In regards to the vehicle circulation within the proposed development, staff did not address alternatives that I put forth at both town hall meetings. I proposed to eliminate Celivo as an ingress/egress point, and make Riesling a throughway from California St. to 120. This would reduce/slow impact on California St. and the existing neighborhood, while reducing the overburden currently of Brennan/120.
There are six over railroad track roads currently in Escalon.
My next issue is Shadowwood Park/Storm Basin. The BelleTerra LLMD property owners pay for the landscape maintenance, water, electricity to run sprinklers, playground equipment, as well as, the amortization of all included amenities, masonry walls, chain link fence etc. This project fails to address any fiscal impact on our LLMD or reduction of our fees to be levied on Murphy Ranch as they impact our costs to maintain the park/storm basin. This matter again was brought up by me at both town halls, and again not addressed by staff as promised. Any additional costs due to improvements proposed at Murphy Ranch that are levied on the BelleTerra LLMD must be voted on through the Prop 218 process. Any use by Murphy Ranch of our park/storm basin, should obligate them to share in the cost thus reducing our LLMD levies.
The recently rejected application of a mixed use development at Elizabeth and 120 garnered much opposition from the surrounding citizens. The developers were denied their application by both Planning Commission and City Council as they were deemed to have failed to address the concerns and alternatives proposed by the nearby residents. This project/application is so much more concerning than that and should tabled. This area of land is outside the city limits and should not be annexed at this time as there is no need for expediency before all concerns and alternatives are adopted and completed.
Kurt Danziger
389 Noni Avenue
Natalie Gallegos
396 California St.
Escalon, CA 95320
October 10, 2025
City of Escalon
2060 McHenry Avenue
Escalon CA, 95320
Attn: Planning Commission, City Manager, City Council
RE: October 14th, 2025 Agenda Item, Project 24-797 Murphy Ranch I am in receipt of the letter dated 9/23/2025, regarding the Planning Meeting on October 14th, 2025 regarding the Murphy Ranch proposed subdivision. I am opposed to this plan.
The community has had two meetings regarding this proposed project since the application was first submitted to the city in April 2024. Both meetings were FULL of community members, and the one in council chambers in March 2025 was standing room only. The room was so full people were standing in the foyer. The attendance number noted by the city is apparently from a "sign in sheet" and not an actual head count. In fact we were limited to an hour meeting and not everyone got the opportunity to speak.
This morning I saw that the agenda packet for this upcoming meeting was uploaded. I was SHOCKED to see that it was 1083 pages!! So my very first question is did all of you thoroughly and honestly read all 1083 pages of this packet in approximately 72 hours? According to chat GPT a ream of paper is 500 pages...so this agenda is approximately two full reams of paper. Chat GPT also says the average novel length is 250-400 pages. This agenda packet is almost the length of 3 long novels!
I am also disappointed that the questions asked at the community meetings in November 2024 and March 2025 have not been answered until this agenda packet was posted....two business days before a decision making meeting. I also found that in this agenda package there is a "Public review draft Initial Study/Mitigated negative declaration" Dated September 2025, that the public is now seeing for the first time today.
I have "reviewed" the 1083 agenda package. I located the items that specifically are points of concern for myself and the community as voiced during both prior meetings. This objection to the project will be long as 1083 pages is a lot to respond to.
As you may recall the major bones of contention with the community were the massive traffic issues, the number of homes, the size of the homes and the potential shared or not shared cost of a Community Facilities District, especially pertaining to Shadowood Park.
At our two prior meetings, the issue of Brennan and Hwy 120 was a major concern. We had just had the second fatality in two years at that intersection and several injury accidents all within a few weeks of the Florsheim meeting. The intersection has had the community up in arms so much that even city council member Jeremy Engel started a petition titled "Mandate Installation of a Traffic Signal at Brennan and Hwy 120 in Escalon" To date Mr. Engel has collected 818 signatures. You can find his petition as of tonight on change.org by searching the title. What some of us in the community have learned via public records from Cal Trans, is that Mr. Engel never actually submitted that petition to CalTrans. Per public records provided by CalTrans, someone in our community who works for the county, saw it on social media and emailed a friend of his at Cal Trans and let him know.
I also noted in the current agenda packet that there was no correspondence with CalTrans prior to December 2024 regarding the Murphy Ranch project. It is also noted in the packet that Caltrans didn't issue a formal response until June 2025.
In their response they recommend new striping and updated signage on Brennan.
Nothing else.
There are several of us who have contacted CalTrans and requested updates on the "intersection" not Murphy Ranch specifically. CalTrans has very recently admitted "conversations" with the City of Escalon regarding intersection improvements, but everything is very preliminary "discussion" about a signal light or a roundabout. No Inventory Control Studies have even been scheduled let alone started. On April 25, 2025; An internal Cal Trans memo cc'd to the city "asks" for a "Project Initiation Document" to be filled out. Nothing since. And this has been confirmed as of this week via email correspondence to several community members from Cal Trans Public Information Officer; Skip Allum.
Since the initial application submitted was by the Murphy's in early 2024, the city of Escalon approved Western Erectors/Weldway to develop on the North side of Hwy 120 in Liberty Park. This heavy industrial business will bring many employees and commercial truck traffic to the area very soon.
This brings me to the nuts and bolts of this application for the community. The traffic study performed by Florsheim Homes/Fehr & Peers.
The initial application presented to the public April 2024, provided the traffic study which amplified the community objection to this project. The study was done April 18, 2023 through June 1st 2023, Tuesdays thru Thursdays only. Page 9-13 of the Fehr & Peers report dated November 23, 2023 & July 23,2024 ; state the intersection at Hwy 120 & Brennan avenue CURRENTLY rates an LOS F! With 95% queuing. It goes on to say verbatim on page 13 that "During the PM peak hour, delay and queuing on the northbound approach at the intersection without and with the project would be so high, Synchro is incapable of accurately reporting delay or 95th percentile queue. This same traffic study done in 2023 FALSLY claimed that CalTrans was actively doing an ICE (Inventory Control Evaluation) of the intersection at Brennan & 120.
Fast forward to today. Florsheim has "amended" their traffic study as of April 15, 2025. We were just provided this "update" today. I highly encourage you to read thoroughly this traffic study. It can be found in the agenda packet pages 838-949.
The "new" study was done December 3rd 2024- December 5th 2024(TuesdayThursday)see page 845 of your packet. It essentially says the same thing the study did in 2023. There were a few differences; however. They cite that there was ONE fatality in the last 5 years, however; we as a community know there was
TWO. The employee at VanAllen school, succumb to her injuries several days after her accident. The updated 2025 study again says there is an ICE study being done by Cal Trans and that is FALSE. In fact this study goes on to say that CalTrans can only confirm that improvements to the intersection will occur prior to 2045!!!! That's 20 years from now!
The second MAJOR ISSUE is the volume of "trips" through the adjacent neighborhood! Using their VMT method of "trip" calculations; the number of "trips" down California street will be "approximately" 1100 daily (the 2023 study said 722 trips). This DOUBLES the amount of traffic currently (590) down California Street ! This development plan limits ALL of the ingress and egress completely funneled to California street. This is beyond overwhelming and disruptive to the residents on California street and the adjacent neighborhood.
There will be 5 outlets dumping on to California street in just the short quarter mile section of California street between Brennan and Riesling. The city labels California Street a MINOR collector street. However 5 bottleneck outlets from hundreds of surrounding homes in such a short span is not MINOR(Riesling North & South, Chelstina, Celvio & Brennan). In addition, the section of California Street between Riesling and Brennan is NARROW. If cars are parked along the street on either side, two small vehicles cannot safely pass side by side. It's virtually impossible for two larger vehicles such as a large pickup trucks or RV to pass side by side. Once you pass Shadowood Park roundabout going EAST bound on California the street significantly increases in width, 10-20 feet wider! The third issue is Shadowood Park and a Community Facilities District. Since 2003 the residents of Farinelli Subdivision have a Lamp Light District (Bella Terra) that we fund out of our individual property taxes to maintain our neighborhood and Shadowood Park. We recently had several meetings regarding the fees and usage and management of these LLD monies. The Murphy Ranch plan "extends" Shadowood Park into the Murphy property and adds a bathroom and other amenities. Who will pay to maintain that? That question has not been answered either. It is the position of Bella Terra LLD that we should not be financially responsible for maintenance of any park "expansions" and "add on amenities" brought in by this development. How is the city going to divide that "responsibility" if it's one continuous park?
Fourth issue is, the size of the homes, the number of homes and the type of development in general. I can tell you that EVERYONE on this side of town has been patiently waiting 22+ years for this mess of property to be cleaned up and developed. We were told in 2003-2004, by The Carr Family and the City of Escalon as well as Lakemont Homes that a gated, deed restricted 55 and older, single story....mini Del Webb type of development was going to be put on this property. Per the City of Escalon Archives, confirmed by an email from Jaylen on March 5, 2025...there were two such subdivision proposals submitted to the city.
In 2004 a pre-application was submitted and named Benjamin Estates. Then again in 2007 another Senior deed restricted proposal was submitted to the city, but again likely due to the economy at the time, it never came to fruition. We continue to want exactly that originally planned type of development to go in.
Deed restricted 55 and older single story homes. It would cut the traffic problems in half if not more. Seniors have less vehicles and limit "trips" in and out. It would bring just as much revenue to the city, and seniors are more likely to shop local. Less strain on the existing infrastructure, water, sewer, ect.
I also have some questions regarding the "Conditions of Development" section of this agenda packet. Page 161 of the packet.
#12 of the Conditions, talks about the developer contributing 6.5% current development impact money toward the 120/Brennan Intersection improvements not to exceed $143,724 per building permit. I understand that the city has been "told" by Caltrans that they will "eventually" fully fund any improvements to the intersection....but what if they don't? There have been zero formal studies initiated to date. IS the city going to "collect" this 6.5% up front from the developer and then refund them if Caltrans ever follows through? Caltrans gave a likely completion timeline of 2045!!! That's 20 years from now!!! #19 of the Conditions says that at the 37th building permit the developer is to do another traffic study to evaluate the speed and conditions on 120? What is this? Yes, finally in closing, I would like to summarize my objections to this project.
1. Intersection at Hwy 120 & Brennan is not going to be fixed any time soon. 2045 is the projection by CalTrans at this point! The intersection is too dangerous to impose any further development in the area until CalTrans follows through with their promises and makes the improvements at their expense. Building residential on top of one of the most dangerous intersections in the county is reckless. Recall, the city REJECTED Gurmant Lions Inc. and their apartment project by Orlando's for MUCH MUCH less traffic issues!!! The traffic studies done have been done at the LEAST busy traffic times of year, and during the middle of the week. Why were they not done Friday through Monday or holiday weekends when bay area travelers are heading up the hill for the weekend!
120 is the main supply highway to Sonora. It is heavily traveled by Lowes, Walmart, Safeway, Fuel, ect., supplies to the rapidly growing communities east of Escalon. The city of Oakdale has annexed 300 acres and are building 900+ homes. The city of Manteca is extending its city limits east of Austin Road to JackTone, north to French Camp Rd.
They are putting a travel center in at the north east corner of Jack Tone and 120 with gas stations and 5 restaurants. (See Manteca Bulliten article September 9, 2025). City of Riverbank votes on the Riverwalk in 2026! All of these "destinations" are going to bring traffic 10 fold down 120 right through Escalon!!! It's going to get CRAZY fast!!! Fix the highway!!! CalTrans lack of urgency is hindering the city from safely growing. Cal Trans signed sealed and formally approved a traffic light at 120 & French Camp Rd. almost 5 years ago. Shovels were supposed to be in the ground on that project Spring of 2025. NOTHING has been started to date!
2. The amount of traffic this type of housing and the restricted ingress and egress and the doubled traffic flow on to California Street is disruptive to the existing neighborhood and will greatly reduce the quality of the existing neighborhood. This proposal is a market rate housing development with proposed extensive CFD's. These homes are going to be expensive not only to purchase but maintain financially.
Just like the bigger homes in Manteca and Tracy. People are becoming house poor and needing to move in multiple generations of family members just to help pay the expenses of homeownership. (grandma & grandpa, aunts & uncles, adult children and grandchildren, 6-10 adults in one home). This generates more "trips", more cars, more strain on the infrastructure such as sewer and water usage.
3. Please carefully read Pages 838-949 in the agenda packet. It is the Fehr-Peers Technical Memorandum revised 4/18/2025. Also please request a copy of the November 2023 & July 2024 for your review and comparison. Also consider the industrial business going in to the North and the traffic that will generate once complete. Employees, Large 18 Wheel Trucks, ect.
4. Please go back and review the town hall meeting March 3, 2025.
The community spoke loud and clear.
5. Please find and review the Petition on Change.org created by councilmen Jeremy Engel "Mandate Installation of a Traffic Signal at Brennan and Hwy 120 in Escalon". Please ask Councilman Engel to print you the actual list of verified signatures as he is the creator of the petition. The public can only see how many have signed it. As of 10/10/2025 it says 818. https://c.org/kh2dmkQktm
6. Please consider the issues of how to divide the costs of maintenance/city expenses of Shadowood park.
7. City code currently restricts new two story homes behind existing homes. Per the mitigated Sept 2025 plans, it shows there are still two story homes going in behind existing homes.
8. There are so many issues with this project and its not even city limits! There is an entire annexation process still to be done. We don't HAVE to do this right now!!!!!
8. Please reject this proposal. It's not the right fit for Escalon, not this type of housing, not at this location, definitely not with the current traffic plan.
Sincerely,
Natalie Gallegos
From: Susan Judson
To: [email protected]
Subject: Murphy Ranch
Date: Sunday, October 12, 2025 3:45:07 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
The increased traffic on California Street due to the proposed planned development of Murphy Ranch is a concern.. It will impact the residences in the area by causing excessive delays at Brennan Road and Highway 120 and contributes to an already unsafe intersection.
The development is poorly designed by utilizing only California Street for access to the proposed housing. There must be a way to address these issues moving forward.
Sincerely,
Susan Judson
From: Kelly Robinson
To: cityclerk
Subject: Murphy Ranch
Date: Monday, October 13, 2025 3:00:35 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Hello,
We are unable to attend the planning commission meeting tomorrow, however we would like to express our support for the purposed Murphy Ranch housing development.
While we understand the issue of Brennan Rd being a traffic concern, we don't see it being more of a risk than many other streets that require entering Hwy 120. We do believe however that with our city currently being strapped financially and the lack of housing available to families here, the development would be a positive addition to our community.
Thank you
Mark and Kelly Robinson
1742 Carignane Way, Escalon
From: Sarah Myers
To: cityclerk
Subject: Murphy Ranch Planning Commission letter
Date: Monday, October 13, 2025 3:08:08 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Hi Diana!
I am unable to attend the planning commission meeting tomorrow night. I would love to have my comment sent to the commissioners. Thank you
Murphy Ranch Project
I wanted to personally reach out to the planning commission as I will be unable to attend Tuesdays meeting to express my support for the Murphy Ranch Project.
I have personally attended all prior town halls related to Murphy Ranch, heard the concerns of the citizens, and completed my own research to decide to support Murphy Ranch and Florsheim Homes.
I was born and raised in Escalon and spent 30 years of my life here. 10 years ago, I relocated to Modesto because of less expensive housing. After starting a family, we are trying to relocate back to Escalon. Our oldest child attends EUSD and we commute daily for her to attend school in the community we love and are active in. We are and have been actively trying to buy in Escalon, but inventory for housing that meets our family’s needs is extremely low. I believe adding additional housing would be in the best interests of Escalon for people like myself, the city/school district in additional property taxes, and to help comply with state housing requirements.
There are a few community concerns I want to address:
1-Traffic and the Brennan 120 intersection.
While adding homes will, of course, cause additional traffic. The city plan has accounted for this. I think the street plans, as they are, work with all the other neighborhoods and will result in sufficient flow of traffic for a small housing addition. California street has been designed in the city plan to withstand this small additional development.
When it comes to the Brennan/120 intersection. I agree it needs improvement. I know the city is working on that with Caltrans. There have been accidents and fatalities there over the years and the railroad tracks make for poor visibility. I also know, as a long time resident in the same neighborhood south of first street, that a couple blocks away is a very safe intersection onto 120 at Walnut. While we can’t control driver decisions and error. I believe many residents (like myself) would make a responsible driving decision and drive two blocks in the opposite direction instead of turning onto Brennan in order to utilize the safer intersection at Walnut and 120 during peak traffic times where drivers needed to turn onto highway 120.
I don’t believe the intersection, on its own, should prevent a small housing development. Just as it didn’t prevent the building of Bella Terra 20 years ago (a development more than double
the size of Murphy ranch) I would propose the commission come up with safe guards to encourage traffic entering 120 utilize other avenues until improvement takes place on the Caltrans timeline.
2- Overwhelming EUSD
One concern that has also been raised repeatedly by the community is stress on our schools. I personally reached out to the district and spoke with assistant superintendent to address enrollment. He mentioned our schools are currently operating below capacity at most school sites. They have a lot of research on amount of students per households in Escalon and are confident they could accommodate and support additional students in EUSD. 3-Housing in Escalon is a NEED
As I mentioned before, housing is needed in Escalon. I believe in the city’s plan for slow growth and limiting building permits—but I believe this project aligns with the city’s plan, adding a small amount of housing, and the project improves city parks for all residents.
The city has not added new construction in many years. The addition of new homes will allow for some upsizing and downsizing desperately needed by some Escalon residents. 4- Florsheim homes.
I also have looked into this builder and visited their two new projects in Turlock, as well as a housing development in Stockton. These developments are beautiful additions to the communities they are in. The homes appear to be well made and the communities are well landscaped. The product they are producing is high quality and aligns with Escalon’s standards. The plans, as shown, will complement surrounding neighborhoods.
The plans Florsheim has presented for Escalon look beautiful—I am particularly excited about proposed improvements to the park. Bathroom facilities are desperately needed at parks in Escalon for recreational sports. The additions Florsheim is proposing will turn a mediocre and not highly used park into a place the city residents can enjoy and utilize in ways our other parks are limited
To sum up my comment, I am respectfully asking the planning commission find a way to move the Murphy Ranch project forward in the best interests of Escalon.
Thank you all for taking the time to read this comment, Sarah Myers
Attachment 1
7
MINUTES
ESCALON PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 2025
City Council Chambers, 2060 McHenry Avenue - 6:30 P.M.
Beginning Resolution No. 2025-01
Beginning Minute Order No. 2025-10
CALL TO ORDER Chair Dunbar
A. Flag Salute
B. Roll Call
PRESENT: Chair Dunbar, Vice Chair Thompson, Commissioners Willis, Castellanos and Gonzales
STAFF PRESENT: Jaylen French - City Manager (CM), Diana Trejo – Assistant Planner, Police Chief Hardgraves, City Attorney – Andreas Booher, City Engineer - Bill Kull and Development and Community Services Manager – Trevin Barber Prior to the start of the meeting, City Manager French introduced Trevin Barber as the new Development and Community Services Manager.
CONSENT CALENDAR
These items are considered routine in nature and are acted upon by a single action unless requested by an individual Commissioner or member of the public for special consideration.
1. Approve the Minutes from the Meeting of September 9, 2025.
MOTION – it was m/s by WILLIS/CASTELLANOS to Approve the Minutes from the Regular Meeting of September 9, 2025. Motion Carried 5-0. MINUTE ORDER 2025-XX Vice Chair Thompson disclosed that, in her professional role as a Management Analyst with the City of Oakdale, she had previously worked with the developer involved in the matter before the Commission. She affirmed that this prior professional interaction would not influence her ability to make a fair and impartial decision and that her vote would be based solely on the information and evidence presented during the hearing.
Commissioner Castellanos disclosed that he has also had prior experience with Florsheim Development. He stated that this experience would not impair his ability to make fair and impartial judgments regarding the public hearing item on the agenda.
Chair Dunbar informed the public that the Commission’s role is to review the project and provide a recommendation to the City Council, noting that this represents the first step in the process. He requested that any questions from the audience for staff or other individuals be directed to the Commission first.
Attachment 18
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2025
PUBLIC HEARING
2. APPLICATION 24-797 – ANNEXATION, PRE-ZONING, TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP,
SPECIFIC PLAN, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT,
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AGREEMENT, AND ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS
SE Corner Brennan Avenue and SR 120, Escalon CA 95320
APNs 225-040-28 & 225-040-29
CM French presented the staff report and reviewed the Entitlement List, which encompasses the annexation, prezone, tentative subdivision map, specific plan, planned development, housing agreement, development agreement, and initial study/mitigated negative declaration. He also provided a brief overview of the project. Additionally, it was noted that Caltrans submitted a letter to the City confirming approval and funding for an intersection improvement at Brennan and Highway 120. Caltrans has initiated the planning, design, and environmental review process for the project, with an anticipated completion timeframe of three to four years.
Vice Chair Thompson inquired about the General Plan boundary map and sought confirmation that the project lies within the 2015 growth boundary, which CM French affirmed. She noted that this property was anticipated as one of the first to be incorporated into the City’s growth area. Commissioner Castellanos requested confirmation that no two-story homes would be located in the southern and eastern portions of the subdivision, which CM French confirmed.
Chair Dunbar referenced the packet and raised a concern regarding the developer’s portion of the intersection improvement costs, noting that his calculations were higher than those provided. CM French explained that all new developments are responsible for approximately 23% of intersection costs. Due to the project’s proximity, this developer would incur an additional 6.2% share on top of the standard development impact fee. CM French further noted that the calculations were adjusted slightly after CalTrans confirmed they would fund the project.
Commissioner Gonzales asked whether there had been any consideration to expand Brennan Avenue, suggesting that the intersection improvements might warrant adding a turn lane or similar enhancement. CM French responded that Caltrans, as the lead agency, will determine the appropriate traffic control measures and assess the required right-ofway for such improvements, noting that right-of-way acquisition is the responsibility of the development.
Chair Dunbar inquired about the basis for using the 37th permit as a benchmark. CM French responded that there is no specific process for determining this number; however, it was considered appropriate for both the City and the developer and can be adjusted if necessary.
Public Comment opened at 7:18 p.m.
Developer Dave Romano of Florsheim Homes addressed the Commission, thanking staff for their thorough report and introducing his team in attendance. He provided an overview of the project, noting that the team had made efforts to address questions raised at previous community workshops. Romano indicated that they were available to answer any questions from residents or the Commission and requested a positive recommendation upon compliance with all project requirements.
Commissioner Willis inquired whether Florsheim Homes would be constructing two-story homes adjacent to onestory homes within the subdivision. Mr. Romano confirmed that while new two-story homes would not be placed next to existing single-story homes, internal portions of the subdivision would feature a mix of one- and two-story homes, which he stated is consistent with City code. Willis also asked about the inclusion of RV driveways, and Romano indicated that there would be none adjacent to existing homes. Willis noted that with two points of ingress/egress for the 72-home subdivision, the traffic access seemed adequate. She also inquired about anticipated
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2025
building permit requests under the City’s growth ordinance of 75 permits per year; Romano estimated 25–30 permits annually, noting that completing the project faster would be considered a strong pace. Willis further expressed approval of the inclusion of root barriers in the plans to help prevent sidewalk buckling.
Commissioner Castellanos asked whether the development would be constructed in phases or if all 72 lots would be completed simultaneously. Mr. Romano responded that, given the project’s relatively small size, he anticipates that all improvements would be built at one time.
Resident Curtis Russell of Alberto Lane expressed concerns regarding traffic safety impacts associated with the subdivision, particularly in relation to truck traffic from the nearby cannery. He also referenced the proposed Riverwalk project, noting that its estimated 900 homes could further exacerbate traffic conditions for drivers traveling toward Manteca. Russell stated that he was not satisfied with the Caltrans warrant report and urged the Planning Commission to thoroughly evaluate these safety concerns, including potential roadway widening or other necessary improvements, to ensure they are addressed prior to the project’s completion.
Resident Vance Nielsen, who lives on Noni Avenue, expressed concerns regarding increased traffic on Brennan Avenue and Highway 120. He inquired about the potential installation of speed bumps on residential streets and commented that root containers are ineffective. He further noted that the most recent traffic study was conducted over ten years ago and asked who would be responsible for conducting the required inspections, emphasizing the importance of having a knowledgeable individual perform them.
Resident Kevin Creamer, who lives on Edgewood, expressed his desire for the soundwall to extend north from the park to Highway 120. He voiced concern that construction activities may cause his palm trees to fall and reiterated his support for the soundwall installation. He also raised concerns regarding intersection safety.
Resident Scott, who resides on Farinelli, expressed agreement with previous speakers regarding traffic concerns. He highlighted the impact of trucks on Highway 120 due to new industrial development and noted that a throughway from Reisling, previously discussed at the last meeting, had not been addressed. He further observed that the planned park expansion is likely to increase traffic, contributing to additional wear and tear on local roads.
JD Hightower, Executive Officer for San Joaquin County LAFCO, stated that he attended the meeting to address any questions regarding the annexation process. He noted that LAFCO is in general agreement with the City, observing that the annexation establishes a logical boundary along Brennan Avenue and represents a practical extension of services for the City of Escalon.
Chair Dunbar acknowledged Mr. Hightower and asked if he had previously worked for the City, to which Mr.
Hightower confirmed. Chair Dunbar then inquired whether the annexation plan was in place during his tenure with the City. Mr. Hightower responded affirmatively, noting that the plan had been in development for a long time and that the streets were designed to provide circulation, using California Street as access to Brennan Avenue, consistent with the current plan.
Commissioner Gonzales asked whether the County had designated this project as low-density residential. Mr.
Hightower responded that the area is classified as urban reserve, though currently zoned for agriculture. He explained that, while LAFCO’s mission includes the preservation of agricultural land, this parcel is not considered viable agricultural land due to its proximity to Highway 120 and existing residential development to the east and south.
Resident John Hall, who resides on California Street, expressed concerns about the inadequate enforcement of existing traffic laws in the city. He specifically referenced AB 413, noting that vehicles frequently park near crosswalks at El Portal School. He emphasized the need for improved traffic control while clarifying that his comments were not intended as a criticism of the Escalon Police Department.
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2025
Resident Natalie Gallegos stated that she had submitted a letter outlining her concerns. She noted that she resides on California Street as an original homeowner whose property backs up to the proposed development. Ms. Gallegos recalled that when the project was first introduced, residents were informed by both the City and the developer that it would be a senior community consisting of single-story homes. She added that records indicate two plans were originally submitted, acknowledging that street connections to California Street were anticipated. However, she emphasized that there is a significant difference between a deed-restricted 55-and-older community and the project now being proposed.Ms. Gallegos further stated that residents had been under the impression there would be additional access points to Highway 120. While she acknowledged that much has changed over the past two decades, she expressed concern over the current pace of development, describing it as “crazy.” She noted that although Caltrans is involved, there has been no definitive action or commitment from them, and all information remains preliminary.
She concluded that moving forward with the housing development without first addressing traffic issues would be reckless.
Resident Kurt Danziger, who lives on Noni Avenue, expressed opposition to the annexation until a traffic signal is installed on Highway 120. He confirmed that he had also submitted a letter outlining his concerns. Mr. Danziger stated that it is too dangerous to proceed at this time, noting that the City’s traffic study is outdated and does not account for the increased truck traffic associated with Weldway’s operations. He argued that the annexation is unnecessary since the area is not currently part of the City and emphasized that installation of a signal or roundabout at the intersection should be completed before any development occurs. Mr. Danziger further stated that Caltrans cannot be relied upon as a responsible agency for managing that intersection. He questioned why the Celivo access point was being used instead of extending Reisling at California Street across the railroad tracks to Highway 120.
Additionally, he noted that the Belleterra neighborhood funds the maintenance of the park through its Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District (LLMD) and asserted that the new development should be incorporated into the same district, as it would utilize the same basin facilities. He recommended that this be made a condition of project approval.
Resident Ed Alves expressed agreement with Mr. Danziger’s comments and voiced concern about traffic conditions along Highway 120. While he stated that he supports the proposed project overall, he emphasized that installation of a traffic signal must occur before the project proceeds. (Mr. Alves participated online, and portions of his comments were difficult to hear due to sound issues.)
Resident Nick Obligacion, who appeared online and resides on Farinelli Avenue, referenced the Floresheim application, noting that it identifies the current level of service at the intersection as Level E—already below the City’s acceptable standard. He stated that adding the proposed subdivision would further degrade the level of service to Level F. Mr. Obligacion added that the traffic study did not account for the impacts of Weldway’s operations and expressed concern that Caltrans funding is unreliable. He concluded that the intersection must be improved before the project moves forward.
Resident Roxanna Shatz expressed concerns regarding traffic impacts, specifically at Brennan Road and related ingress and egress points. She also highlighted issues on First Street and the roundabout, noting a history of collisions, and suggested implementing speed bumps or additional stop signs, as there are currently only two. While she stated that she supports the project and considers Floresheim to be a reputable developer, she emphasized her worry about how traffic from the development will affect Brennan Road, First Street, and California Street.
Public Comment Closed at 8:09 p.m.
Vice Chair Thompson inquired about the anticipated timeline for breaking ground on the project. Mr. Romano responded that, under a best-case scenario, site improvements could begin in the spring or summer of next year, which would take several months to complete. Following that, model homes would be constructed, with home occupancy in the first phase expected in 2027. Vice Chair Thompson confirmed that the estimated build-out period is 2–3 years, to which Mr. Romano agreed.
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2025
Chair Dunbar asked Mr. Romano whether Floresheim had considered extending Reisling to Highway 120 and, if so, what issues arose. Mr. Romano explained that there were two main challenges. First, constructing a new crossing over the railroad tracks is extremely difficult, as it requires railroad approval and typically limits the number of crossings allowed. Second, an unintended consequence of such an extension would be the creation of a “raceway” from Highway 120, not only through the proposed subdivision but also providing through access to all neighborhoods south of the area, potentially increasing traffic in those communities.
Chair Dunbar asked Mr. Romano how many projects Floresheim has been involved in that are similar in scope and located near a state highway. Mr. Romano responded that while the company has experience with projects involving either railroad crossings or state highways separately, having both in a single project is somewhat unique, though not substantially different from their past work.
Chair Dunbar then inquired about Caltrans’ reliability in projects with significant issues, such as those presented in Escalon. Mr. Romano stated that Caltrans has generally been reliable in bringing projects to completion, although timing can vary. He noted that the combination of community concern and the subdivision’s recognition of the issue has created additional pressure and momentum, presenting a unique opportunity to motivate Caltrans to advance the project and secure funding—responsibilities that would typically fall on the developer.
Chair Dunbar asked how much assistance Floresheim would provide in facilitating traffic control improvements on Highway 120. Mr. Romano responded that they would advocate for improvements, but ultimately, Caltrans responds more readily to local jurisdictions, such as the City Engineer and City Manager, than to developers.
Chair Dunbar then raised the topic of a “pork chop” barrier on Brennan Road, previously discussed at an earlier meeting. He asked for clarification that installing a barrier to prohibit left turns from Brennan onto Highway 120 would not require state approval since it would be located entirely on Brennan. CM French responded that he didn’t believe so. Whether is technically on city property or not, it would be affecting the operations of the state facility.
As common courtesy, we would want to coordinate with Caltrans and work with them on any operational adjustment to their facility. It can be considered but he cannot speak to Caltrans and what their policies, guidelines are in regards to traffic control on their facilities.
Caltrans representative Arvinder Bajwa, Acting Deputy District Director of Traffic Operations, confirmed that the proposed pork chop barrier would slightly extend into the state highway but indicated it could serve as an effective interim safety measure until the larger Caltrans project proceeds. He noted that Caltrans generally supports pork chop installations to reduce conflict points and enhance traffic safety. Mr. Bajwa further commented that, given the proximity of Weldway, the measure should be considered as part of efforts to expedite project advancement. He emphasized, however, that coordination with the railroad remains a significant challenge, as obtaining necessary approvals from both the railroad and the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) can take 24 to 36 months, regardless of Caltrans’ progress.
Chair Dunbar thanked Mr. Bajwa for attending the meeting and acknowledged the public perception that Caltrans projects often take considerable time to complete. He asked what a realistic timeline would be for Escalon moving forward. Mr. Bajwa responded that CM French had already provided a thorough overview of the process, noting that the Project Initiation Document (PID) phase is currently underway and could take approximately 12 to 13 months to complete, possibly sooner depending on the progress of required studies. He explained that Caltrans must adhere to all state and federal processes, including compliance with NEPA and CEQA during the project approval and environmental documentation phase, which also includes preliminary design and the evaluation of alternatives.
Mr. Bajwa further stated that once the project advances beyond that stage into design and right-of-way acquisition, coordination with the railroad presents a major risk, as Escalon will need to acquire property on the north side of the project area—construction cannot occur within the existing footprint. He added that both signalized and roundabout alternatives are being considered to help expedite the process; however, shifting the intersection north and securing
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2025
necessary clearances with the railroad will still be required. Overall, he estimated that coordination with the railroad could add 24 to 36 months to the project timeline, depending on how quickly approvals are obtained. It also has to go through the California Transportation Commission for a vote and then goes through advertising, bidding, the award process and then to construction
Commissioner Gonzales acknowledged that the City has been requesting a signal at the intersection for years and asked whether the proposed housing development influenced Caltrans’ decision to move forward with installing a stoplight. Mr. Bajwa responded that it had not been a major factor, explaining that he has personally been advocating for the project behind the scenes and has played an instrumental role in advancing it. While the development will contribute additional traffic, he noted that existing conditions on Highway 120 already warrant attention. He emphasized that Caltrans takes this project seriously and is committed to addressing the safety and traffic concerns in the area.
Chair Dunbar referred to page 848 of the report regarding traffic analysis, noting the discussion of westbound queuing and the change in numbers from 96 to 48. It was explained that such variations occur when traffic volumes are very low. She stated that the analysis uses a process known as micro-simulation, which models vehicle movements through the network at various times. Multiple simulation runs are conducted to account for daily fluctuations in traffic, and the results are averaged to provide a realistic representation of real-world conditions. In this case, the variation in the westbound turning movement delay reflects normal variability that occurs when traffic volumes are minimal.
Commissioner Willis asked staff why the City would have input on the matter, given that it does not enforce the CC&Rs. CM French responded that while the City is not required to participate, it prefers to be involved as a party to the process. He noted that, technically, the City has no authority over CC&Rs, but sharing their provisions can be helpful for all parties involved.
Commissioner Gonzales referenced statistics through December 31, 2024, regarding reported collisions at the intersection of Highway 120 and Brennan, noting that 53% were broadside collisions and there had been one fatality.
She added that additional incidents have occurred in the past year and discussed contributing factors. At the Brennan intersection, most accidents were attributed to drivers running the stop sign. She observed that interim measures, such as enhanced striping for improved visibility, advance notification of the upcoming stop sign, and a flashing stop sign, had been suggested. Commissioner Gonzales expressed that these measures would serve as effective interim solutions until a traffic signal can be installed.
CM French presented a 15-year collision history for the intersection, reporting 47 total incidents, including two fatalities, seven major injuries, and the remainder classified as minor or non-injury accidents. Approximately half of these collisions were attributed to stop sign violations. The data was compiled by the City’s Police Department and/or the CHP. He noted that, based on the City’s research, Caltrans has consistently determined since around 2005 that the intersection does not meet signal warrants. However, tonight the Commission heard from the Acting Deputy District Director of Traffic Operations that the agency intends to move forward with funding an intersection improvement. CM French emphasized that while the formal process will take time, interim measures have been recommended to enhance safety in the meantime. He concluded that all options, including these interim measures, can be explored should the Commission decide to advance the project.
Commissioner Gonzales inquired about potential safety measures on Ullrey, particularly near the curve onto Brennan.
CM French responded that the City has a traffic calming program, through which residents can submit a form requesting evaluation of intersections or roadways for potential safety improvements such as signals, speed bumps, humps, or crosswalks.
Commissioner Gonzales then asked whether speed bumps or other traffic calming measures could be implemented around the park, given that it is an open area where many children play. CM French confirmed that this is possible,
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2025
explaining that the process involves a petition reviewed by the City and its engineers, and requires obtaining consent from at least 60% of the affected neighbors.
Commissioner Willis asked whether the city limits run down the middle of Brennan and, if so, whether the City would need to coordinate with the County for any improvements. CM French responded that speed bumps are generally not warranted on arterial roadways, as the classification and intended function of such roads differ from residential streets, where slowing traffic is more appropriate. He noted that the possibility could be re-evaluated, but as a general rule, speed bumps would likely not be considered for Brennan. He added that there are several metrics that could be reviewed to determine whether Brennan might be a viable candidate for traffic calming measures.
Commissioner Gonzales addressed a prior question regarding the proposed senior housing in the area. She explained that, just before the freeze on annexation, the developer at the time had planned to build senior housing but was unable to proceed due to a catastrophic health event, so the project never materialized. She noted that, after several years, the Carr family sold the property to the Murphy family, and the original plan was not carried over. She added that the current zoning of the area is designated as low-density residential, which now guides any future development.
Resident Natalie Gallegos addressed CM French’s comments regarding speed bumps and the City’s consideration of community input. She noted that there is an online petition with approximately 200 signatures, reflecting the community’s opposition to the proposed development until the traffic safety concerns in the area are adequately addressed.
Chair Dunbar requested that staff evaluate whether the proposed pork chop plan could have broader traffic impacts, such as diverting westbound traffic from the neighborhood onto Walnut Avenue. He noted that compiling data on this potential effect would be helpful for future consideration. CM French responded that if the Planning Commission chooses to move forward and recommends the project to the City Council, staff would conduct as thorough an analysis as possible prior to the Council meeting, present the Commission’s recommendation, and allow the City Council to decide whether to approve or veto the recommendation.
Vice Chair Thompson commented that she believes many users of the intersection would be dissatisfied with the installation of a pork chop barrier. While acknowledging that the measure may address certain safety concerns, she noted that drivers often choose to make left turns at the intersection despite those issues. She expressed concern that implementing the barrier could be seen as doing a disservice to those regular users.
Commissioner Willis expressed sympathy for the challenges in measuring traffic, acknowledging that data collection may not always occur under ideal conditions. She noted that the analysis focuses on a small area, while factors beyond California, Brennan, and Reisling—such as fog reducing visibility on Highway 120 and crops grown by local farmers obstructing sightlines for left turns—also affect safety. With new housing expected in 2027 and Caltrans potentially taking another 2–3 years to determine improvements for the intersection, she emphasized that the Commission has a responsibility to prioritize community safety. Commissioner Willis concluded that approving the project before Caltrans completes its work could be putting the cart before the horse.
Commissioner Castellanos reported that he requested a traffic collision report from the police department covering the ten-year period ending December 31, 2024. During this period, there were 30 reported accidents, including two fatalities. He noted that two of these accidents involved family members at the intersection of Brennan and Highway 120. He highlighted that, over the past 25 years, the school district has adjusted the boundaries of Van Allen Elementary to the east, resulting in increased westbound traffic on Highway 120. Additionally, overall traffic has risen due to further development in the area. He emphasized that it is currently not possible to predict traffic patterns resulting from the Weldway development. While expressing support for the development, Commissioner Castellanos stressed that the timing is critical. He inquired whether Caltrans has the capability to reduce the speed limit approaching this intersection from the east. He indicated that proceeding with the project at this stage is premature without implementing safety measures such as a roundabout or traffic signal.
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2025
Commissioner Gonzales acknowledged the community’s concerns regarding traffic but also highlighted additional considerations. She expressed concern over the State of California’s persistent mandates for low-income housing.
She noted that the city currently has a reputable developer, Floresheim, seeking to implement a project that has been in planning for over 20 years. She emphasized that delaying the project could unnecessarily postpone improvements, as it would bring aesthetic enhancements to the entrance of Escalon, which currently has overgrown oleanders and weeds, along with upgrades to infrastructure. She noted that the project includes eight moderately affordable homes and will be connected to MID, enhancing its appeal to buyers. She stated that requested interim safety upgrades would improve visibility at the affected intersection and highlighted that Caltrans’ willingness to fund intersection improvements is a significant positive step. Finally, she asserted that the project aligns with the city’s general plan and cautioned that delaying it would unfairly penalize Floresheim for factors beyond their control.
Vice Chair Thompson expressed strong support for the Floresheim project, noting the aesthetic improvements and park enhancements it will bring, including new pickleball and basketball courts for a currently underutilized park, which will benefit the community. While acknowledging that the intersection of Brennan and Highway 120 is not ideal, she stated that it is widely used despite known risks. She noted that, although collisions resulting in fatalities are tragic, an average of three accidents per year at this intersection is not unusually high for a major highway. She also emphasized the positive impact of the development on local housing availability, highlighting that many former residents are excited about the opportunity to return to Escalon and purchase homes, thereby allowing their children to attend local schools. She also commended Caltrans’ participation and funding commitment for the intersection improvements, which she views as a rare and positive development. She pointed out that the projected 2–5 year timeline for the development aligns with the planned intersection improvements, meaning the traffic impacts will be mitigated when the majority of new homes are occupied. Given these factors, Vice Chair Thompson concluded that there is insufficient reason to recommend rejecting the project.
Chair Dunbar expressed support for the Floresheim project, noting that it is well-suited for the area and involves a reputable developer. However, he expressed concern about the potential for additional traffic hazards at the intersection of Brennan and Highway 120. While he indicated a desire to approve the project due to its merits, Chair Dunbar stated that his support would be contingent upon the city implementing interim traffic mitigation measures prior to the completion of Caltrans’ planned improvements. He emphasized that this condition would be his “bottom line” if the Commission were to move forward with a motion to approve the project.
MOTION: it was m/s GONZALES/THOMPSON to Approve PC #2025-XX Recommending that the Escalon City Council Make the Findings and Certify the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Approve Resolution PC #2025-XX 1. Recommending that the Escalon City Council Authorize an Application to Initiate Proceedings to San Joaquin LAFCo and 2. Recommending Adoption of Ordinance XXX to Prezone the Two Parcels, Approve Resolution PC #2025-XX 1. Recommending that the Escalon City Council Approve a Tentative Subdivision Map, a Specific Plan, an Inclusionary Page 27 of 1083 Page 17 of 18 Housing Agreement, a Development Agreement, and an Annexation and 2. Recommending Adoption of Ordinance No. XXX for the Planned Development (PD-4) and 3. Recommending Adoption of Ordinance No. XXX for the Development Agreement Between the Developer and the City and 4. All are Contingent on Future Approval by San Joaquin LAFCo. And Direct City Staff to Look Into Traffic Mitigation Measures for the Intersection of Brennan and Highway 120. Motion Carried 3-2-0 (Nay - Willis and Castellanos). MINUTE ORDER 2025-xx
MATTERS PRESENTED FROM THE AUDIENCE
None
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None
MINUTES
Planning Commission Meeting
October 14, 2025
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Vice Chair Thompson, Commissioner Castellanos, and Chair Dunbar all expressed appreciation for the staff report and presentation. Thompson specifically thanked staff for their effort, Castellanos noted the report was well done but commented on timing, and Dunbar agreed with the presentation and thanked staff for their guidance.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Dunbar adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:28 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
_______________________________
Michele Bates, Deputy City Clerk
ITEM NO. 7
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
FOR AUGUST 3, 2026
Prepared By: Trevin W. Barber, Development & Community Services Manager Date: July 29, 2026
Subject: Annexation and Prezoning of City‑Owned Property Located at 17341 Escalon Bellota Road (APN 225‑020‑110‑000); Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 2026‑XX Prezoning the Property; Consideration of Resolution No. 2026‑XX Initiating Annexation Proceedings (Project 26‑821) Recommendation:
Proceed with the annexation and prezoning of the city‑owned property located at 17341 Escalon Bellota Road (APN 225‑020‑110‑000), and taking the following actions:
1. Introduce Ordinance No. 2026-XX by title only and waive the first reading, thereby prezoning approximately 19.2 acres of City-owned property located at 17341 Escalon Bellota Road (APN 225-020-110-000) to Open Space/Parl consistent with the Escalon General Plan.
2. Direct staff to place the ordinance on the August 17, 2026 agenda for public hearing, second reading, and adoption.
3. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-XX initiating annexation proceedings for the City-owned property and authorizing staff to prepare and submit a complete annexation application to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo).
4. Find that the annexation and prezoning are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), because the annexation of City-owned land with no development proposal does not have the potential to result in a significant environmental impact.
Background:
The City of Escalon owns approximately 19.2 acres of land located at 17341 Escalon Bellota Road (APN 225‑020‑110‑000). The property is situated immediately east of existing City limits and lies within the City’s adopted 2025 Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary, as established through the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Municipal Services Review (MSR) adopted on March 9, 2023. The MSR identifies the area as part of Escalon’s long‑term growth horizon and confirms that the City is expected to assume jurisdiction over this territory as development and service needs evolve.
Under the Escalon General Plan, the property is designated Open Space/Park, reflecting its current use and the City’s long‑term intent to preserve flexibility for future public, recreational, or low‑intensity municipal purposes. Annexation of City‑owned land does not alter the General Plan designation; rather, it allows the City to directly regulate land use, manage infrastructure planning,
PROJECT SITE
implement the Hogan-Ennis Master Plan and ensure that any future public facility or open‑space improvements are governed under City standards.
Annexation of City‑owned land requires prezoning prior to LAFCo consideration. Pursuant to Escalon Municipal Code §17.61.030, all territory proposed for annexation must be assigned a zoning district consistent with the General Plan. The proposed prezoning designation of Open Space is consistent with the Open Space/Parks land use designation and ensures that the property will be regulated under City zoning standards immediately upon completion of annexation proceedings and recordation of the Certificate of Completion by LAFCo.
The City’s 2023 MSR confirms that adequate municipal services—including water, wastewater, storm drainage, police, fire, and parks—can be extended to the property upon annexation. The MSR also identifies the area as a logical and contiguous expansion of the City boundary, consistent with LAFCo policies requiring orderly growth, efficient service delivery, and avoidance of irregular or fragmented boundaries.
On July 15, 2026, the City published a Notice of Public Hearing for the August 3, 2026 City Council meeting, which included Project 26‑821. The notice satisfies the public hearing requirements of Escalon Municipal Code §17.51.050 and Government Code §36933. The City Council may therefore introduce the prezoning ordinance on August 3 and conduct the public hearing, second reading, and adoption on August 17.
This staff report presents the annexation and prezoning actions necessary to initiate LAFCo proceedings for City‑owned property and ensure consistency with the City’s long‑term land use, fiscal, and service planning objectives.
Discussion:
The proposed annexation and prezoning represent a timely and efficient boundary adjustment that supports the City’s long-range planning objectives. As the Murphy Ranch project prepares to advance to LAFCo for annexation consideration, staff identified an opportunity to consolidate multiple annexation actions into a single LAFCo review cycle. LAFCo encourages cities to group related or geographically proximate annexations to reduce administrative duplication and present a more orderly boundary configuration. The City has long intended to annex the remaining portion of Hogan-Ennis Park, which has appeared in internal planning documents for several years. By processing the Escalon Bellota Road property
concurrently with Murphy Ranch, the City maximizes staff time, reduces LAFCo processing costs, and advances
long-standing annexation objectives in a coordinated
manner. The prezoning designation consistent with the Open Space land use classification ensures that the property will be regulated under City zoning standards immediately upon LAFCo’s recordation of the Certificate of Completion.
General Plan Conformance
The proposed annexation and prezoning of the City‑owned property at 17341 Escalon Bellota Road (APN
225‑020‑110‑000), shown on Exhibit A – Project Site, are
consistent with the Escalon General Plan. The site carries a Open Space land use designation, which is intended for public, recreational, conservation, and low‑intensity municipal uses. Annexation of City‑owned land does not alter the General Plan designation; instead, it ensures that future public use, maintenance, and improvements are governed under City jurisdiction and zoning standards rather than County regulations.
The property is also located within the City’s 2025 Sphere of Influence boundary, as adopted through the 2023 Municipal Services Review. The SOI identifies areas where the City is expected to provide municipal services over the long term, and annexation of this parcel is consistent with the City’s planned growth pattern and boundary management objectives. Prezoning the site with a zoning district consistent with the Open Space designation ensures conformity with General Plan policies related to parks, open space preservation, public facilities, and orderly expansion of City boundaries.
Together, the annexation and prezoning actions advance General Plan goals for coordinated land use planning, efficient service delivery, and long‑term stewardship of public lands.
Escalon General Plan Map
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The proposed annexation and prezoning of the City-owned property at 17341 Escalon Bellota Road (APN 225-020-110-000), shown on Exhibit A – Project Site, are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), commonly referred to as the Common Sense Exemption. This exemption applies where it can be seen with certainty that the activity will not result in a significant effect on the environment.
Annexation and prezoning alone do not authorize or approve any physical development, construction, or land-disturbing activities. The property is designated Open Space in the Escalon
PROJECT SITE
General Plan, and no development proposal is associated with this action. Any future improvements or changes in land use would require separate discretionary review and CEQA evaluation at the time such a project is proposed. Because the current action is strictly administrative—adjusting jurisdictional boundaries and applying a zoning designation consistent with the General Plan—there is no potential for a physical environmental impact. Therefore, the project qualifies for the Common Sense Exemption under CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3).
Notice of Public Hearing
· Mailed: July 14, 2026 to every property owner, as noted on the latest assessor's records, within 1,200 feet of the subject site. · Website: Posted on July 14, 2026 to the Public Notices page. · Facebook: Posted on July 15, 2026.
· Newspaper: Appeared in the Escalon Times newspaper on July 15, 2026.
Fiscal Impact:
Approval of the annexation resolution and prezoning ordinance carries a negligible fiscal impact to the City. The actions are administrative in nature and do not authorize any physical development or capital improvements. The City will incur minor costs associated with preparing and submitting the annexation application to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), including limited staff time and small processing fees for mapping, engineering exhibits, and boundary documentation.
If LAFCo approves the annexation and the remaining portion of Hogan‑Ennis Park is incorporated into the City boundary, the City will no longer be required to pay property taxes on the parkland, as municipal property located within City limits is exempt from County property tax obligations. This results in a modest long‑term fiscal benefit by eliminating recurring tax payments currently associated with the City‑owned parcel while maintaining full local control over park operations and improvements.
Attachments:
· Draft Annexation Resolution – Initiates annexation proceedings for APN 225-020-110-000 and authorizes submittal to LAFCo.
o Exhibit A – Annexation Area Map – Depicts the 19.2-acre City-owned parcel proposed for annexation.
o Draft Prezoning Ordinance – Applies a zoning designation consistent with the Open Space General Plan classification and becomes operative upon LAFCo recordation.
§ Exhibit A – Prezoning Map – Shows the proposed zoning district boundaries for the annexation area.
o Exhibit B – Plat Map — Depicts the surveyed boundary and geometric configuration of APN 225-020-110-000 for prezoning and annexation purposes. o Exhibit C – Legal Description — Provides the metes-and-bounds legal description of the annexation area consistent with LAFCo mapping standards.
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ESCALON INITIATING ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR APPROXIMATELY 19.2 ACRES OF
CITY‑OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17341 ESCALON BELLOTA ROAD (APN 225‑020‑110‑000) AND DIRECTING STAFF TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE
SAN JOAQUIN LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO)
The City Council of the City of Escalon does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Escalon (“City”) is the owner of approximately 19.2 acres of land located at 17341 Escalon Bellota Road, identified as APN 225-020-110-000 (“Property”), as shown on Exhibit A – Project Site; and
WHEREAS, the Property is designated Open Space/Park in the Escalon General Plan and is located within the City’s 2025 Sphere of Influence boundary, as adopted through the 2023 Municipal Services Review; and
WHEREAS, the Property is contiguous to existing City limits and represents a logical, orderly, and efficient expansion of the City boundary consistent with San Joaquin LAFCo policies; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has introduced Ordinance No. 2026-XX prezoning the Property to a zoning district consistent with the Open Space General Plan designation, pursuant to Escalon Municipal Code §17.61.030; and
WHEREAS, annexation of City-owned land will allow the City to directly manage future public use, maintenance, and municipal service planning for the Property; and WHEREAS, the City has long intended to annex the remaining portion of Hogan-Ennis Park, and processing the Escalon Bellota Road annexation concurrently with the Murphy Ranch annexation maximizes staff efficiency, reduces duplicative LAFCo processing costs, and presents a more cohesive boundary adjustment; and
WHEREAS, the annexation and prezoning are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3), the Common Sense Exemption, because the administrative actions do not authorize physical development and have no potential to result in a significant environmental impact; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on August 17, 2026, at which time all interested persons were provided an opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Escalon hereby initiates annexation proceedings for APN 225‑020‑110‑000 and directs City staff to prepare and submit a complete annexation application to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), including all required maps, exhibits, and supporting documentation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds the annexation consistent with the Escalon General Plan, the 2025 Sphere of Influence boundary, and applicable LAFCo policies governing orderly growth and efficient municipal service delivery.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council affirms that the prezoning adopted through Ordinance No. 2026-XX shall become operative only upon LAFCo’s recordation of the Certificate of Completion.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of August 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Andrew Hagan, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Diana Trejo, Deputy City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
ANNEXATION AREA MAP
Ord.XXX OS Zone (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 CITY‑OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17341 ESCALON BELLOTA ROAD (APN 225‑020‑110‑000)
Location: 17341 Escalon Bellota Road, Escalon, CA 95320 APN: 225‑020‑110‑000
WHEREAS, the Escalon City Council, at its duly noticed public hearing on August 3, 2026, considered approval of a Prezone Ordinance for the City-owned annexation area located at 17341 Escalon Bellota Road; and
WHEREAS, the Escalon City Council adopted this Ordinance approving the Prezone at its duly noticed public hearing on August 17, 2026; and WHEREAS, the Project encompasses the annexation of approximately 19.2 acres of unincorporated land in San Joaquin County into the City of Escalon, consisting of City-owned property designated Open Space in the Escalon General Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Escalon Municipal Code Section 17.61.030, all territory proposed for annexation must be prezoned to a district compatible with the General Plan designation of the property; and
WHEREAS, the Property is designated Open Space/Park in the Escalon General Plan and is located within the City’s 2025 Sphere of Influence boundary, as adopted through the 2023 Municipal Services Review; and
WHEREAS, the proposed prezoning designation of Open Space (OS) for APN 225-020-110-000 is consistent with the General Plan and is shown on the prezoning map included as Exhibit A; 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, the annexation and prezoning are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the Common Sense Exemption, because the administrative actions do not authorize physical development and have no potential to result in a significant environmental impact; and WHEREAS, the Escalon City Council has considered all information related to this matter, including staff reports, exhibits, public testimony, and supporting documentation presented at the public hearings identified herein.
Ord.XXX OS Zone (Adopted xx/xx/2026) Page 2
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 designation for APN 225‑020‑110‑000, in accordance with Escalon Municipal Code Sections 17.61.030 and 17.61.040, as detailed in the City Council staff report and supporting documents, which are hereby incorporated by reference.
SECTION 2: CEQA. The City Council finds that the prezoning and annexation are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the Common Sense Exemption, because the actions do not authorize physical development and have no potential to result in a significant environmental impact..
SECTION 3: Amendment. The Zoning Map is hereby amended to apply the prezoning designation Open Space (OS) to APN 225‑020‑110‑000, as depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 4: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections may be declared invalid.
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:
Ord.XXX OS Zone (Adopted xx/xx/2026) Page 3
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
ANDREW HAGAN, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
DIANA TREJO, Deputy City Clerk
Ord.XXX OS Zone (Adopted xx/xx/2026) Page 4
EXHIBIT A
PREZONING MAP
HOGAN-ENNIS PARK EXPANSION
APN: 225‑020‑110‑000
ITEM NO. 8
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
FOR AUGUST 3, 2026
Prepared By: Jaylen French, City Manager
Date: July 28, 2026
Subject: Agenda Item Request to Consider Escalon City Council Attendance at the California Cities 2026 Annual Conference and Expo in Anaheim Recommendation:
Consider Agenda Item Request by Councilmember Strohman, supported by Mayor Hagan, to Escalon City Council attendance at the California Cities 2026 Annual Conference and Expo in Anaheim, California.
Strategic Plan Priority:
This item is not directly applicable to a Strategic Priority of the adopted Escalon 2025-2026 Strategic Plan.
Background and Discussion:
Councilmember Strohman, at the Monday, July 20, 2026 City Council meeting, sought support to bring an item forward, which was supported by Mayor Hagan, to discuss and approve Escalon City Council attendance at the California Cities 2026 Annual Conference and Expo in Anaheim.
Per the City’s adopted Agenda Item Request policy (attached), “A consensus of two councilmembers are needed in order for a councilmember to have an item placed on the agenda. Once an item has been supported by at least one other Councilmember, the item will be placed on a future agenda.” This item is to determine Council’s support for one or more members attending the California Cities 2026 Annual Conference and Expo in Anaheim. Due to the fact that this Conference is upcoming, City staff is bringing an item forward that seeks council’s direction on this conference only. At a later date, City staff intends to bring a broader item forward which seeks council direction to outline all council travel events for the year. This broader item will: 1) help City staff budget for council travel, 2) increase Council’s awareness of the full year of travel, conference expectations, and responsibilities, and 3) provide the public with a detailed picture of the training and networking opportunities of the Council and the total expected expenditures.
Fiscal Impact:
There is a direct fiscal impact associated with attendance at a conference. City staff prepared an estimate of the total travel and conference costs per person, which include travel (Flight: $549.50, Personal Vehicle: $514.75, Rental Vehicle: $658.31), hotel ($436 for two nights, and $654 for three nights), conference registration ($725) and per diem ($225 for three days).
Total Costs
1. Flight Option
a. Flight $549.50
b. Hotel $654
c. Registration $725
d. Per Diem $225
TOTAL $2,153.50
2. Personal Vehicle Option
a. Personal Vehicle
b. Hotel $654
c. Registration $725
d. Per Diem $225
e. Parking $60
TOTAL $2,178.75
3. Rental Vehicle Option
a. Rental Car $658.31
b. Hotel $654
c. Registration $725
d. Per Diem $225
e. Parking $60
TOTAL $2,322.31
Attachments:
1. Adopted Agenda Item Request Policy
2. California Cities 2026 Annual Conference and Expo Travel Cost Comparison
1 of 3
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA POLICY
City of Escalon
The purpose of this policy is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of creating the City Council agenda, and to provide clarity as to how a Councilmember and member of the public may add an item to the City Council agenda.
The City Council is a policy-making body and the staff is the operational part of the organization. Preparation of the City Council agenda involvesthe cooperation and teamwork of many individuals and departments. With that in mind, the following defines the roles and responsibility of each as part of creating the City Council agenda.
Staff: Roles & Responsibilities
City Manager
The role of the City Manager in the agenda process is to ensure that agenda item materials contain thorough policy analysis to present options for council consideration, and to include a recommendation, when appropriate. To fulfill this role, the City Manager has the following responsibility:
• Facilitate staff meetingsto review with Department Heads the upcoming agenda items; • Work with the Department Heads to review items that will come before the City Council;
• Delegate City Council requested items to the appropriate Department Head; • Review the final agenda.
City Clerk
The role of the City Clerk or his/her designee is to oversee, monitor, and coordinate the preparation of the printing of meeting agendas. To fulfill this role, the City Clerk or his/her designee has the following responsibility:
• Track items for future agendas and planning calendars as they proceed toward Council consideration;
• Compile and update the draft agenda for council meetings; • Identify appropriate placement of items on the agenda, including Consent Agenda; • Review the material submitted and edit them for clarity and format; • Ensure timely publication of notices before and after Council meetings; • Enforce deadlines and a written process for submitting agenda materials.
City Attorney
The City Attorney’s office reviews agenda material with regard to legal issues and has the following responsibility:
• Prepare the initial draft of an ordinance or resolution, and finalize the resolution or ordinance in consultation with the originating department; Attachment 1
2 of 3
• Review or create proposed contracts;
• Review any staff reports related to legal items.
Department Heads
The Department Heads typically are the subject expert for items related to their department.
To fulfill this role, the Department Heads have the following responsibility:
• Submit an agenda item request to City Manager for approval. • Prepare the staff report that includes background information, policy discussion, fiscal impact, and recommendation (if appropriate);
• Work with the City Attorney and Finance Director on aspects of legal and fiscal issues; • Coordinate with the City Clerk to ensure sufficient time to adhere to public hearing notice requirements.
City Councilmember Request:
The City Council is the governing body of the City, which establishes policy and provides direction to staff. At times, City Council members may have items they request be included on a future agenda. It’s important the City Council members have the same information with which to make decisions and understand the issues related to policy. With this in mind, the following procedure is to be followed by City Council members requesting items to be placed on the agenda:
1. If a Councilmember wants to put an item on the agenda, they may submit a request in writing to the City Manager at least eight (8) days before the requested meeting using the attached form. The request will be shared with the other Councilmembers either via email or during the next regular council meeting to determine if there is support by at least one other Councilmember. Additionally, a Councilmember may verbally request an item be placed on a future agenda during a regular council meeting. If a request is presented during a council meeting no form shall be required, but additional information on the item may be requested by Staff of the Councilmember.
2. A consensus of two councilmembers are needed in order for a councilmember to have an item placed on the agenda. Once an item has been supported by at least one other Councilmember, the item will be placed on a future agenda. Councilmember may submit additional information as appropriate or requested by staff. Any electronic materials (Power Point or similar programs) must be submitted at least 6 days prior to the City Council meeting to allow staff to review and integrate these materials with the staff report. A Councilmember's written request becomes an attachment to the staff report.
3. Due to staffing, timing, or other exigent circumstances it may be necessary for the City Manager to move an item to a future Council Meeting. In such circumstances the City Manager will notify the requesting Councilmember that the item will be moved to a future meeting agenda. There may be some situations where the timing is tight and the City Manager will need to streamline the process.
3 of 3
Request from the Public:
1. If a member of the public wishes to request an item be placed on the agenda they must do so in writing using the attached form. Their request is to be submitted to the City Manager. The request will be shared by the City Manager during a regular City Council meeting to determine if there is support by the majority of the City Council.
2. Once an item has been supported by the majority of the City Council the item will be placed on a future regular City Council meeting. Public member may submit additional information as appropriate, or as requested by staff. Any supporting documents and electronic materials (Power Point or similar programs) must be submitted at least 6 days prior to the City Council meeting to allow staff to review and integrate these materials with the staff report. The Public member's written request becomes an attachment to the staff report.
3. Due to staffing, timing, or other exigent circumstances it may be necessary for the City Manager to move an item to a future Council Meeting. In such circumstances the City Manager will use his or her best efforts to notify the requesting member of the public that the item will be moved to a future meeting agenda.
Cal Cities Annual Conference, Anaheim, CA
—Wed, Sept 23—25 / Time 0900-1800
Flight Travel
Item Description Cost
Airfare Round-trip flight (SMF—SNA) / (SNA—SMF) $238.00 Round Trip (southwest) Baggage Fees Carry-on: FREE $45 x 2 $90 1st checked bag $45, 2nd checked bag $55 Ground Transportation Uber/ Lyft/ Taxi/ Shuttle in Anaheim $120 Estimate Miles driven to Airport Miles driven to Airport, Miles driven home from airport $101.50 70/ 140 miles round trip (140 x 72.5) Total Flight Travel Cost $549.50
Personal Vehicle
Item Description Cost
Fuel Personal Vehicle—(fuel) 355 miles one way/ 710 total $514.75 (Reimbursement for mileage. Mileage rate pays higher. 72.5 x 710=$514.75) Parking Hotel or parking gargae fees included in hotel parking rate Tolls Bay Area / SoCal toll roads no tolls if you stay on CA-99 S- I-5 S-I-405 S-CA-57 S- Anaheim Convention Center/ or Hotel Total Personal Vehicle Cost $514.75
Rental Vehicle
Item Description Cost
Rental Car Daily rental rate x number of days $49.29 day x 4 days — ($197.16 Total for 4 days) Insurance Optional coverage/ OR Use personal insurance $15.00 day — ($60.00 Total for 4 days)OR $0 if use own personal insurance Fuel - $5.65 glln Gas for rental vehicle— 355 miles one way/ 710 total $401.15 /total @ 5.65 Glln Tolls if applicable no tolls if you stay on CA-99 S- I-5 S-I-405 S-CA-57 S- Anaheim Convention Center/ or Hotel Total Rental Vehicle Cost $658.31 ($598.31/personal Insur OR $658.31/Avis Insur) Hotel
Item Destription Cost
Room Rate x 2 Hyatt Place at Anaheim Resort/ 1 King Room $549.00 ($549 total, 3 nights) —$183 Night Parking Daily parking rate x 2 Vallet/ Self Parking $105.00 $35.00 Night — 3 Nights Total Hotel Cost $654.00
Combined Summary
Category Total Cost
Flight Travel $549.50
Personal Vehicle $514.75
Rental Vehicle $658.31
Hotel $654.00 —$436.00 2 Nights / $654.00 3 Nights
Full Conference Registration Fees $725.00 —Member-City Official Rate Conference Daily Parking Rate ($20 day) $60.00 —if Shawn walks to convention center from Hotel, then $0. The walk is 8-10 min from hotel.
Per Diem ($75 day x 3 days) $225.00
Personal Vehicle Estimate $2,178.75
Flight & Rental Vehicle Estimate $2,871.81
Attachment 2
ITEM NO. 9
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
FOR AUGUST 3, 2026
Prepared By: Jaylen French, City Manager
Date: July 28, 2026
Subject: Agenda Item Request to Consider Fee Waiver for the Escalon Lions Club for Use of Community Center for Fundraising Purposes
Recommendation:
Consider Agenda Item Request by Councilmember Engle, supported by Mayor Hagan, to consider a fee waiver for the Escalon Lions Club for use of the Community Center for fundraising purposes.
Strategic Plan Priority:
This item is not directly applicable to a Strategic Priority of the adopted Escalon 2025-2026 Strategic Plan.
Background and Discussion:
Councilmember Engle, at the Monday, July 20, 2026 City Council meeting sought support to bring an item forward, which was supported by Mayor Hagan, to consider allowing the Escalon Lions Club to use the Community Center for fundraisers with funds going toward the Hogan Park recreational field expansion effort.
Per the City’s adopted Agenda Item Request policy (attached), “A consensus of two councilmembers are needed in order for a councilmember to have an item placed on the agenda. Once an item has been supported by at least one other Councilmember, the item will be placed on a future agenda.” If directed by the Council, City staff, upon submittal of an application from the Lions Club, would waive the fees for use of the Community Center for a determined number of fundraising events in a determined timeframe.
The current rate to rent the Escalon Community Center, for a local non-profit (Council approved list) is:
- Friday, Saturday, Sunday $425 per event
- Monday – Thursday $225 per event
- Half Day Set-Up $150 per event
On the next page is the applicable section directly from the adopted City of Escalon FY 26-27 Fee Schedule.
Fiscal Impact:
There is a direct fiscal impact associated with waiving fees for use of the community center. Rental fees go toward upkeep and maintenance of the Community Center. If desired, the City Council would make a determination that this use serves a greater community benefit.
Attachments:
1. Adopted Agenda Item Request Policy
2. City of Escalon FY 25-26 Fee Schedule
1 of 3
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA POLICY
City of Escalon
The purpose of this policy is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of creating the City Council agenda, and to provide clarity as to how a Councilmember and member of the public may add an item to the City Council agenda.
The City Council is a policy-making body and the staff is the operational part of the organization. Preparation of the City Council agenda involvesthe cooperation and teamwork of many individuals and departments. With that in mind, the following defines the roles and responsibility of each as part of creating the City Council agenda.
Staff: Roles & Responsibilities
City Manager
The role of the City Manager in the agenda process is to ensure that agenda item materials contain thorough policy analysis to present options for council consideration, and to include a recommendation, when appropriate. To fulfill this role, the City Manager has the following responsibility:
• Facilitate staff meetingsto review with Department Heads the upcoming agenda items; • Work with the Department Heads to review items that will come before the City Council;
• Delegate City Council requested items to the appropriate Department Head; • Review the final agenda.
City Clerk
The role of the City Clerk or his/her designee is to oversee, monitor, and coordinate the preparation of the printing of meeting agendas. To fulfill this role, the City Clerk or his/her designee has the following responsibility:
• Track items for future agendas and planning calendars as they proceed toward Council consideration;
• Compile and update the draft agenda for council meetings; • Identify appropriate placement of items on the agenda, including Consent Agenda; • Review the material submitted and edit them for clarity and format; • Ensure timely publication of notices before and after Council meetings; • Enforce deadlines and a written process for submitting agenda materials.
City Attorney
The City Attorney’s office reviews agenda material with regard to legal issues and has the following responsibility:
• Prepare the initial draft of an ordinance or resolution, and finalize the resolution or ordinance in consultation with the originating department; Attachment 1
2 of 3
• Review or create proposed contracts;
• Review any staff reports related to legal items.
Department Heads
The Department Heads typically are the subject expert for items related to their department.
To fulfill this role, the Department Heads have the following responsibility:
• Submit an agenda item request to City Manager for approval. • Prepare the staff report that includes background information, policy discussion, fiscal impact, and recommendation (if appropriate);
• Work with the City Attorney and Finance Director on aspects of legal and fiscal issues; • Coordinate with the City Clerk to ensure sufficient time to adhere to public hearing notice requirements.
City Councilmember Request:
The City Council is the governing body of the City, which establishes policy and provides direction to staff. At times, City Council members may have items they request be included on a future agenda. It’s important the City Council members have the same information with which to make decisions and understand the issues related to policy. With this in mind, the following procedure is to be followed by City Council members requesting items to be placed on the agenda:
1. If a Councilmember wants to put an item on the agenda, they may submit a request in writing to the City Manager at least eight (8) days before the requested meeting using the attached form. The request will be shared with the other Councilmembers either via email or during the next regular council meeting to determine if there is support by at least one other Councilmember. Additionally, a Councilmember may verbally request an item be placed on a future agenda during a regular council meeting. If a request is presented during a council meeting no form shall be required, but additional information on the item may be requested by Staff of the Councilmember.
2. A consensus of two councilmembers are needed in order for a councilmember to have an item placed on the agenda. Once an item has been supported by at least one other Councilmember, the item will be placed on a future agenda. Councilmember may submit additional information as appropriate or requested by staff. Any electronic materials (Power Point or similar programs) must be submitted at least 6 days prior to the City Council meeting to allow staff to review and integrate these materials with the staff report. A Councilmember's written request becomes an attachment to the staff report.
3. Due to staffing, timing, or other exigent circumstances it may be necessary for the City Manager to move an item to a future Council Meeting. In such circumstances the City Manager will notify the requesting Councilmember that the item will be moved to a future meeting agenda. There may be some situations where the timing is tight and the City Manager will need to streamline the process.
3 of 3
Request from the Public:
1. If a member of the public wishes to request an item be placed on the agenda they must do so in writing using the attached form. Their request is to be submitted to the City Manager. The request will be shared by the City Manager during a regular City Council meeting to determine if there is support by the majority of the City Council.
2. Once an item has been supported by the majority of the City Council the item will be placed on a future regular City Council meeting. Public member may submit additional information as appropriate, or as requested by staff. Any supporting documents and electronic materials (Power Point or similar programs) must be submitted at least 6 days prior to the City Council meeting to allow staff to review and integrate these materials with the staff report. The Public member's written request becomes an attachment to the staff report.
3. Due to staffing, timing, or other exigent circumstances it may be necessary for the City Manager to move an item to a future Council Meeting. In such circumstances the City Manager will use his or her best efforts to notify the requesting member of the public that the item will be moved to a future meeting agenda.
City Wide Master Fee Schedule
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Effective July 1, 2025
Attachment 2
CULTURE AND LEISURE FEES
Comments FY 25/26 Fee Charge Basis Yearly Change
Community Services Center Rental
1 Local Non-Profit (Council Approved List)
a) Fri, Sat, Sun $425 per event
b) Mon-Thu $225 per event
c) Half-Day Set-Up; 2-9pm prior day $150 per event
2 Residents within City Limits & 95320
a) Fri, Sat, Sun $850 per event
b) Mon-Thu $450 per event
c) Half-Day Set-Up; 2-9pm prior day $150 per event
3 All Other Non-Resident Users
a) Fri, Sat, Sun $1,550 per event
b) Mon-Thu $800 per event
c) Half-Day Set-Up; 2-9pm prior day $150 per event
4 For-Profit Users - Residents 95320
a) Fri, Sat, Sun $1,850 per event
b) Mon-Thu $950 per event
c) Half-Day Set-Up; 2-9pm prior day $150 per event
5 Clean-up Fees
a) Main Room $225 per event
b) Senior Room $100 per event
c) Events with Seafood or Deep Fryer $100 per event
6 Other Fees / Deposits
a) Stage Set-Up $125 per event
b) Table/Chairs Wipe off and Take down $95 per event
c) Security $40 per hour
d) Deposit $500 per event
Recreation
7 Aquatics/Pool Reservation w/ Lifeguards Closed
8 Aquatics/Pool Deposit Closed
9 Aquatics/Public Swimming Closed
10 Aquatics/Swimming Lessons Closed
11 Baseball/Softball
a) Adult
i) Spring - 10 Games $525 per player X 15 $5 Per Player ii) Summer - 10 Games $525 per player X 15 $5 Per Player b) Youth
i) T-Ball (5-6) $60 per player, per season $5 Per Player ii) Rookie (7-8) $70 per player, per season $5 Per Player iii) Minor (9-10) $85 per player, per season $5 Per Player iv) Major (11-12) $85 per player, per season $5 Per Player v) Seniors (13-15) $85 per player, per season $5 Per Player b) Out of District Fee (in addition to standard fee) $120 per player, per season varies c) Team Sponsor on Uniform $200 per season
12 Basketball
a) Youth
a)Tots (Pre-K) / Jr Rookie Age 4-5 $70 per player, per season $5 Per Player b) K-1st / Rookie $70 per player, per season $5 Per Player c) Under 10 $70 per player, per season $5 Per Player
d) Under 12 $70 per player, per season $5 Per Player
e) Under 14 $70 per player, per season $5 Per Player
b) Out of District Fee (in addition to standard fee) $29 per player, per season varies c) Team Sponsor on Uniform $75 per season
13 Soccer
a) Youth
i) Tots (3-4) $45 per player, per season $5 Per Player
ii) Squirts (5-6) $50 per player, per season $5 Per Player iii) Pee Wee (7-8) $81 per player, per season $5 Per Player iv) Minors (9-10) $81 per player, per season $5 Per Player v) Majors/Seniors (11-14) $81 per player, per season $5 Per Player b) Out of District Fee (in addition to standard fee) $80 per player, per season varies c) Team Sponsor on Uniform $150 per season
14 Flag Football
a) Youth - Under 6 $70 per player, per season $5 Per Player b) Youth - Under 8 $70 per player, per season $5 Per Player c) Youth - Under 10 $70 per player, per season $5 Per Player d) Youth - Under 12 $70 per player, per season $5 Per Player e) Youth - Under 14 $70 per player, per season $5 Per Player Out of District Fee (in addition to standard fee) $104 per player, per season varies Activity Description
CITY OF ESCALON FEES 2025-2026 15 of 36 10/23/2025
CULTURE AND LEISURE FEES
Activity Description Comments FY 25/26 Fee Charge Basis Yearly Change Recreation Other Applicable Fees
15 Late Registration $20 per request
16 Participant-Initiated Refund $10 per request
Rental and Use of Field
17 Rental and Use of Field
a) In-District Non-Profit Users $35 3-hour rental per field b) In-District Users $70 3-hour rental per field
c) Outside District Non-Profit Users $90 3-hour rental per field d) Outside District Users $90 3-hour rental per field
18 Rental and Use of Field for Tournament by:
a) In-District Users $150 per field, per day
b) Outside District Users $200 per field, per day
19 Fee for Use of Ball Field Lights:
a) Field A $32 per hour
b) Field B $22 per hour
20 Snack Bar Rental
a) Snack Bar Rental Snack Bar at Hogan Field $40 per day b) Rental During City of Escalon Sponsored Events $40 per day 21 Deposit $100 per rental
22 Hogan Park BBQ Area Reservation [a]
a) Residents within City Limits & 95320
a) Less than 50 People $55 per reservation
b) More than 50 People $110 per reservation
b) All Other Renters
a) Less than 50 People $110 per reservation
b) More than 50 People $165 per reservation
23 Bounce House Permit $25 per permit
* Out-of-district fee applies for participants residing outside of Escalon School District. [a] Groups of more than 100 people may require a special event permit.
CITY OF ESCALON FEES 2025-2026 16 of 36 10/23/2025