based !" !" !" v

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-21 September 2025
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? !" !" !"
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
!" !" !"
iv) Landslides? !" !" !"
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? !" !" !" c) Be located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
!" !" !"
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
!" !" !"
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
!" !" !"
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
!" !" !"
Environmental Setting
Topography and Geology
The project site lies in the San Joaquin Valley in central California. The San Joaquin Valley is the southern portion of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province, which is a topographically flat, northwest-trending, structural trough about 50 miles wide and 450 miles long. The San Joaquin Valley is filled with thick sedimentary rock sequences that were deposited as much as 130 million years ago. The Geologic Map of the San Francisco – San Jose Quadrangle (Wagner et al. 1991) designates the underlying geology of the project site as the Modesto Formation, consisting of geologically recent sediments.

Project Site Soils
Most of the soils in the San Joaquin Valley consist of sand, silt, loamy clay alluvium, peat, and other organic sediments. These soils are the result of long-term natural soil deposition and the decomposition of marshland vegetation. According to a custom soil survey for the project site, there are three soil types on the project site (SCS 1992, NRCS 2023):
● Delhi loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (identified as 142 in Figure 3-1). This is a very deep, somewhat excessively drained, nearly level soil formed in windmodified alluvium derived from granitic rock sources. The permeability of Delhi soil is rapid, and runoff is slow. The water erosion hazard is slight, but the hazard of wind erosion is severe. The expansive (shrink-swell) potential of this soil is low. v
v
v
v

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-22 September 2025
Delhi soil is found along a portion of land adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site. The soil has a land capability classification of III when irrigated and of IV when not irrigated, and the Storie Index rating is 65 (see Section 3.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, for relevant discussion).
● Honcut sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (identified as 175 in Figure 3-1). This is a very deep, well-drained, nearly level soil formed in alluvium from granitic rock sources. The permeability of Honcut soil is moderately rapid, and runoff is slow.

Water erosion hazard is slight, and the hazard of wind erosion is moderate. The expansive potential of this soil is low. Honcut soil is also found along a portion of land adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site. The soil has a land capability classification of I when irrigated and of IV when not irrigated, and the Storie Index rating is 95.
● Veritas fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (identified as 266 in Figure 3-1). This is a moderately well-drained soil, nearly level that is deep to a hardpan. It formed in alluvium derived from mixed rock sources. The permeability of Veritas soil is rapid, and runoff is slow. Water erosion hazard is slight, and the hazard of wind erosion is moderate. The expansive potential of this soil is low. This is the predominant soil type on the project site. The soil has a land capability classification of II when irrigated and of IV when not irrigated, and the Storie Index rating is 57.

Seismic and Geologic Hazards
No faults have been mapped in or near the City of Escalon. Outside the County are several faults that are known to be active. The San Andreas system is the most widely known, comprising several individually named fault zones in the San Francisco Bay area, the principal ones being the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras Faults. Information indicates that ground shaking along these faults can produce damage within the County that reaches varying intensities. East of San Joaquin County, the Melones Fault and the Bear Mountain Fault have been identified. These are not judged to pose a seismic threat to the County (City of Escalon 2004).

Figure 3-1
BaseCamp Environmental Soil Types
SOURCE: USDA NRCS
•
0 ~
,&
......... _ ... ""'
....... -
0 - A. .......
y
+ --... :-: 1--, ...
• w
0 I)
~ -;..
--

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-24 September 2025
When coarse sediments are saturated and compact during an earthquake, soils may lose strength and become fluid, a process called liquefaction. Water from voids may be forced to the ground surface, where it emerges in the form of mud spouts or sand boils. The Escalon General Plan states that the City is not within any areas identified by the California Geological Survey as having a high liquefaction potential (City of Escalon 2019a).

Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are fossils or groups of fossils that are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, or important, and that add to an existing body of knowledge in specific areas.

Surface examination of a study or project area often does not reveal whether paleontological resources are present. A record search of the Museum of Paleontology at the University of California in Berkeley indicated that 97 paleontological finds have been made in the County (UCMP 2020). Most specimens from the County have been found in rock formations in the foothills of the Diablo Mountain Range. However, remains of extinct animals, such as mammoth, could be found virtually anywhere in the County, especially along watercourses such as the San Joaquin River and its tributaries (San Joaquin County 2016).

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a-i) Fault Rupture Hazards.

No faults, including active or potentially active faults, have been mapped in the Escalon area. The project site is not in an area designated as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (California Geological Survey 2023). The closest designated active fault is the Ortigalita fault, which is a Holocene fault approximately 29 miles to the west of the project site. The project would have no impact related to a fault rupture hazard. a-ii, iii) Seismic Hazards.

As noted above, the project site is potentially subject to ground shaking from nearby fault systems, which represent a hazard to buildings and infrastructure. All new buildings in Escalon are required to be built in accordance with the most recent version of the California Building Code adopted by the City, which as of the date of release of this IS/MND is the 2022 version. The California Building Code includes provisions related to seismic safety, compliance with which requires buildings, based on occupancy type, to be constructed to withstand anticipated ground shaking.

A geotechnical report conducted for the project, available in Appendix D of this document, indicated that groundwater levels in the project vicinity are more than 50 feet below the ground surface (Baez Geotechnical Group 2023b) Liquefaction occurs in areas with relatively shallow depths to groundwater. Given the depth to the groundwater table at the project site plus information provided in the Escalon General Plan, liquefaction is unlikely to occur at the project site. Project impacts related to seismic hazards are considered less than significant.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-25 September 2025
a-iv) Landslides.

The topography of the project area and surrounding area is flat; therefore, landslides would not occur. The project would have no impact related to this issue. b) Soil Erosion.

As noted above, all soil types on the project site have a low potential for water erosion.

However, the potential of all three soils for wind erosion ranges from moderate to severe.

Construction activities would loosen these soils, making them more susceptible to wind erosion, as well as potential water erosion.

For all projects that disturb one acre of land or more, a Construction General Permit is required from the SWRCB. The permit requirements include preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a Qualified SWPPP Developer to address potential water quality issues. A SWPPP specifies the Best Management Practices (BMPs) needed to avoid or minimize adverse water quality impacts. Construction BMPs fall within the general categories of Temporary Soil Stabilization, Temporary Sediment Control, Wind Erosion Control, Tracking Control, Non-Storm Water Management, and Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. BMPs applicable to the project are incorporated in the SWPPP as required. BMPs are incorporated into project improvement plans and specifications, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. BMP function and effectiveness are monitored and reported, and remediation is required to address pollution occurrence. The project would be required to obtain a Construction General Permit from the SWRCB and to comply with its provisions, including preparation of a SWPPP, which is required by the mitigation measure below.

In addition, the City requires the preparation of a site grading and drainage plan that shall be reviewed by the City Engineer, along with an erosion control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City. Compliance with these requirements and with the mitigation measure would minimize the amount of sediment that leaves the construction site and potential construction water quality effects. In addition, compliance with SJVAPCD rules and regulations, especially Regulation VIII that addresses fugitive dust control, would minimize the potential wind erosion impacts of project construction. Project impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation and compliance with regulations.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures:

GEO-1: Prior to commencement of construction activity, the developer shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project and file a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in compliance with the
Construction General Permit and City of Escalon storm water requirements. The SWPPP shall be available on the construction site at all times. The developer shall incorporate an Erosion Control Plan consistent with all applicable provisions of the SWPPP within the site

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-26 September 2025
improvement and building plans. The developer also shall submit the SWRCB Waste Discharger’s Identification Number to the City prior to approval of development or grading plans.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
c) Geologic Instability.

The geotechnical report prepared for the project concluded that the proposed development can generally be constructed as planned, provided that the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report are incorporated into the project design and during construction. The predominant geotechnical consideration for the project is the presence of loose soil in the upper two feet below ground surface. This material would need to be reworked as engineered fill in building pad and fill areas (Baez Geotechnical Group 2023b). Mitigation described below would incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical report into project design and construction, including those related to site preparation and grading that would address the potential soil instability. Project impacts related to geologic instability would be less than significant with mitigation.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures:

GEO-2: The project shall incorporate into its design and construction the recommendations of the geotechnical report Geotechnical Investigation, Murphy Ranch Residential Subdivision, 18092 & 18112 Brennan Road, Escalon, California, prepared by Baez Geotechnical Group on August 31, 2023. The design and construction plans shall be reviewed by the City for consistency with the recommendations in the geotechnical report and shall be approved prior to final subdivision map approval.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
d) Expansive Soils.

As noted, the soils identified on the project site have a low expansive potential. As such, they are not expected to shrink and swell such that buildings or infrastructure installed on the project site would be adversely affected. The project would have no impact related to expansive soil.
e) Adequacy of Soils for Sewage Disposal.

The project would be connected to the City’s sewer system. It would not use, and does not propose to install, any septic systems or alternative disposal systems. The project would have no impact related to soil adequacy for sewage disposal.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-27 September 2025
f) Paleontological Resources and Unique Geological Features.

The project site is flat and contains no geological features that may be considered unique.

The project site is underlain by the Modesto Formation, which has been a source of paleontological finds. Given past agricultural activities on the project site, it is unlikely that any intact paleontological resources would be encountered. However, it is conceivable that currently unknown resources may be uncovered during project construction activities.

Procedures to address paleontological discoveries if they should occur are set forth in the mitigation measure below. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce potential impacts to a level that would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures:

GEO-3: If any subsurface paleontological resources are encountered during construction of the project, all construction activities within 50 feet of the encounter shall be halted until a qualified paleontologist can examine these materials, determine their significance and, if significant, recommend further mitigation measures that would reduce potential effects to a level that is less than significant. Recommended measures may include, but are not limited to, 1) preservation in place, or 2) excavation, recovery, and curation by qualified professionals. The City of Escalon Community Development Department and the HACSJ shall be notified, and the project developer shall be responsible for retaining qualified professionals, implementing recommended mitigation measures, and documenting mitigation efforts in a written report to the City’s Community Development Department, consistent with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
!" !" !"
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
!" !" !"

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-28 September 2025
Environmental Setting
GHG Background
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gases that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range, trapping heat in the earth’s atmosphere. GHGs are both naturally occurring and are emitted by human activity. Increased atmospheric concentrations of GHGs are considered a primary contributor to global climate change, which is a subject of concern for the State of California. Potential climate change impacts occurring in the San Joaquin Valley include higher temperatures, longer and more severe droughts, more intense precipitation events, and more frequent and extensive wildfires (Fernandez-Bou et al. 2021).

GHG emissions in California in 2021, the most recent year for which data are available, were estimated at approximately 381.3 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) – a decrease of approximately 21.5% from the peak level in 2004 but an increase of approximately 3 % from the 2020 emissions. Transportation was the largest contributor to GHG emissions in California, with 39% of total emissions. Other significant sources include industrial activities, with approximately 22% of total emissions, and electric power generation, both in-state and imported, with approximately 16% of total emissions (ARB 2023).No data on GHG emissions in Escalon are available.

Unlike the criteria air pollutants described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, GHGs have no “attainment” standards established by the federal or State government. In fact, GHGs are not generally thought of as traditional air pollutants because their impacts are global in nature, while air pollutants mainly affect the general region of their release to the atmosphere (SJVAPCD 2015). Nevertheless, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that GHG emissions endanger both the public health and public welfare under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act due to their impacts associated with climate change (EPA 2009).

GHG Emission Reduction Plans
The State of California has implemented GHG emission reduction strategies and legislation in recent years. Most recently, in 2016, Senate Bill (SB) 32 was enacted. SB 32 mandates statewide reductions in GHG emissions to levels that are 40% below 1990 levels by the year 2030. The State adopted a Scoping Plan in 2017 that sets forth strategies for achieving the SB 32 target. The updated Scoping Plan continues many of the programs that were part of the previous Scoping Plans, including the cap-and-trade program, low-carbon fuel standards, renewable energy, and methane reduction strategies. It also addresses, for the first time, GHG emissions from the natural and working lands of California, including the agriculture and forestry sectors (ARB 2017).

In 2022, ARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan, which assesses progress towards achieving the SB 32 2030 reduction target and lays out a path to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045. Proposed strategies to achieve these reductions include rapid movement to zeroemission transportation, phasing out fossil fuel use for heating homes and buildings, restricting use of chemicals and refrigerants that are thousands of times more powerful at

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-29 September 2025
trapping heat than carbon dioxide, expanded development of renewable energy sources, increased use of natural and working lands for incorporating and storing carbon, and greater employment of carbon removal technology (ARB 2022).

Cities and counties throughout California have prepared Climate Action Plans that outline how the local government will reduce GHG emissions, which are typically related to the 2020 emission reduction target set in the State’s Climate Change Scoping Plan. The City currently has no Climate Action Plan or other GHG reduction plan. However, the City has several policies and implementation strategies in its General Plan that pertain to GHG emissions. These include (City of Escalon 2019a):
● Coordinate with other local and regional jurisdictions, including the SJVAPCD, SJCOG, and the ARB, in the development and implementation of regional and county plans, programs, and mitigation measures that address cross-jurisdictional and regional air quality impacts, including transportation and climate change impacts, and incorporate the relevant provisions of those plans into City planning and project review procedures.
● Continue to implement broad-scale General Plan strategies to decrease the generation of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions through the reduction of vehicle miles traveled, excessive vehicle traffic congestion, and excessive engine idling by providing public transportation options and making land use planning decisions that encourage pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips rather than private passenger vehicle trips.
● Review development and land use projects to ensure that measures are incorporated to reduce air pollutants, including particulate matter emissions, and greenhouse gases associated with project design, site preparation, grading, and construction as conditions of approval for all development projects, subdivision maps, site plans, and grading permits.

California also has adopted a Renewables Portfolio Standard, the intent of which in part is to reduce the use of fossil fuels, a main source of GHG emissions. The Renewables Portfolio Standard requires electricity retailers in the state to generate 33% of electricity they sell from renewable energy sources (i.e., solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric from small generators, etc.) by the end of 2020. Almost of the electricity retail sellers reported meeting the 2020 compliance target (CPUC 2022). In 2018, SB 100 was signed into law, which increased the electricity generation requirement from renewable sources to 60% by 2030 and requires all the state's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Project GHG Emissions and Consistency with GHG Reduction Plans.

The CalEEMod model estimated the total GHG construction and operational emissions associated with the project (see Appendix A). Table 3-3 presents the results of the CalEEMod run. “Mitigated emissions” are the result of project compliance with applicable

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-30 September 2025
laws, rules, and regulations, along with inclusion of project features that reduce GHG emissions. These include the following:
• SB X7-7 in 2009 sets an overall goal of reducing per capita urban water use by 20% by December 31, 2020. The California Green Building Code mandates a 20% reduction in indoor water use.

TABLE 3-3

GHG EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT
GHG Emission Type
Unmitigated Emissions
(metric tons CO2e)
Mitigated Emissions
(metric tons CO2e)
Construction1 664 664
Operational2 1,318 1,315
1 Total emissions for construction period. 2 Annual emissions.

Sources: California Emissions Estimator Model v. 2022.4.0.

Neither the City nor SJVAPCD has established quantitative significance thresholds for GHG emissions. However, the nearby Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District has established a quantitative threshold of 1,100 metric tons CO2e to determine significance of project GHG emissions for CEQA purposes (SMAQMD 2021). This threshold applies to both construction and operational emissions. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 allows for the use of significance thresholds established by other agencies.

The GHG construction emissions of the proposed project are below the threshold of 1,100 metric tons CO2e. Based on this, project GHG construction emissions are considered less than significant. In any event, GHG construction emissions would be limited due to the length of time of construction activity, and these emissions would cease once work is completed. However, project operational GHG emissions, both unmitigated and mitigated, would not be below this significance threshold. Therefore, further analysis of operational GHG emissions is required.

As noted, there are no data on GHG emissions generated in Escalon. The Escalon General Plan EIR did not analyze GHG impacts. However, the proposed development is consistent with the land use designation under the Escalon General Plan. It is expected that development under the Escalon General Plan would generate a certain amount of GHG emissions. As the project would be consistent with the General Plan designation for the project site, it is not expected to introduce new GHG impacts, nor would it increase the severity of the anticipated GHG impacts from General Plan development.

As noted in Section 3.6, Energy, the project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of Title 24 and the adopted CALGreen in effect at the time of project approval.

The provisions of these codes are intended to increase energy efficiency of buildings, thereby reducing energy consumption along with GHG emissions associated with energy

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-31 September 2025
production. As noted, California has adopted a Renewables Standard Portfolio that seeks to reduce and eventually eliminate the amount of electricity production from fossil fuels, the combustion of which produces GHGs.

In summary, project operational GHG emissions would be consistent with emission generation anticipated with development under the Escalon General Plan, and the project would contain features that would reduce GHG emissions from its operations. Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions and GHG reduction plans would be less than significant.

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
!" !" !"
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
!" !" !"
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
!" !" !"
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
!" !" !"
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
!" !" !"
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
!" !" !"
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
!" !" !"
Environmental Setting
This section focuses on hazards associated with hazardous materials, proximity to airports, and wildfires. Geologic and soil hazards are addressed in Section 3.7, Geology and Soils,

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-32 September 2025
and potential flooding hazards are addressed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality.

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the project site was conducted by Baez Geotechnical Group. Appendix E contains a copy of this ESA. The project site was evaluated for potential hazardous material contamination, based on a review of the prioruse history of the property; a review of neighboring properties based on reasonably ascertainable environmental databases; a visual reconnaissance for hazardous materials contamination; a preliminary screening for asbestos-containing building materials, leadbased paint, drinking water quality, and radon; and a search for aboveground and underground storage tanks and for equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls.

Data on recorded hazardous material sites are kept in the GeoTracker database, maintained by the SWRCB, and in the EnviroStor database, maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Both GeoTracker and EnviroStor provide the names and addresses of documented hazardous material sites, along with their cleanup status.

There are no public airports in the Escalon area. The nearest public airports are Modesto City-County Airport to the south and Oakdale Airport to the east. Both airports are approximately 11.5 miles away from the project site.

Wildland fires, resulting from both man-made and natural causes, can occur in brush or grasslands, primarily in sparsely developed or existing open space lands. Structures and urban development may be threatened or destroyed in the area of wildland fires (City of Escalon 2004).

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Hazardous Material Transport, Use, and Storage.

Hazardous materials that are likely to be used and stored on the project site would include cleaning products and landscaping chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.

The amount of these potential hazardous materials that would be stored would likely be below that required for the preparation of a Hazardous Material Business Plan that would be submitted to the County Environmental Health Department. Such a plan must be prepared by any facility that handles a hazardous material or mixture containing a hazardous material that has a quantity at any one time during the reporting year equal to or greater than 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids, or 200 cubic feet for a compressed gas. None of the anticipated hazardous materials to be used by the project would be stored in such quantities. Project impacts related to transport, use, or storage of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
b) Release of Hazardous Materials.

As noted in a) above, the project implementation would not involve the transport, use, or storage of hazardous materials in substantial quantities. These materials are not expected to be in quantities large enough to pose a threat to human health and the environment if released.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-33 September 2025
Construction activities on the project site may involve the use of hazardous materials such as fuels and solvents, and thus create a potential for hazardous material spills. Construction and maintenance vehicles would transport and use fuels in ordinary quantities. Fuel spills, if any occur, would be minimal and would not typically have significant adverse effects.

Potential hazardous materials spills during construction are addressed in the required SWPPP, described in Section 3.7, Geology and Soils. In accordance with SWPPP requirements, contractors have absorbent materials at construction sites to clean up minor spills. Other substances used in the construction process would be stored in approved containers and used in relatively small quantities, in accordance with the manufacturers’ recommendations and/or applicable regulations.

County Assessor records indicate that the single-family residence on the project site was constructed in 1957. Although not explicitly documented, it is probable that the other constructed structure on the site is approximately the same age. The age of the onsite structures, which would be demolished as part of the project, may indicate the presence of asbestos-containing building materials. Demolition could release these substances into the local environment. The age of the structures may also indicate the presence of lead-based paints, which could also be released into the local environment with demolition.

The Phase I ESA recommended screening for asbestos-containing building materials and lead-based paints in and around the residences and the barn prior to their demolition (Baez Geotechnical Group 2023a). This recommendation is incorporated by the two mitigation measures presented below, which also specify procedures to be followed should these substances be found. Implementation of these mitigation measures would minimize the potential release of these substances into the environment, thereby reducing potential impacts to a level that would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures:

HAZ-1: Prior to the start of demolition of the residences and the barn, the contractor shall screen for the presence of asbestos-containing building materials in and around these structures. If asbestos-containing building materials are found, then a demolition permit from the City shall include a Demolition Permit Release Form from the SJVAPCD prior to its issuance. The Demolition Permit Release Form certifies that the proposed demolition complies with the requirements of the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), which govern asbestos removal, and with SJVAPCD Rule 4002. All of the regulated asbestos abatement shall be completed by a state-certified asbestos abatement contractor prior to the start of demolition.

HAZ-2: Prior to the start of demolition of the residences and the barn, the contractor shall screen for the presence of lead-based paints in and around these structures. If lead-based paints are found, then they shall be removed in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 8, Sections 35001-36100. This requires

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-34 September 2025
that work on any structure built before January 1, 1978 must use leadsafe work practices, including containment and cleaning the work area after the project is completed. The regulations also cover accreditation of training providers and certification of individuals to perform lead abatement and set work practice standards for lead hazard evaluations and the abatement of lead hazards. The lead-based paint abatement shall be completed prior to the start of demolition.

Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
c) Hazardous Materials Releases near Schools.

There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school is El Portal Middle School, approximately 0.40 miles to the southeast. As noted in b) above, project construction and operations would not require the handling or transport of acutely hazardous materials or waste that would endanger schools or the public. The use of small quantities of hazardous materials during project construction would be limited to the project site. The project would not produce hazardous emissions. The project would have no impact on schools within one-quarter mile of the project site. d) Hazardous Materials Sites.

A search of both GeoTracker and EnviroStor databases indicated no record of any active hazardous material site on or within one-half mile of the project site (SWRCB 2023, DTSC 2023). A list of solid waste disposal sites identified by SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit did not show any locations at the project site or vicinity (CalEPA 2016a). Likewise, a list by SWRCB containing sites under Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders showed no locations (CalEPA 2016b).

As noted, the Phase I ESA evaluated the project site for potential hazardous material contamination. The ESA did not find evidence that current use of the property or activity at neighboring properties would indicate the likelihood of significant environmental impairment to the subject property. In addition, no visual evidence was observed of hazardous material contamination, indications of improper hazardous materials storage or disposal, or significant concerns relating to PCBs, storage tanks, or radon. However, an aboveground storage tank containing propane was identified near the residence at 18112 Brennan Avenue. The ESA recommended removal of the storage tank with proper handling and documentation (Baez Geotechnical Group 2023a). It is expected that removal and disposal of the storage tank would occur in accordance with the requirements of the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department. Project impacts related to hazardous material sites would be less than significant.
e) Public Airport Operations.

As noted, there are no airports in Escalon or in its vicinity. The project would have no impact related to potential airport hazards.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-35 September 2025
f) Emergency Response and Evacuations.

The project would not obstruct adjacent streets once construction work is completed.

Project construction work would mostly occur on the project site. However, the adjacent segment of Brennan Avenue would be improved. While construction work would be temporary and would cease once work is completed, it could have the potential of restricting lanes such that emergency response or emergency evacuation could be affected.

Mitigation presented below would ensure that access would be maintained during construction activities within adjacent streets, thereby reducing impacts to a level that would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures:

HAZ-3: Prior to the start of project construction, the developer shall prepare and implement a Traffic Control Plan, which shall include such items as traffic control requirements, resident notification of access closure, and daily access restoration. The contractor shall specify dates and times of road closures or restrictions, if any, and shall ensure that adequate access will be provided for emergency vehicles. The Traffic Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Department of Public Works and shall be coordinated with the Escalon Police Department and the Escalon Consolidated Fire Protection District if construction will require road closures or lane restrictions.

Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
g) Wildland Fire Hazards.

The project site is not in an area susceptible to wildland fires; land is either agricultural or developed. The project site, in its current mostly undeveloped condition, presents the greatest wildland fire risk. The project would eliminate the existing wildland fire hazard by replacing the grasses and weeds with a paved and developed area. The project would have no impact related to wildland fire hazards. Section 3.20, Wildfire, provides a more detailed analysis of wildfire impacts.

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
!" !" !"
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project !" !" !"

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-36 September 2025
may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river runoff or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? !" !" !" ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
!" !" !"
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
!" !" !"
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? !" !" !"
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
!" !" !"
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
!" !" !"
Environmental Setting
Surface Waters
There are no natural streams on or near the project site. Surface water quality in the Escalon area is maintained through the City’s Storm Water Management Program (SWMP), developed in compliance with the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program and with the SWRCB’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) General Permit. The program includes control measures and defines BMPs designed to protect surface water quality associated with land development during both construction and post-construction periods.

In accordance with its MS4 General Permit, the City has adopted a Post-Construction Standards Plan that provides guidance to developers in meeting the SWRCB’s requirements for mitigating the negative impact of increases in storm water runoff caused by new development through the incorporation of Low Impact Development (LID) standards and hydromodification management techniques. LID mitigates excessive runoff by control measures that utilize evapotranspiration, infiltration, capture/reuse, and biotreatment to mimic the runoff of a natural environment. Hydromodification techniques are used to design development sites so that post-construction runoff flow rates do not exceed those of the pre-construction conditions (City of Escalon 2014). v
v

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-37 September 2025
Groundwater
The project site is within the Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. As noted in Section 3.7, Geology and Soils, groundwater at the project site is more than 50 feet below ground surface (Baez Geotechnical Group 2023b). The City obtains its drinking water from three groundwater wells (see Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems for more information). Natural recharge of local aquifers in the Escalon area appears to be by percolation of rainfall and unused irrigation water, with some minor infiltration from streams (City of Escalon 2004).

In 2014, the State enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. This act requires the formation of local groundwater sustainability agencies that must assess conditions in their local water basins and adopt locally based Groundwater Sustainability Plans for sustainable use of groundwater and avoidance of overdraft. Plans for “critically overdrafted” basins must be completed and adopted by January 31, 2020, while plans for high- and medium-priority basins have an adoption deadline of January 31, 2022. The Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin has been designated a critically overdrafted basin.

The City is a member of the South San Joaquin Groundwater Sustainability Agency. This agency, in collaboration with other agencies, prepared a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Subbasin and submitted it to the Department of Water Resources on January 29, 2020. To achieve sustainability in the Subbasin, projects and management actions were identified. These include water supply projects that either replace groundwater use or supplement groundwater supplies to attain the current estimated pumping offset and/or recharge need. A final list of 23 potential projects is included in the Groundwater Sustainability Plan, representing a variety of project types, including direct and in-lieu recharge, intra-basin water transfers, demand conservation, water recycling, and stormwater reuse (ESJGA 2019).

Flooding Hazard
A Flood Insurance Rate Map prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) indicates that the project area is designated Zone X. Zone X is considered an area of minimal flood hazard. It is outside a delineated 100-year floodplain – the floodplain commonly used to assess potential flooding impacts and considered a Special Flood Hazard Area (FEMA 2009). The project site is within the potential dam failure inundation area for the New Melones Dam along the Stanislaus River (San Joaquin County 2016).

In 2007, the State of California approved SB 5 and a series of related Senate and Assembly bills intended to set new flood protection standards for urban areas in the Central Valley.

This group of bills, referred to collectively in this document as “SB 5,” establish the State standard for flood protection in these areas as protection from the 200-year frequency flood. Under SB 5, urban and urbanizing areas must be provided with 200-year flood protection no later than 2025. Preliminary maps drafted by the California Department of Water Resources do not show the project site within a 200-year floodplain (DWR 2023).

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-38 September 2025
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Surface Water Quality.

The project would not directly affect surface waters, as there are none on or near the project site. As noted in Section 3.7, Geology and Soils, construction activities would disturb soils and soil materials, which could be transported off site by runoff and could eventually enter surface waters. Project development and operation would lead to contamination of storm run-off with fuels, oils, metals, and other substances associated with motor vehicles. These discharges could eventually enter surface waters. This is considered a potentially significant impact.

The Phase II MS4 Permit and the City of Escalon require project proponents to incorporate post-construction measures that reduce the volume of runoff and mitigate pollutants in runoff into its design and completed development. The project proponent shall select design measures that are appropriate for the project and will adequately meet the goals of this Post-Construction Standards Plan. The tasks shall include the following (City of Escalon 2014):
● Selecting, sizing, and engineering site design measures, source control measures, and hydromodification management techniques that are adequate in meeting the requirements of this plan.
● Providing the required submittal package to the municipal plan checker, including supporting information, maps, drawings, and calculations; including plans and calculations that have been stamped by a certified and/or licensed professional. ● Providing an Operation and Maintenance Plan and a signed Certificate of Responsibility to the plan checker for the on-going maintenance of the constructed post-construction design measures.
● Providing any additional requested information to the plan checker. ● Verifying that approved site design measures and source control measures are constructed as specified on the approved plans.

Compliance with the requirements of the City’s Post-Construction Standards Plan would minimize water quality impacts of the project after construction work is completed. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, described in Section 3.7, Geology and Soils, would minimize water quality impacts from construction activities. Project impacts on surface waters and their quality would be less than significant. b) Groundwater Supplies and Recharge.

As noted, the City relies on groundwater for its primary source of water. The project would not draw directly from the underlying aquifer, but it would be connected to the City’s water system that draws upon groundwater supplies. An adequate water supply exists to accommodate this demand. Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, discusses this in detail.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-39 September 2025
The project would replace existing parcels of mostly grasses and weeds with urban development and pavement. This would substantially reduce the amount of precipitation that would percolate into the ground, thereby reducing groundwater recharge. Given the relatively small acreage of the project site and the extent of other lands available for recharge surrounding the City, the project is not expected to interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Project impacts on groundwater are considered less than significant.
c-i, ii, iii) Drainage Patterns and Runoff.

The project would alter existing storm drainage patterns, due to site grading and the installation of pavement and storm drainage facilities. In addition, proposed improvements on the project site would result in the generation of additional runoff due to the introduction of impervious surfaces. The project would connect to the City’s storm drainage system, designing its onsite facilities in accordance with City standards and specifications, including the MS4 Post-Construction Standards Plan, and with the design criteria in the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan. The storm drainage system is expected to have adequate capacity to accommodate onsite runoff.

Runoff would be likely to collect pollutants, mainly deposits from motor vehicles.

However, as noted, the project would be required to adhere to post-construction measures to be agreed upon between the project applicant and the City. In addition, any disposal of water that will ultimately discharge into South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) facilities shall conform to the SSJID’s currently policy relative to storm drainage. Most collected storm drainage in Escalon is discharged into SSJID facilities (see Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems). These measures are expected to minimize the amount of polluted runoff that would enter the City’s storm drainage system. Drainage plans would be submitted for City approval prior to construction. Project impacts on drainage and runoff are considered less than significant.
c-iv) Flood Flows.

As noted, the project area is in a minimal flood hazard area. It is not within a 100-year floodplain as indicated by the FEMA map for the area, nor is it within a 200-year floodplain as defined by the California Department of Water Resources. Because of this, the project would be unlikely to impede or redirect any flood flows. The project would have no impact related to flood flows.
d) Other Flooding Hazards.

As noted, the project site is within the potential inundation zone of New Melones Dam were it to fail. Dams are evaluated regularly by the California Division of Safety of Dams to verify their structural integrity, including their resistance to stresses that could result from local or regional earthquakes. Adherence to Division requirements, which can include seismic upgrades in cases where seismic vulnerability is identified, minimizes the potential for catastrophic failure (San Joaquin County 2016).

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-40 September 2025
There are no levees in the Escalon area. The project area is in a topographically flat region away from the coast, with no large bodies of water in the vicinity. Therefore, the project would not be affected by seiche, or tsunamis. Project impacts related to other flooding hazards would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with Water Quality or Groundwater Plans.

As described above, the project would be required to comply with the requirements of the City’s Post-Construction Standards Plan, which is designed to maintain local water quality.

The Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin has been adopted. While the provisions of this plan are not directly applicable to the project, the project would not interfere with its implementation. The project would have no impact related to water quality or groundwater plans.

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? !" !" !" b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? !" !" !"
Environmental Setting
As noted in Chapter 1.0, Introduction, the project site currently contains two residences, a barn, and several dilapidated sheds and shade structures, but is otherwise mostly vacant.

As discussed in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, the project site was predominantly in agricultural use until 1993, and the vacant portion of the site is currently used for cattle grazing. A dog kennel/training facility operated on the project site beginning around 1995, but the dog kennel is no longer in operation (Baez Geotechnical Group 2023a).

As has been noted, the current City of Escalon and San Joaquin County General Plan designations for the project site are Low Density Residential, while the current County zoning is AU-20, Agriculture-Urban Reserve, 20-acre minimum (see Chapter 1.0, Introduction, for a description of the AU-20 zone).

The project site is adjacent to developed residential areas of western Escalon. Single-family residences have been constructed east and south of the site. All lands east and south of the project site have been designated Low Density Residential by the Escalon General Plan and have been zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, except for Shadowood Park which is designated and zoned OS, Open Space/Park. North of the project site, across the railroad tracks and SR 120, are lands mostly used for agriculture, with limited residential and commercial development.

BaseCamp
Figure 3-2
BaseCamp Environmental GENERAL PLAN MAP

PROJECT SITE
(
• LEGEND
rt~~~~J~~~~I LSite • D Cityl· . ocat1ons) ImIts
D Lot lines
~ral Plan Land Use·
Low-Density R • Medium-D . esidential
- H h ens1ty R ·ct - 19 -Densit R • es, ential n Commercil es,dential - Light Industrial
- ~eavy Industrial
- p~it Space/Park IC Facility
Growth , B oundaries·
1 / .2015 •
1 ~, 2025
A,1_2035
' ~, Planning Area
Escalon En • • Printed 5/0iineenng

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-42 September 2025
The nearby agricultural fields are within the Escalon City limits, and land along SR 120 has been designated by the Escalon General Plan for Commercial development.

Lands west of Brennan Avenue are used for agriculture. These lands are under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. The County General Plan has designated the area west of Brennan Avenue as General Agricultural. County zoning for these lands is AG-40, General Agriculture, 40-acre minimum.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Division of Established Communities.

The project site is a part of a planned residential area that would provide additional housing units in the City, consistent with the Escalon General Plan. The project would not divide existing residential communities in the area, which are located adjacent to and east and south of the project site. The project would have no impact on the division of established communities.
b) Conflicts with Plans, Policies and Regulations Mitigating Environmental Effects.

The Specific Plan and subsequent development would be consistent with existing City and County General Plan designations, both of which allow for the proposed low-density residential development. The Escalon General Plan was prepared to balance City growth and development with environmental protection to the extent practical. In accordance with Escalon Municipal Code Section 17.49.100, the Specific Plan shall be consistent with the City General Plan. Therefore, the project is not expected to conflict with the City General Plan provisions designed to avoid or minimize environmental effects. Moreover, as noted in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, the project site would be pre-zoned to PD, which would be consistent with Escalon Municipal Code Section 17.24.060(C).

This IS/MND analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. For all environmental issues, the project would have no environmental impact, an impact that would be less than significant, or an impact that can be mitigated to a level that would be less than significant. This includes issues for which there are land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

These are discussed under the applicable environmental issue. No potential conflicts have been identified in these other issue sections. Project impacts regarding conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would be less than significant.

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-43 September 2025

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
!" !" !"
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
!" !" !"
Environmental Setting
San Joaquin County has several mineral resources including natural gas, borates, sand and gravel, limestone, clay, building stone, and pumice. However, Escalon has no significant mineral resources or mining operations (City of Escalon 2004). The Escalon area has no oil or natural gas fields; the nearest such field is the Lone Tree Creek Gas Field approximately 6.5 miles northwest of the project site (DOGGR 2023).

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Availability of Mineral Resources.

There are no identified mineral resources areas on the project site or in Escalon. The project would have no effect on the availability of or access to locally designated or known mineral resources. The project would have no impact on mineral resources.

3.13 NOISE
Would the project result in: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? !" !" !"
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
!" !" !"
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? !" !" !"

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-44 September 2025
Environmental Setting
Assessment of noise impacts focuses on the “ambient" noise level, which is the general noise level in a project area. The existing ambient noise environment at the project site is defined primarily by traffic on SR 120 and Brennan Avenue, and by intermittent railroad activity on the adjacent railroad line to the north. A noise study for the project, available in Appendix F of this document, quantified the existing ambient noise level on the project site by conducting a long-term (96-hour) noise level survey from a location at the northwest corner of the project site and from one further to the east. The results of the survey indicated that the day-night average noise level was 69 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at the northwest corner and 62 dBA at the other location. Noise level data indicated that only one heavy rail train pass-by was observed during the noise survey period; therefore, the ambient noise level data were primarily driven by roadway traffic (Bollard Acoustical Consultants 2023).

City standards and policies established in the Noise Element of the Escalon General Plan are designed to protect community residents from noise impacts and to establish criteria to mitigate noise-generating land uses and development. Noise standards are based on the Day-Night Average Level (Ldn) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The Ldn is based upon the average hourly Leq over a 24-hour day, with a 10-decibel (dB) weighting applied to noise during the hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to account for greater sensitivity during that period. The CNEL is the same as the Ldn, with an additional 5-dB weighting applied to noise during the hours from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

According to the City’s Noise Element, areas shall be recognized as noise-impacted if existing or projected future noise levels at the exterior of buildings exceed 65 dB Ldn or CNEL. However, noise that exceeds 65 dB Ldn would be conditionally acceptable if mitigation is provided that would ensure interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL.

The noise study indicates that the average noise level measured at the northwest corner of the project site was less than the 65-dBA standard, but the average noise level at the other location exceeded this standard.

The City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 8.16.030 of the Escalon Municipal Code, also contains provisions addressing noise. Among other provisions, the Noise Ordinance prohibits construction activities and the operation of construction equipment before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. daily. On Saturday and Sunday and state or federal holidays, the prohibited time is before 8:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Generation of Noise Exceeding Local Standards.

Project Operations
The project would result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels over existing conditions, as the site is mostly vacant and new single-family residences would be constructed. It is anticipated that the main source of noise associated with the project would be traffic generated by the proposed residential development. Noise from this source would

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-45 September 2025
be confined to the main roadways in the area – SR 120 and Brennan Avenue. The noise study conservatively assumed that future traffic volumes on SR 120 and Brennan Avenue would increase by 100%, resulting in a 3-dB increase in traffic noise levels relative to measured noise levels. Future traffic and railroad noise levels were projected to the nearest proposed backyards and building facades of the development, based on a 4.5-dB decrease per doubling of distance from the noise source.

According to the noise study, future traffic and railroad noise levels are predicted to exceed the 65-dB exterior noise level standard at the backyards of Lots 1-6 and Lot 70 (Figure 3- 2). As a result, consideration of exterior noise mitigation measures is warranted (Bollard Acoustical Consultants 2023). The noise study concluded that a minimum 6-foot-tall noise barrier is required for the nearest lots along Yosemite Avenue and Brennan Avenue. Figure 3-2 shows the location of the required noise barriers. This recommendation is incorporated as a mitigation measure below.

The noise study also concluded that future traffic noise levels at the first-floor building interiors proposed nearest to the roadways are predicted to meet City interior noise standards with standard residential construction. However, noise levels at the second-floor building interiors may exceed City interior noise standards at the lots indicated on Figure 3-2. The noise study recommended window and door assembly modifications for the upper floors of residential structures that are incorporated as a mitigation measure below.

Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure that exterior and interior noise levels would comply with City noise standards, thereby reducing impacts to a level that would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures:

NOISE-1: The project shall install a noise barrier at the locations identified in Figure 2 in the report Environmental Noise Assessment, Murphy Ranch Residential Development Escalon, California, prepared by Bollard Acoustical Consultants September 8, 2023. The noise barriers could take the form of masonry wall, earthen berm, or a combination of the two. A wood or wood composite fence would also be a sufficient noise barrier, provided that the fence slats overlap by a minimum of two inches and are screwed to the framing rather than nailed.

Figure 3-3
BaseCamp Environmental RECOMMENDED NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES SOURCE: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc.
_:_) I \ ,.___ _____________________ !...,_ ______ ---1., ______ _ • ---~ --------- YOSEMITE AVENUE (SR-120) ----.. '• r-----------U-N-IO_N_P_A-CI-FI_C_/B_N_S_F_R-AI-LR_O_AD_S_P_UR_L_IN_E ___________________ _ ~. ----~ - -----.-.---.--,---,.---,,-..--r----r---,-----.-----.-~ 70 47 ' ., . ~ ,,. 60 61 v~ 67
3 • .. 11 ' , • l
'----,•- __ .)
, ~~--,--~~~~-~~~-~~~
I .. I ,., II , .. ! I ,1 ! n
,1 I
I
I l,Rllhll I
... I I • I I I
I ·,
Legend
Existing oise Barriers I . - Recommended 6-Foot Tall Noise Barrier Recommended indow Assembly Upgrades: STC 32 (Upper-Floors Only)

Murphy Ranch Specific Plan IS/MND 3-47 September 2025
NOISE-2: For the lots identified in green in Figure 2 in the report Environmental Noise Assessment, Murphy Ranch Residential Development Escalon, California, prepared by Bollard Acoustical Consultants September 8, 2023, the project shall install window and door assembly upgrades of Sound Transmission Class (STC) 32 for any upper floors of residences. At the first-floor building facades and at second-floor building facades further removed from roadway and railroad without an annotated STC rating recommendation on Figure 2, standard STC 27 window and door assemblies would be adequate.

Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
Project Construction
Project construction would involve temporary increases in ambient noise levels, due to the use of construction equipment and vehicle traffic to and from the construction site. Table 3-4 shows noise levels that could be generated by construction equipment. Although project construction noise would cease once construction work is completed, this is considered a potentially significant short-term impact, as the project site is adjacent to existing residential development to the east and south, which could be exposed to exterior noise levels that exceed standards set in the City’s Noise Element.

TABLE 3-4

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE
Type of Equipment Maximum Level, dB at 50 feet
Backhoe 78
Compactor 83
Compressor (air) 78
Concrete Saw 90
Dozer 82
Dump Truck 76
Excavator 81
Generator 81
Jackhammer 89
Pneumatic Tools 85
Source: FHWA 2006.

Temporary noise impacts resulting from project construction shall be minimized by implementation of mitigation, described below, that would require the use of mufflers on construction equipment. Also, as noted, the City’s Noise Ordinance limits construction to