City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority / Public Financing Authority
October 13, 2026

37 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (PRC 21000) offers directives regarding impacts on historical resources and unique archaeological resources. The State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15000) defines a “historical resource” to include more than one category of resources. The first category is “resource(s) listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).” (CCR Section 15064.5[a][1]; see also California PRC Sections 5024.1 and 21084.1.) A historical resource may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, as determined by the State Historical Resources Commission or the lead agency if it meets significance criteria. The alternatives under consideration would result in a significant impact related to cultural or tribal cultural resources if they would do any of the following:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines;
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines;
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries; d. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.

Significance Criteria
Parts of the criteria listed in CEQA are the thresholds of significance of impacts on a natural or cultural resource. The following criteria are applicable in the evaluation of impact thresholds on proposed

38 projects: cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5; cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5; directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Historical resources are presumed significant if they are listed on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) or has been determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historic Resources Commission. Significance is determined when substantial evidence is considered as such by a lead agency. Once a resource is considered significant, there are standards for determining what a substantial adverse change is defined as being.

A mitigated negative declaration is called for if there is a potential effect, and they can be mitigated to a “level of significance.” In some instances when the significant effects cannot be avoided, the mitigation involves native plants, cultural properties, or some kind of negotiated trade-off of resources (Grissom, 1994). California agencies that would be involved in consultation regarding archaeological and biological inventory are the Department of Transportation, Energy Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Resources Control Board, Department of Conservation, Department of Fish and Game, Department of Food and Agriculture, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Department of Parks and Recreation, Department of Water Resources, Resources Agency, State Lands Commission, and the University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Public Resources Code 5024 and 5024.5
The California State legislature enacted PRC § 5024 and 5024.5 as part of an effort to establish a state program to preserve historical resources. These sections of the code require state agencies to take a number of actions to ensure the preservation of state-owned historical resources under their jurisdictions. California Register of Historic Resources. The CRHR was designed by the State Historical Resources Commission for use by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify, evaluate, register, and protect California’s historical resources. The CRHR program encourages public

39 recognition of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding, and gives certain protections under CEQA.

Discovery of Human Remains-Public Resources Code 5097.9 and California Health and Safety Code 7050.5
PRC 5097.9 provides protection from interference with Native American religion or damage to cemeteries or places of worship. It also established the Native American Heritage Commission.

California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 provides protection to Native American burials, remains, and associated grave artifacts in the even they are discovered in any location other than a designated cemetery. It also provides procedures if a County Coroner should determine that identified human remains are Native American in origin or may be Native American in origin.

California Natural Resources Agency Tribal Coordination Policy The California Natural Resources Agency adopted the California Natural Resource Agency Final Tribal Coordination Policy on November 20, 2012, which was developed in response to Governor Brown’s September 19, 2011, Executive Order B-10-11. CVFPB has adopted this Policy. As such, Native American consultation will be conducted in accordance with the Policy adopted by CVFPB. The purpose of the Policy is to ensure effective, meaningful, and mutually beneficial government-to-government consultation, communication, and coordination between CVFPB and tribal entities relative to activities under CVFPB’s jurisdiction that may affect tribal communities.

Analysis of the Record Searches Performed from 2019-2022 Historic resource reviews consist of using materials already produced about a physical location including previous record searches, historical records, and oral histories from the residents among other things. The Riverwalk project planning required a cultural resources investigation and report before the planning department could approve the locations of structures and earthwork. Requests were made by the general counsel of the CVCC for access to these records by the qualified individual member of the

40 farming community membership. These requests began with the preliminary review on February 28, 2023 and were as follows:

1. Communication between the qualified individual and the CVCC members after a review of the planning documents. Research began in February 2023 in preparation for the release of the DEIR which did not happen until January 2024.

2. Formal request for the required list of documents was sent and received by the City of Riverbank Planning department on February 19, 2024.

3. The copy of the Confidential Appendix C was received without the supporting record search attachments on February 26, 2024. There was an email correspondence between the CVCC attorney and the planner asking for the rest of the document.

4. On May 1, 2024 the planner forwarded the open confidential archaeological surveys numbers [ML-20-01, ML-20-02 Criterion D, ML-20-03 Criterion D, ML-20-04 Criterion B, ML-20-05] via email. But there were no attachments for the cover letter Record Searches #11265L and #11579L.

5. AS of May 12, 2024 the CVC confidential Secretary of Interior qualified individual continues to wait for the attachments for the cover letter Record Searches #11265L and #11579L.

In order for a comprehensive comparison between the oral histories and collections of the residents and the official record to be performed, the complete set of attachments which were used to formulate the research plan for the archaeological excavations needs to occur. The legal representation for the CVCC has sent the requests and has yet to receive a response for the balance of the freedom of information act documentation. The CVCC has done due diligence in acquiring the Secretary of Interior Qualified individual who is a member of the CVCC to receive and review any and all confidential materials in order to make the necessary comparisons.

This report is the preliminary organizational record in preparation for the complete Historic Resources Survey for the petition to the State Historic Office of Preservation recording the values and attributes of the farmers and landowners of the Hise-ti-Burwood-Burneyville historic farmlands

41 requesting a review by the State of California to establish a preservation area based upon the standards of a Traditional Cultural Property rulings found in similar properties. This TCP contains resources and proofs over the eras presented in this report which continues to develop by the members of the CVCC.

References
Alley, B. F., (1882). The History of Tuolumne County California: Compiled from the most authentic records. San Francisco.

Arkley, R. J., (1959). Soils of Eastern Stanislaus County, California. Department of Soils and Plant Nutrition. Berkeley, CA.

42 Azzopardi, E., Kenter, J., Young, J., Leakey, C., O'Connor, S., Martino, S., Flannery, W., Sousa, L., Mylona, D., Frangoudes, K., Béguier, I., Pafi, M., da Silva, A., Ainscough, J., Koutrakis, M., Ferreira da Silva, M., and Pita, C.. What are heritage values? Integrating natural and cultural heritage into environmental valuation. People and Nature. First published: 30 July 2022 https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10386
Bancroft, H.H. (1886). History of California Vol. 4. San Francisco, Bancroft & Company Publishers.

Barrett, S.A., “Samuel Alfred Barrett, 1893-1977.” Collection no. BANC MSS 86/172, negative no. 2778, University of California, Berkeley. In the archives of the Yosemite Research Library.

Beard, F., (1985). Gold Fields to Grazing Fields. La Grange: Southern Mines Press, 1988 Bennyhoff, J. A., (1977). Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Davis, CA; Center for Archaeological Research , University of California Davis, Publication No. 5.

Bolton, H. & Adams, E., (1922). California's story, by Herbert E. Bolton and Ephraim D. Adams. Boston, New York: Allyn and Bacon.

Bradley, W. (1944) Division of Mines: mines and quarries of the Indians of California. Volume 40, No. 3.

Robert Heizer and Adan Treganza (eds.) San Francisco: State of California Department of Natural Resources.

Branch, D. (1996). The Burneyville Ferry. Escalon Historical Society Museum, Escalon CA .

Branch, J. (2010). Hints of battle between Mexican/Indian above Riverbank. Modesto Bee the Riverbank California News. Retrieved from the Riverbank Historic Society archives.

Bright, W., (1998). “1500 California Place Names; Their Original Meaning,” a revised version of 1000 place names by Erwin G. Gudde, Berkeley, California; University of California Press.

Brotherton, J., and Thor Breton, (1975). Map of Stanislaus County 1776-1976. La Grange; Southern Mines Press.

Brotherton, J., (1982). Annals of Stanislaus County River Towns and Ferries. Santa Cruz, CA; Western Tanager Press.

43 Brotherton, J., (1981). Central Pacific Dominated Stanislaus County Railroading. Stanislaus Stepping Stones Vol. 5, No. 2, Summer
California Office of Historic Preservation (1995). Instructions for Recording Historic Resources. Office of Historic Preservation.

California Historical Landmarks (1990), and the California Points of Historical Interest listing (1997), the California State Office of Historic Preservation (1976). California Inventory of Historic Resources.

Sacramento. CA.

City of Riverbank. City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025. Riverbank, CA. Adopted April 2009.

Coats, Waylon, & Sandra Gaskell, Danette Johnson, Anthony Lerma, William Leonard, and John Pryor.(2023). “Six Bands of the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation: Potoyunte, Awalache, Ahwahneechee, Siyante, Chowchilla, Nutchu.” A Provisional Report Approved by the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation Tribal Council for Submission to the U.S. Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs, Bryan Newland, in Support of the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation’s December 4, 2023 Response to the November 16, 2018 Proposed Finding Against Federal Acknowledgment. Mariposa, CA: Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation, 2023.

Cook, Sherburne
1955 The Aboriginal Populations of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Anthropological Records, Volume 16:2. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1955 The epidemic of 1830-1833 in California and Oregon. Berkeley, UC Press, UC publications in American archaeology and ethnology; Vol. 43, No. 3.
1960 Colonial expeditions to interior California: Central Valley,1800-1820. University of California Anthropological Records 16 (6). pp 239–292. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1962 Expeditions to the Interior of California, Central Valley: 1820- 1840. University of California Anthropological Records 20 (5), Berkeley: University of California Press.Davis, James T. (1974)

44 “Trade routes and economic exchange among the Indians of California.” Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 54. Publications in Archaeology, Ethnology and History, No. 3. Rev. Ramona, CA: Ballena Press.

Dyer, R. (1972). Frank Coleman (1894-1976) [sound recording in Jamestown California] : Indian freight driver and cowboy. A tape recorded interview by Richard L. Dyer. / Columbia College.

Elias, S. (1924). Stories of Stanislaus: A collection of stories on the history and achievements of Stanislaus County. Press & Publications Board McHenry Museum & Historical Society.

Fahey, M. (1962). Personal notes of communication and site visit to the Fahey Ranch at Rushing Mountain, California.

Gaskell, S. (2005). Knights Ferry Homestead and Cemetery Research for the Three Indian Villages in the Town Boundaries. Unpublished Interviews and notes, ARC Archaeology archives.

Gaskell, S. (2008) Confidential Draft Cultural Resources Survey Report of the Land Use Application 2007-14 Tentative Subdivision Tract Map on Parcels Located Between Milton and Jenny Lind, Calaveras County, California. Unpublished Manuscript and Record Forms.

Gaskell, S. (2009). Cultural Resources Report: Land Use Application Costa Tentative Parcel Map, APN 062-018, 011, 4930 Santa Fe Avenue, Stanislaus County, California. Confidential Archaeological reconnaissance and site visits report. ARC Archaeology Resources and Culture. Modesto & Mariposa, CA.

Gifford, E.W., (1955). Central Miwok Ceremonies. University of California Anthropological Records. 14 (4):261-318. Berkely
Gilbert, F.T., (1879). History of San Joaquin County, California. Thompson & West, Oakland.

Gooch, K., (2003). Site Seeing in Stanislaus, A Tour of Historic Sites in the County. Modesto, California; Press and Publications Board McHenry Museum & Historical Society.

Gray, T. B., (1993). The Stanislaus Indian Wars. Modesto, California; McHenry Museum Press.

Gray, T., (1973). Quest for Gold, The Story of La Grange California. La Grange, California; Southern Mines Press.

45 Grissom, L., (1994).Thresholds of Significance: Criteria for Defining Environmental Significance, CEQA . Technical Advice Series; Sacramento, CA, Office of Research and Planning.

Guzman, J. (1934). Interview with C.H. Merriam regarding the term of Yatchachumne. Merriam, C. Hart (1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1910, 1920) Field Journals. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress.

Hall, A.L. (1978). Ethnohistorical studies of the Central Sierra Miwok 1800-1900. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Master’s of Arts, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California.

Heizer, R. (1972). The Eighteen Unratified Treaties of 1851–1852 Between the California Indians and the United States government. Berkeley: Archaeology Research Facility, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

Hickman, J. C., (1993). Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press.

Hillman, R., & Covello, L. (1985). Cities & Towns of San Joaquin County Since 1847. Edition, illustrated. Publisher, Panorama West Books, 1985.

Hopper, A. & Hopper, B. (2023). Unpublished oral interviews from dump sites of the Stanislaus River basin. ARC Archaeology Archives, Modesto, CA.

Houseworth, L. (1866). Digger Indian Camp, Knights Ferry, Stanislaus County. Clerks Office of the District Court of the United States for the northern District of Columbia. #599. Retrieved by the author from http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/76658/lawrence-houseworthdiggerindian-camp-knight’s-ferry-stanislaus-county Kelsey, C.E. (1971). “Census of Non-reservation California Indians, 1905–1906.” Archaeological Research Facility, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

Kriswell, J.F. (1973). Knight’s Ferry People and Places. Installment No. 4-6, Oakdale Leader Newspaper.

Kroeber, A.L., (1959). Northern Yokuts. Anthropologic Linguistics 1 (8): 1-19. Bloomington, Indiana.

Kroeber, A.L. (1976) Handbook of the Indians of California. Rev. New York: Dover Publications.

Latta, F. (1949) Handbook of the Yokuts Indians. Bear State Books, Oildale, California.

Lewis, B. (1856). Report to the Commission on Indian Affairs, 1856, p. 803.

46 Light, T., & T. Light, (2004). Personal notes of communication and site visit to lineage locations of the early inhabitants of Knights Ferry, Green Springs, Bonaventure, Stone Coral, and other sites in Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Calaveras Counties, California.

Merriam, C. Hart (1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1910, 1920) Field Journals. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress.

Moratto, M. J. (1984). California Archaeology. San Francisco: Academic Press, Harcourt–Brace– Jovanovich.

National Register of Historic Places and the Office of Historic Preservation computer updates, the California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976)
Oakland Tribune, (1930). Me-wuka at Knight’s Ferry, Stanislaus River. May 26, 1930. Report of the death of Guzman.

Parker, P.L., and T.F. King, (1998). Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin 38. Originally published 1990 (revised 1992), U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB38-Completeweb.pdf Peak & Associates, (2021). Confidential Appendix Cultural Resource Assessment For the River Walk Project Area, City of Riverbank, California. De Novo Planning Group, El Dorado Hill, CA.

Powers, S. (1877). “The Tribes of California.” Contributions to American Ethnology, Vol. III. United States Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region, Washington, D.C.

Power, S., (1855). A Report on the Calaveras Route, a Trip to Carson Valley. Annual Report of the State Surveyor General. State of California.

Prowse, T., (1976). Touring Knights Ferry with Tom. Published by M. Wilms, Oakdale, CA.

Ristau, D. N., (2007). The Dream called Del Rio. Donning Company Publishers. ISBN-13 : 978- 1578644544
Riverbank Museum, (2023). Interviews with museum curator and historical documents unpublished.

Robinson, W. W. (1948) Land in California, the Story of Mission Lands, Ranchos, Squatters, Mining

47 Claims, Railroad Grants, Land Script, Homesteads. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Ryer, W. M. (1852). Vouchers for Vaccination. 32nd Congress, 1st Session, Senate Ex. Doc. 61:18-26, (Series No. 620), Washington D.C..

Sample, L.L. (1950). Trade and Trails in Aboriginal California. Archaeological Survey No. 8. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Santos, R. (2002). "Chronology of Stanislaus County History Through 1912 With Bibliography".

Archived from the original on June 23, 2006. Retrieved June 13, 2006.

Schenck, E. W. (1926). “Historic Aboriginal Groups of the California Delta Region.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol 23, No. 2, Nov. 13.

Berkeley: University of California
Sprinkle, J. H., (2014) Crafting preservation criteria: The National Register of Historic Places and American historic preservation. Routledge Taylor and Francis Publishing, New York.

State Historic Preservation Office, (2002). California Public Resources Code. Sacramento, CA; mission statement of the OHP.

Taylor, A.S., (1862). Indianology of California. California Farmer and Journal of Useful Sciences, May 16, San Francisco.

Theodoratus Cultural Research, Inc. (1984) Cultural Resources Overview of the Southern Sierra Nevada:

An Ethnographic, Linguistic, Archeological, and Historical Study of the Sierra National Forest, Sequoia National Forest, and Bakersfield District of the Bureau of Land management.

Prepared under contract no. 53-0JC9-1-66, USDA , Bishop, CA Tinkham, George Henry, (1979). History of Stanislaus County, California: With biographical sketches of leading men and women of the county who have been identified with its growth and development from the early days to the present. 2 Vols., Evansville Indiana: Unigraphic.

Treaty Maps, Library of Congress, as retrieved from http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/map_item.pl on July 30, 2004

48 Van Bueren, Thad (1983). Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on Central Sierra Miwok Cultural Change During the Historic Period. Unpublished master’s thesis. San Francisco:

California State University, San Francisco.

Map Resources Reviewed
Asher & Adams, (1872). California and Nevada-North Portion. New York, 1:1,267,000, Courtesy of the Murray Hudson Collection, Halls, Tennessee.

Beale, E. F., (1861). Map of Public Surveys in California. Sacramento: Surveyor General’s Office, 1861, 1:1,140,000, Courtesy of the Murray Hudson Collection, Halls, Tennessee.

Bradley, Willima M., (1881). County Map of California and Nevada. Philadelphia, Bradley & Co.. 1:4,055,000. Courtesy American Geographical Society Library, Miwaukee, Wisconsin.

California Geographical Survey, (1873). Map of the San Joaquin, Sacramento and Tulare Valleys, State of California. Washington D.C.: Chief of Engineers U.S. Army, prepared under the direction of the Board of Commissioners on Irrigation. 1:760,000. Courtesy American Geographical Society Library, Miwaukee, Wisconsin.

Colton, Joseph Hutchins, (1873). Colton’s California and Nevada. New York: G.W. and C.B. Colton & Co., 1:2,091,000, Courtesy the American Geographical Society Library, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Cram, George F., (1882). New Railroad and County Map of Northern California and Nevada. Chicago. 1:2,281,000, Courtesy American Geographical Society Library, Miwaukee, Wisconsin.

Cram, George F., (1888). Railroad and County Map of California. New York: A.A. Grant; from Grant’s Standard American Atlas of the World. 1:2,218,000. Courtesy of the Murray Hudson Collection, Halls, Tennessee.

Folger, L. B., (1892). California & Nevada. New York: Hunt & Eaton, map from the People’s Cyclopedia. 1:4,245,000.

Gray, Frank A., (1878). California and Nevada. Philadephia: Frank A. Gray. 1: 2,280,000. Courtesy of the Murray Hudson Collection, Halls, Tennessee.

Hardesty, H.H., (1885). Central California. Chicago. 1:1,140,000. Courtesy American Geographical

49 Society Library, Miwaukee, Wisconsin.

Mitchell, Samuel Augustus, Jr., (1884). County Map of the State of California. Philadelphia. 1:2,344,000, Courtesy American Geographical Society Library, Miwaukee, Wisconsin.

Rand McNally & Co., (1890). Chicago. From Rand McNally & Co.’s Family Atlas of the World. 1:2,534,400. Courtesy of the Murray Hudson Collection, Halls, Tennessee.

Warner and Beers, (1873). Lloyd H.H. and Company Atlas of the United States, 1:3,295,000, Courtesy of the Murray Hudson Collection, Halls, Tennessee.

Williams, J. David, (1873). Map of California and Nevada, 1:3,485,000, Courtesy of the Murray Hudson Collection, Halls, Tennessee.

APPENDIX

50

1 Cannon Ball of HISE-TI’
the 1828-1829 Stanislaus Indian wars
Found Objects and Their Disposition Left Unreported
Located in the Riverbank Museum & History Society, California By Indigenous Publishing

EXHIBIT N- CONTINUED

2 Indigenous Publishing
Mariposa & Modesto, California
Materials of the Riverbank Historical Society & Museum
April 2023

3 This essay delves into the ideas of backyard common place occurrences which can happen anywhere in America uncovering evidence of things from the past. Wherever you live something happened before you were there. If you are not connecting the things in your environment with past happenings you could miss important clues. In the case of this Riverbank backyard, an important piece of history was almost overlooked.

Found objects that become children’s toys can hold meaning that adults may disregard for a time. They may miss the evidence because the object is holding the attention of the child’s play while the adult conducts business. In the case of the Tucker family of the early 1950s, the adults were busy clearing away an old almond orchard in preparation for building their home. A very heavy ball of iron was being tossed about as a shot-put or bowling ball for a long time before anyone took note of what it might have been. The events surrounding the discovery, the 1953 construction project descriptions of the other items found by the children, and the ideas of what these found items might be were sitting on a shelf in the Riverbank Museum for many years before a metallurgist was interested in the objects.

4 Pamphlet Overview
This essay is to inform the public about the production of a pamphlet or booklet to be available with the showcase of the artifacts found within the Riverbank cityscape. The Riverbank Historical Society & Museum has housed the history of the region as part of the City of Riverbank since the 1921 addition of the Carnegie Library building has been built and owned by the City of Riverbank. The Society is a not for profit and volunteer program organization that has been charged with preserving the local history having been recognized as an official organization by the board of the City of Riverbank, California. The museum is located at 3237 Santa Fe Street and houses the city’s history as custodian and maintenance provider under a 501(c )(3) non-profit organization and not as a city operated department. This museum property is listed as a National Register of Historic Places as it was previously a public Carnegie Library until 1978.

Research into the cannon balls and the possible historical connection to the Stanislaus Indian Wars will be produced into a picture and story booklet or pamphlet for distribution at the Riverbank Historical Society & Museum.

Delving into the found objects of children’s play from 1953 uncovered some relics which could confirm the locations of some very important historical battles, significant people in history, and identify a resource which had until then had not been made public.

Questions were raised by the discovery of a cannon ball in a California orchard on a 153-foot-high bluff over a major waterway. Why was a piece of Spanish artillery in an almond orchard? Who was being targeted and why such a violent arsenal? How long ago did this happen? What was the reason for its presence deep underground? The children saw it as a toy. The adults paid no attention until a Riverbank Fire Chief read a book by a local historian and realized what the children had found.

5 Cannon Ball Description
The research into the types of cannons and military hardware transported by the Mexican and Spanish military, along with the range and trajectory of the artillery equipment has been determined to be mortars, or swivel guns [esmerils] that could have been the reason for the cannon ball on Topeka Street (Sanchez, 1829). According to Brinckerhoff and Chamberlain (1972) and illustrated by Morris (2024) as “…a light bronze 4-pounder field gun (known in Spanish as a cañón de campaña or pieza de a 4).

These versatile, small-caliber bronze cannons were standard, highly mobile artillery deployed from California presidios to fight in remote, rough terrain against native forces” (artillerymanmagazine.com). These could deliver artillery from the north side of the river into the settlement up on the southern bluff across the river.

Figure 1. The cannon ball as it is seen on the shelf of the Riverbank Historical Society Museum.

Child’s Play and Cannon Balls
In an interview with Preston Tucker with the Riverbank News (Branch, 2010) he explains the unusual toys his children found in 1953 while working on clearing his property. The items that were found in the soil on the bluff above the Stanislaus River at his house on Topeka Street were cannon balls and large specimens of obsidian arrowheads and spearheads. He explained that the soil was sandy and good for the children to play in. In a quote from the article Tucker said, “They found this ball, played for a while, got tired of it. One day I happened to read Brotherton’s history about the Mexican and Indian battles and realized what it was” (Branch, 2010). Some of the arrowheads were found on the bluff by his brother Arthur who was killed in World War II.

The family also found some portable mortars and pestles for preparing acorns on their

6 land. Tucker compared this to a 30 lb. cannon ball he saw which could be shot from the mortar he visited at Hearst Castle and stated that there was a mortar capable of shooting the 9 lb. ball located in the Vallejo Museum.

Figure 2. Topographic map 1953 7.5 quadrangle
Location and the Artifacts
Prehistoric isolates (spearheads, arrowheads, metate, hand stones, etc.) located within the same deposits as the cannonballs raises an inquiry into the element of time. The legal description of the property was APN: 075-002-020-000 (often shown as 075-02- 20). The property lies above the north end of the River Cove subdivision ( at about 97 feet above sea level) above on a cliff 38-56 feet above the homes below. The backyard of the property of 0.45-acre abuts the riparian zone along the Stanislaus River placing the home at the edge of the meander of the alluvial stream. This overlook is on the south side of the river above Jacob Meyer Park Recreation Area, 24100 East River Road on the north side of the river.

The location has attributes of the place consistent with some of the descriptions in the historical record where the objects were found at a depth approximated by the depth of the almond tree roots which were removed from the sandy loam soils at this location.

Almond tree varieties at this time having active root systems in the 0-24 inches of the soil profile, would have deeper anchoring roots of approximately 5-7 feet in depth in the County of Stanislaus (APN 075-02-20), California. The area of the original ground disturbance and area of the estimated soils holding organic midden deposits were located within Sections 23, 24, 25, and 26 of the Riverbank Quadrangle 7.5. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) of the Hise-ti’ settlement had items found at the location in the soils at a depth of 5-7 feet deep were listed as a 9-pound cannon ball, a 3-pound cannon ball, and various spearheads and arrowheads constructed from black obsidian.

Historical accounts from 1829 place the occupation site as above the riparian zone during the Stanislaus Indian Wars (Brotherton, 1982).

7 Figure 3. Aerial View of the location of the home on Topeka Street in relation to the Stanislaus River overlook.

Figure 4. Close-up of the arrow head and of the spearhead fragment laying on the shelf in the Riverbank Museum showing the objects in a grouping on the shelf with handwritten descriptions. View- items removed from site now part of the collections of the Riverbank Historical Society in the Riverbank Museum. The objects removed from the Site above the riparian zone on the top bench or bluff. This overlook is on the south side of the river above Jacob Meyer Park Recreation Area, 24100 East River Road, lies on the north side of the river. All the elements of the current exhibit are shown as they appear today in the museum.

8 Figure 5. Description of Photo: Close up of the shelf in the Riverbank Museum showing the objects in a grouping on the shelf with handwritten descriptions. View- items removed from site now part of the collections of the Riverbank Historical Society in the Riverbank Museum. The objects removed from the Site above the riparian zone on the top bench or bluff. This overlook is on the south side of the river above Jacob Meyer Park Recreation Area, 24100 East River Road, lies on the north side of the river. All of the elements of the current exhibit are shown as they appear today in the museum. Date- Photograph in the Riverbank Museum 2-20-2026 The Stanislaus River: Lakisumnes River, Rio Laquisimnes 1829 In order to understand the importance of the cannon ball found at this point along the Stanislaus Indian Trail of the Lakisumne people, there needs to be an examination of the entire route from the San Joaquin River to the foothill settlements upriver.

Combining the ethnographic record with the cultural history of the Central Valley region can follow eras of classification based upon the findings of earlier archaeological evaluations were formed by the Windmiller Culture, the Cosumnes Culture, and Hotchkiss Culture whose sequences are established in the California archaeological community. Ethnographic definitions of time in the local Yokut and Miwuk interpretation of history follows a combination of mythology and legend to define this same history from their perspective. The history of the trail system network interpreted by Indigenous Elder’s stories explains the use of an ancient trail system far beyond the boundary of California where trade goods were brought here from adjoining civilizations from the Midwest and the coast. Archaeological history is variable (Bennyhoff, 1977; Moratto, 1984; Alexander Taylor-Smith, 1860) interpreted through geological features. The Elder record of habitation extends well into the past and is held within the oral history of the

9 local contributors. Archaeology is a relatively young science and primarily discounts the indigenous intellectual knowledge from generations of inhabitants.

The knowledge of an historic structure of the boundary of the early inhabitant family groups who remained on the farms and ranches continued working at these places as they were converted by the fur traders, the Spanish, then the Gold Rush invasion.

Evidence from oral history from the Yokut and Miwuk who melded into the farming and ranching communities in Montpelier, Cooperstown, Paulsell, Farmington, Oakdale, Green Springs and others have passed the history of the conversion of the region into the new era in ethnographic interviews and through confidential transmission through genealogical relations. When the ethnographic record was investigated for the New Melones Dam, the generation of Miwuk and Yokut were identified and interviewed (Van Beuren, 1983; Hall, 1978; Moratto, 1984). There were also Elders who would not speak to the investigators, and these oral histories remain confidential within the local tribal communities. To this day many of the descendants of the local people hold this information close and do not share it with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) because they believe in nondisclosure of sacred sites.

Ancient Trails from San Joaquin River to Knights Ferry
During the early writings of Alexander Taylor Smith (1860) and the mapping by Wheeler (1866), the original labels for the people were used which delineated regional geographic relationships of the people to the places. The name of the river became the name of the people who used that river trail. It wasn’t until the anthropological efforts of the United States government during the Wheeler Survey when the western territories were opening that the use of words which were literally translated “people” were used for the territories. The people had their own names for their places, but the names were changed so that the “people” of specific language groups became called “people” in their own language. Hence, the word for “people” for the Yokut region was Yokut. The word for “people” in the dialects of the Miwok were called Miwok and so forth (Conrotto, 1973). Modern anthropology changed the names of the locations and the people. The linear feature of the ancient trail system through the riparian area has to be explained in the terms of the trade route defined by the Elders of the area between the Tuolumne River, the Stanislaus River, the San Joaquin River, and the Calaveras River. The footrail from the San Joaquin River led up the Stanislaus River through the three settlements to the large settlement with three sections at Knights Ferry.

Before 1840, the central hub where three-to-four lineages came together was just above Riverbank and Oakdale to where there were three settlements on the meadows at Knights Ferry on both sides of the river. The Stanislaus River trail was connected to the Tuolumne River Trail on an overland trail located at the shortest distance between these two rivers. There was a ten-mile-wide stretch of land between these rivers. It was the fastest route across the foothills blazed by ancient people and continued to be used as

10 an Indigenous trail, a Mexican trail, a Spanish military trail, and as the first wagon route to the Yosemite Valley. Along this corridor there had not been any Spanish military ammunition or evidence of the Stanislaus Indian Wars even though there was a Spanish land grant near Knights Ferry.

Figure 6. The Takin Roundhouse Ceremonial structure doorway. Getty Images showing the doorway to the subterranean roundhouse of Takin on the south side of the Stanislaus River which was the location of the settlement where Casoos originated decades before. Knights Ferry is upstream settlement from Riverbank. The Corp of Engineer’s display signage states “Many Indians were forced to take refuge here at Takin, a primitive camp just across the river from Knights Ferry.

The trail connected the Stanislaus River and the Tuolumne River at the Rushing Mountain Big Hill at 1525 feet elevation level (Light, 2004). The place centered along this route standing today under the U.S. Forest Service fire lookout tower was the meeting grounds for trading and later used as a Pow-wow grounds (Fahey, 1962; Light, 2004). Based upon the oral history and physical evidence of the Knights Ferry ethnographic historic area, the family use routes along the circuit between Webbers Point and Jamestown, included the Siakumna, the Lakisumne, and the Tulanachi which were the regional names for the local Miwok and Yokut dialect speakers. The three main habitation areas along the ancient trails of Knights Ferry were the north side of the river named “Cha-pa-ir-sy/Chapaerse” of the Siakumna, and then on the south side of the river Lakiu/Lukusu / Tuyiwünu, and west down river lowlands named “Takin/Tam-kan.” These three places were associated with different lineages and routes entering and leaving the Stanislaus River lowlands.

11 According to Kroeber (1959, p. 19) there was a settlement below Oakdale along the Stanislaus River named “Hise-ti’” which was a part of the water moiety and may have been the settlements below the Oakdale settlement of “Wallakumne.” Wallakumne was a large Si-yante (Cucunuchi) Yokut village reported to Samuel Barrett by Frank Hooky Wilson (Barrett, 1906). The Si-yante (plains Yokut) encompassed the Co-co-noon who were a smaller group out of the A-pang-as-ne. According to Wilson (a captain of the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation 1820-1906) the Cucunuchi-Coocoonoon had settlements from Mariposa to Oakdale on the Stanislaus. The larger group of Apangasne occupied from the Merced River to near Sonora and was a larger group of which the Cucunuchi were a part. The Si-yante inhabited the lower elevation foothills with intermarriage of the contact era showing family use tracts from the Stanislaus River at Oakdale (Wallakumne), Waterford (Tagualames), Snelling (Ya’ppa northside and Potoi’un-te on southside), and Merced Falls (Olwī-ak of Oopla), Merced (Ke’trache -ket-watche), and Chowchilla.

According to Bancroft (1886) the river at the time of Vallejo was called Rio Laquisimes, and according to Gilbert (1879) the Si-yak-um-nes (the tribe where Jose Jesus was the captain) controlled the north side of the Stanislaus (Lakisumnes) River. A more recent record by Sol Elias (1924) repeated the descriptions of the fortifications at the confluence of the San Joaquin River and further upstream (pp. 166-168). Oral history

12 from members of the Chicken Ranch Rancheria, the Tuolumne Rancheria, and unenrolled indigenous members of the Yokut-Miwuk community, define their territory beginning at Weber’s Point in Stockton and extending up through Lathrop and to above Jamestown. One past chairman of Chicken Ranch Rancheria described how he would travel with his grandfather to the Weber’s Point area. Other members of his family owned homes in the late 1800s in Columbia, in Montpelier, in La Grange, and in Oakdale. This tribal member mapped out the locations of the homes of the approximately 20 people of this lineage on a map showing where they lived and who they worked for in the early 1900s which corroborated the oral interviews gathered during the New Melones Dam interviews. Gray (1993) describes some of the families by name both Yokut and Miwuk substantiating their family routes and areas of habitation.

The Lakisumne settlements along the Stanislaus (Lakisumnes) River at locations (not yet recorded) are on private property along the length of the river from Knights Ferry to down past Salida and the confluence with the San Joaquin River. Evidence in a City of Riverwalk public environmental review document for the Stanislaus River at the site across from where the cannon ball was discovered show archaeological locations where even after many years of flood waters surface surveys showed that there are features of a settlement (ML-20-01; ML-20-02; ML-20-03) (Peak & Associates, 2021).

Items found over the years on the 88 parcels of that area which were not included in any surveys identified other possible resource areas lying under layers of silt from the flood years.

One Miwok / Yokut great-grandmother reported to her lineage how she was born at Green Springs and would accompany her family to Stockton through the Spanish land grant “through the lower foothills to the tributaries of the Calaveras River and then down to Stockton” (Gaskell, 2005, p. 19). In this same interview the route taken along Little John Creek was substantiated from Gray (1993) spoken by Indian Gomez and reflected in the population data of the Kelsey Report of 1904-06 (1971). These ancient trail systems were shared routes. These Yokut people on the plains shared the ancient trail system with the foothill people when during the early conflicts and Spanish incursions, had moved into the higher settlements on shared fluid boundaries with Miwuk. The significance of the lineages of the Cucunuchi (Coocoonoon) as named in the Moraga testimonies, earlier generations included Estanislao born a Cucunuchi, and his successor Jose Jesus (Casoos) who was a Cucunuchi- Lakissamni (in Spanish called Laquisimes).

Ancient Trail System
The ancient trail system along the Stanislaus River became part of the Spanish rancho in 1846 where eight leagues along the Stanislaus River was granted as the Thompson Rancho. Thompson came to California in 1834 and married the daughter of the Governor of Alta California with land later patented to Thompson in 1851. So, in 1846

13 the ancient trail system still intact was used by the incursion forces, the early Spanish ranchers, and then the Gold Rush colonizers. Oral history of local indigenous reported being employed at the rancho as vaqueros and as laborers at the winery of the rancho (Gaskell, 2005).

Figure 8. The dark shaded area of this map is the Thompson Eight Square League Rancheria Del Rio Estanislao Spanish / Mexican Land Grant. This map by Thor Breton appears on a map by Jack Brotherton to show the locations of Ferry Boat crossings along the various rivers in Stanislaus County (1975) showing from 1806 through current date south side of the Stanislaus River. In October 2-3, 1806 Moraga and Munoz reported moving through the south side of the river.

The Cucunuchi of the 1829 Spanish incursions were the ancestors of the indigenous of the places at Knights Ferry where the ancient settlements continued to exist but were moved further uphill during Knights Ferry colonization. The three settlements of Knights Ferry prehistory became combined on the upper southern cliffs near where the maintenance yard of the Corp of Engineers has fenced off the tiny remnants of a cemetery. The relatives alive today have made a private map of where the actual cemetery lies in an unprotected area.

14 Jose Jesus (Casoos) a Cucunuchi Laksiumne inhabited the area called Lakiu (later called Buena Vista) in the early to mid-1800s pictured in a photograph of the entry way of the ceremonial roundhouse by the Corp of Engineers photographic history (Houseworth, 1866). The cemetery for these relatives lies to the west in the meadow of the area photographed as seen in Oakdale Leader photographs of old wooden grave markers (Kriswell, 1973). Jose Jesus was recorded in Catholic records as Chaipaiseme and Cotuplanimne which was described as a region going down the Stanislaus River, to the French Camp Creek between the Calaveras River and the Stanislaus River (Ryer, 1852). In 1906, Barrett was checking the boundaries of the different languages and dialects, and found that according to Charley Dorsey, his parents came from Lathrop.

He defined the range of his family which was very close to the explanation given by the old chairman from the Chicken Ranch Rancheria. This range was given as a series of locations along the route beginning at Lathrop, Tracey, Oakdale, Montpelier, Crows Landing-Modesto, Stockton, Milton, Lockford, Copperopolis, Knights Ferry, Cooperstown, Paulsell, Merced Falls, and so forth.

The foot trail from the San Joaquin River led up the Stanislaus River through the three settlements, one near Manteca or Ripon, one near this location, and one near Knights Ferry. The large settlement at the historic Knights Ferry consisted of the three settlement areas have been identified on both sides of the river. Before 1840, the central hub where three-to-four lineages came together was just above Riverbank and Oakdale at the three settlements at Knights Ferry. Knights Ferry was closest to a trail which connected the two rivers. The area between the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers was the shortest distance between rivers along a trail joining the two river trail systems.

At this area, a ten-mile stretch of land between these rivers, it became a well know trading place at the Rushing Mountain Big Hill at 1525 feet elevation level (Light, 2004).

In the large meadow where the Fahey’s ran cattle was an open space where artifacts were found. This place was under the current fire lookout tower and was centered along the route standing today as the meeting grounds for trading and later used as a Powwow grounds (Fahey, 1962). This area was also crisscrossed by the new wagon route from Knights Ferry running up through Green Springs where the original wagon ruts remain on the Brooks Ranch. This information is relevant to the various battles between the Indians and the military of Moraga in 1806, and Vallejo in 1828-1829, and later with Fremont in 1844 and 1846.

Regional Territorial Labels
Based upon the oral history and physical evidence of the Knights Ferry ethnographic historic area, the family use routes along the circuit between the San Joaquin River about Webbers Point in Stockton and then leading upriver to Knights Ferry and south of Jamestown, included the Siakumna, the Lakisumne, and the Tulanachi. The three main habitation areas along the ancient trails in the river valley of Knights Ferry on the north

15 side of the river was named “Cha-pa-ir-sy/Chapaerse”, then on the south side of the river on the upper portion overlooking the meadows was Lakiu/Lukusu and closer to the river to the west of Lakin was the settlement area of Tuyiwünu. There was a burial ground at both of those locations, and they were considered one settlement with the two neighborhood names. The final settlement area was further downstream just past the current townsite on some river lowlands named “Takin/Tam-kan.” These three places were associated with different lineages and routes entering and leaving the Stanislaus River trail. These were the three bands of families that used the trails of the Stanislaus River and would have been the parties defending the strongholds along the river when the Spanish and Mexican military was challenging their positions.

Following the theme of trails and routes, along the mapped route of Moraga and Munoz in 1806, it has been hypothesized that a battle between the indigenous people of the Stanislaus River and the Spaniards occurred past the Burneyville (Riverbank) area of the south bank of the river. The accounts of Estanislao’s Battle according to Cook (1962) and revisited by Gray (1993) follow geographic markers that align closer to the high cliffs of the river’s bank. When comparing the environment of Knight’s Ferry against the river’s bank west of Burneyville, the topography described in the Cook translation of the account of Antonio Maria Osio from 1829 seemed to be more closely related according to both Gray and Cook. These factors being the soft soils for tunneling, the thick vines and brush along the river course, and the steep escarp (Cook, 1962:177; Gray, 1993: 52-66).

Ethnographers recording population densities and village locations were actively pursuing this information from the indigenous informants available around the turn of the century. Some of this information has been preserved and reported information regarding habitations sites within the location near where the cannon ball was found.

Ethnographers who reported village locations were C. Hart Merriam (1860-1906), A.L.

Kroeber (1925), S.A. Barrett (1866-1906), Gifford (1916), and Levy (1978). Before this there were compilations of Spanish records from exploration diaries and baptismal records naming various regions around the delta and into the foothills in some cases.

Groups of families that were reported to have lived in the region followed the watersheds with routes over the divides. Evidence of trade routes and traditional family gathering routes indicate locations and levels of occupation.

Traditional Use Routes Before 1820s
Understanding that connections between the delta and the foothills remained due to resource availability, oral history from the period of 1850-1890 still reflects some of these patterns. Family migration trails for the people that have been identified with the Stanislaus River corridor went between French Camp and Stockton areas up through the foothills (Gaskell, 2005). It had been explained by Indigenous descendants that to get directly to Stockton from the Knights Ferry area the simplest route was down the

16 Calaveras River since the Stanislaus would bring one out too far to the south. The population centers that were told to younger generations today by their greatgrandparents existed where family groups traditionally lived on their own “place” at the confluence of the rivers and the tributaries. An example of Knight’s Ferry is used because of the route along Little John Creek. Descendants personally mention other Elders and kin with names recognized in passing that were listed on census records and the Kelsey Report of 1904-06 (Kelsey, 1971). This was also substantiated by stories told regarding the “last Yokut-Gomez” from the writings of Gray in the Stanislaus Indian Wars that reflected truth when referencing the New Melones Dam ethnographic literature from interviews with the Indian Gomez (Hall, 1976; Van Bueren, 1983; Gray, 1993).

Cook, 1955, Population Estimates Along the Stanislaus
The Siakumne lived on travel ways between the Calaveras and Stanislaus Rivers, crossing over to the south side of the Stanislaus. The Lakquisimas, Tauhalame, Chapairseme, Siakumne, Wallalsimne, and Cotuplanime lived along the Stanislaus on both sides of the river and down to portions of the Merced River. The Chief of the Siakumne was involved in the battles described previously and his name was Jose Jesus or Cos-sus, Kosus, Casoos, of the ‘Casus Band’- hence there were many spellings throughout the historic literature (Wozencroft, 1851; Ryer, 1852; Sutter, 1840; Lewis, 1856; Merriam, 1893; and Gomez, 1876). Along the river’s course there were various crossings used before the advent of the river ferry. Each crossing was managed by one of the particular family groups. These groups of families were Lakquisimas, Tauhalame, Chapairseme, Siakumne, Wallalsimne, and Cotuplanime with a particular group controlling specific crossing areas. Merriam reviewed literature surrounding Jose Jesus (Casus) and discovered evidence that the lineages he descended from were both Chaipaiseme (Cha-pa-er-se) of the Tribe Siakumne, and of Cotoplanime (Wallalsimne or Taulumne) being from both Miwuk and Yokut descent. During ethnographic research, Kroeber was told by an informant that the name for a portion of the village area (a nena a little below Oakdale) was called “Hise-ti” the name of a Miwuk water moiety (Kroeber, 1959).

17 Figure 9. Cook’s definition of the cultural area with a Red Star at the approximate location of the cannon ball.

During Cook’s investigations into the possible ethnographic locations along the Stanislaus River, he summarizes literature (see area 9A in Figure 8) naming population center counts as “Kroeber gives only 20 villages on all three streams [ CalaverasCosumnes-Mokelumne] Merriam adds another 3, making 23 in all. Given Gifford’s population value this means “480 persons” (Cook, 1955:36). When we incorporate the traditional knowledge regarding family travelways, he continues to define the areas of the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers. Cook used government vaccination records, reports on reservation Indian counts, government estimates, and the first state census.

He refers to the Knights Ferry region (the same families traveling up and down the Stanislaus River) from the viewpoint of the Bureau of Indian Affairs from 1853-1875 naming the research area in a statement by Barbour, McKee, and Wozencraft reporting that “…a chief named Kossus that under his jurisdiction were 4,000 persons and 30 rancherias from the Calaveras to the Stanislaus [he continues] Hence, although the figure of over 4,000 is likely too high, 1,000 to 1,500 may have been too low” (Cook, 1955:34).

There were tributaries that were identified as being related to the “Lakisamnes” with references of village sites named for both “Lakisamnes and Siakumnes in the Dent / Knights Ferry (Stanislaus River) early reference materials. Both Yokut and Miwok shared this important Salmon area and had large centers with ceremonial houses.

18 Information regarding the Stanislaus River from Knights Ferry to the San Joaquin related watershed distribution of Yokut and Miwok relating to directly related to the watershed were as follows.

Cultural Groups
Reconstructions of early contact villages were performed by Merriam (1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1910, 1920) and Cook (1955) and later confirmed by Milliken (1993) from the Spanish mission baptismal records and other documents. Since current evidence is including more then one cultural element to a given location, a brief description of all cultural groups known to have traversed or occupied the areas surrounding the project site. These groups of families were Lakquisimas, Tauhalame, Chapairseme, Siakumne, Wallalsimne, Cotuplanime, Cucunuchi, Tulanachi, and Apang-as-ne were renamed according to dialectic districts outlined by the territorial maps from the renaming by the colonial restructuring using the word for “people” in each language.

Northern Valley Yokuts
The territory of the Northern Valley Yokut lies between the Diablo Range, the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, the southern bend of the San Joaquin River where it turns northward near Fresno County, and between the Calaveras and Mokelumne River watersheds. It was estimated by ethnographers that clusters of villages were estimated to have been between 30-40 triblets with distinct linguistic dialects (Wallace, 1978; Kroeber, 1925; Kroeber 1963). Families lived using various subsistence techniques on the watersheds and marshlands on the lower San Joaquin Valley. The era of existence would have been determined by the quality of the aquatic life, waterfowl, big game, and vegetable staples. Trade with the Eastern Sierran groups and the coastal groups followed traditional routes. It has been reported that the areas where the plains meet the foothills was a mixed use area for the Miwok and Northern Valley Yokuts based on traditional habitation locations along the watershed and agreed territorial domains.

Plains Miwok
The range defined by ethnographers spread from the area of the Bay Miwok and across the watersheds between “both banks of the Sacramento River from Rio Vista to Freeport and the lower reaches of the Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers” according to Levy in an article on the Eastern Miwok (Levy, 1978). The terrain included delta marshlands, grassy plains and portions of the foothills. Linguistics experts explain that the Miwok languages had been separated for approximately 2,500 years, and that the Plains Miwok language had separated out early on around 2,000 years ago into an unknown number of dialects (Callaghan, 1972). Physical landscape has been determined to be directly related to the watershed divisions and that “dialects embrace a certain prescribed physical territory” (Levy, 1978). In the case of this study area it would

19 have been the Stanislaus River watershed, the aquatic life (salmon), the quarry feature (manufacturing areas), the transportation corridor (the importance of this being a central route between important places), and the interface between the Yokut and Miwok trade system from beyond this region (Schenck, 1926; Cook, 1955, 1960, 1962; Merriam 1968).

The chronology of cultural decay of the Plains Miwok people continued between 1811 and 1834 through the records of mission baptismal records and the transcriptions of individual names and birthplaces (Cook, 1955). The Plains Miwok culture was recorded as participants in construction work at the Sutter’s Fort (Levy, 1978:401) and reported in various land grant and mining documents (Cook, 1943:106). Beginning with the Gold Rush, the population is assumed to have moved higher up into the other Miwok family language groups to escape dangerous circumstances. Miwok rancherias in the foothill regions have been reported and recorded by a number of ethnographers at the turn of the century (Kelsey, 1905; Barrett, 1906, 1908; Gifford, 1917; Merriam, 1902-1930). By the time these ethnographers were collecting data on population, the fluid character of the Plains people with other Miwok families had emerged leaving little contact literature (Bennyhoff, 1977). Since habitation locations occurred on rises above the waterways, and were permanently occupied, these were areas desirable for colonization. Bennyhoff reported that the Plains Miwok ceased to be mentioned in the mission baptismal records by around 1828 (Bennyhoff, 1977).

Central Miwok
The range of the Central Sierra Miwok population has been defined as lying between the Calaveras River and the Stanislaus River with some overlap to the Merced River with the Southern Sierra Miwok language groups along the northern drainages into the Stanislaus River watershed at elevation levels where the plains meet the foothills. Language mapping based in the 1932 collections of linguistic data (Freeland, 1932) and the transformation of Freeland’s work into dictionary form (Broadbent, 1960) confirms this approximate boundary. Although fluid Miwok territories overlapped, these families are considered to be the ancestral most likely descendants of the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers.

Historic Chinese
During the Gold Rush there were many Chinese communities throughout the foothill region. There were communities where Chinese people worked as laborers and storekeepers. At the historical towns there were definite Chinese population centers.

Further research may be performed to locate and record the Gold Rush population of Chinese in the Riverbank area. It is not known if there were Chinese immigrants before the Mexican and Spanish era.

20 Argonauts
Argonauts were some of the first prospectors to reach Stanislaus County. The name of La Grange was first “French Bar” and the French traveled through the Stanislaus River corridor on the way to Marble Springs where there was a French contingent. It was a Frenchmen who discovered one of the first large nuggets in Mokelumne Hill where he “was fishing for a frog in a prospect hole” and saw a speck of gold, digging it out, the nugget was worth $2,150 in November of 1848. French names appear in cemeteries around the region attesting to their early presence during the gold rush. Some of the first vintners were from France and while the gold rush was ending, they had already planted vineyards and were producing wine (Parker, 1892). French immigrants may have been present due to the fur trading industry, but this has minimal historic data within the Stanislaus River literature.

Given the anthropological and ethnographic definitions of the dialectic use from each language for the word “people” the territorial dialect maps were used to try to understand the labels from pre-anthropological renaming. These groups of families were Lakquisimas, Tauhalame, Chapairseme, Siakumne, Wallalsimne, Cotuplanime, Cucunuchi, Tulanachi, and A-pang-as-ne and to date have yet to be sorted according to the dialectic districts outlined by the territorial maps from the renaming by the colonial restructuring.

The Approaching Army
The Cucunuchi of the 1829 Spanish incursions were the ancestors of the indigenous of the places at Knights Ferry where the ancient settlements continued to exist but were moved further uphill during Knights Ferry colonization. Studies about the development of the trails and reports of the ancient pathways as discussed by Bolton (1922) talk about how Pedro Fages entered the southern San Joaquin Valley in 1772 to chase deserters from the missions. The deserters were returning to their origins in settlements along the edges of the wetlands. On October 2, 1806, Moraga arrived at the Stanislaus River, On October 9, 1806, his group was at the Bear Creek near Merced. These were the earliest accounts of the Stanislaus River. Speculations about the location of the battle twenty-years later in 1829 between Estanislao and Vallejo and Sanchez have been attributed to the cliffs of Riverbank. Troop movements leading up to the battle began at the confluence of the San Joaquin and Stanislaus Rivers downstream from Salida.

In May of 1829, the reports continued about the large village at the confluence of the Stanislaus and San Joaquin River where a five-day standoff led to a request for Vallejo to join. On May 9th, according to calculations by Cook (1960), the Spanish soldiers were speculated in the vicinity a distance above Oakdale (Wallakumne) (Coats & Gaskell, 2023, p. 174, 206) (a large Siyante village reported to Samuel Barrett by Hooky Wilson). But by May 29th, the village of the Sanchez expedition battle was vacated,

21 leaving only charred bones of dead soldiers (p.177). The pursuit continued up the Stanislaus, then crossing between the Stanislaus (Rio Pescaderos) to the Tuolumne Rivers. This battle took place in the area between the two large band settlements a distance of a ten-mile land mass between the Stanislaus and Tuolumne River between Wu-ye and Chapair-se Siakumna (between Turlock Lake and Knights Ferry). The Spanish infantry and Indian auxiliaries from the mission came to just below Wu-ye at Tagualames (Waterford a settlement of Frank Hooky Wilson Siyante Band) (p. 178; p. 206).

Later on May 29th, Vallejo and Sanchez resumed the hunt for the fugitives where on May 30th they were in position at the Rio Laquisimnes. The cannon, a three-pounder according to Bancroft (1886) was stationed on the opposite side of the river from the warriors of Estanislao. A nine-pound cannon ball identified as a Spanish round was discovered in the roots of an almond tree in the front yard of a home on Topeka Street.

When looking into the type of cannon and the trajectory of the historic Spanish / Mexican cannon, the logistics correlate to the span of a shot being consistent with a location on the other side of the river. The approximate location of the cannon ball discovered at a depth of about five feet deep was in the yard of 2455 Topeka Street, Riverbank, California. Other artifacts from this same location are obsidian spear heads, arrow heads and portable mortars used for milling acorns. According to Branch (2010) the location is consistent with the battle recorded in Brotherton (1982) accounts of the history of Stanislaus County and in Bancroft’s history (1886). The upper levels of the bench along the river at the Topeka Street site was part of the settlement in the 1800s settlement below Oakdale along the Stanislaus River named “Hise-ti” (Kroeber, 1959) which would have stretched along both sides of the river.

Cannon Ball of Preston Tucker
The accounts of the battle of the cliffs recorded by the Spanish and Mexican soldiers described a similar location that would have been more like the earliest topographic maps before the New Melones Dam was installed. According to Branch (2010) the trajectory of the solid iron nine-pound cannon ball would have been shot from a swivel gun which could be transported with horse and wagon.

HP34 (Military Property): This designation is defined as any property owned by or directly associated with one of the U.S. armed services, including the National Guard.

Application: Cannon balls and military hardware are historically associated with military activity. They are frequently found at sites coded as HP34 when documenting Cold Warera or older defense properties.

Alternative Identification: If the military hardware is part of a larger archaeological site (e.g., a battlefield) rather than a built structure, it might be documented as a "feature" or

22 an "object" (P4) but still attributed to HP34 (Military Property) in the California Historical Resource Attribute Codes.

Other potentially relevant codes from the manual that could be combined with military sites include HP11 (Engineering Structure) or HP39 (Other), depending on the context of the discovery.

Location Where Collected Specimens are Curated: Riverbank Historical Museum at 3237 Santa Fe Street, Riverbank, CA. [The building was constructed in 1921 by the Andrew Carnegie Foundation and served as a public library. In 1996 it was placed into the National Registry of Historic Places. The history of our community is preserved in this museum by the Riverbank Historical Society.]
Figure 10.

According to the California Office of Historic Preservation's Instructions for Recording Historical Resources (Manual 95), cannon balls, bullets, and other military hardware would most likely fall under the classification of HP34. Military Property.

The mortars shot from the swivel gun could reach targets beyond obstructions by using a high angle of firing aim which could have easily reached from the river bottom to the top of the cliff opposite where the settlement was located. The description of the underbrush in the description of the battle would have been consistent with the natural setting of the bottom land. Proprietors of the Riverbank Museum reported a specialist came to the archives to inspect and research the cannon ball and confirmed the quality of the piece and the metal material and weight of the ball for the type of cannon the

23 specialist determined had been carried there by the Spanish military (Riverbank Museum, 2023).

The story of Estanislao as reported by Sol Elias (1924) recounted the time spent in the mission, and the time he conscripted other neophytes to leave the mission, and after the battle was won against the general, the Indians from neighboring rancherias joined Estanislao (pp. 166-167). Elias reports the names of the ranches where the farmers plowed the remains of Indians and their artifacts which are the evidence like were plowed and saved on the River Lowlands Farming Historic District Traditional Cultural Place (p. 169). The artifacts found over the years by farmers and residents of Riverbank, Burneyville, Burwood, Escalon and the surrounding area have compiled the evidence for the settlement named “Hise-ti” which existed surrounding Burneyville, and the area covered by the lowlands which was the settlement between the settlements of Oakdale to the east and the settlement at Salida and Ripon to the west.

Original Name of the Lakisumne’s Settlement
During an interview with an indigenous survivor located in Lathrop, Gifford and Kroeber (1959) wrote notes in the field journal about the name of the settlement on the Stanislaus River before ascending slope to the Knight’s Ferry or Jamestown area.

Based upon the locations within that interview before and after the geographic reference, the place named would be approximately at the river crossing along the Lakisumne trail on the Stanislaus where the name of “Hise-ti” was stated. The river velocity during the dry drought summer season between the 1940s to 1970s allowed for the creation of a ford crossing of the Stanislaus River by farmers working the fields on both sides of the river with their tractors. This allowed others to take advantage of the ford for crossing between farms owned on both sides of the river. One landowner used the ford and along the ground disturbance picked up some shell beads similar to dentalium fragments, and stone projectile points. One other location yielded obsidian projectile points and fragments held by the farmers. This resident mapped out the ford on a map showing its location. Other artifacts have been found and housed in the Riverbank Museum with the provenience named showing a southern occupation boundary of Hise-ti. Evidence from formal archaeological surveys from the titles of the record searches provided enough information to show that objects and remains were located within the boundaries of Hise-ti. In recent news reports, the caves along the cliffs under Riverbank, approximately behind the Setliff’s property, showed the locations of the cave dwellings being used by the homeless of today.

Spanish / Mexican Artillery Range
The discovery of a 9-pound iron cannonball along the Stanislaus River provides a potentially significant line of evidence for understanding early nineteenth-century military activity in the Sierra foothill region. Historical accounts indicate that Mexican military expeditions entered the San Joaquin Valley during the late 1820s, including campaigns

24 associated with José Joaquín Moraga and Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo. These expeditions sometimes employed small field artillery pieces. The physical characteristics of the recovered projectile, an iron ball weighing approximately nine pounds, correspond closely with ammunition used in a Spanish or Mexican 9-pounder field cannon, a common artillery type inherited from Spanish colonial ordnance systems and used by Mexican forces during the early national period.

A 9-pounder cannon typically possessed a barrel approximately five to six feet in length, consistent with the six-foot barrel length considered in this analysis. These guns fired solid iron round shot with a diameter of roughly 4.1 inches and a muzzle velocity estimated between 1,300 and 1,600 feet per second. In battlefield conditions the cannon was usually fired at low elevation angles, typically between three and five degrees, producing a relatively flat trajectory designed to strike targets directly or to ricochet across the ground. Effective combat range for such artillery generally fell between 400 and 700 yards, though the maximum theoretical range could approach 1,500 yards under higher elevation angles. A 9-pounder solid iron cannon ball from the early 19th century (circa 1820s) typically measures approximately 4.0 to 4.1 inches (about 101–104 mm) in diameter. Weight: Nominally 9 lbs. (approx. 4.08 kg), though variations in casting meant they could range from 8.5 to over 9 lbs. Diameter: Generally,

4.0 inches, designed to fit into a gun with a slightly larger bore (windage) to allow for easy loading.

Elevation data associated with the discovery of the Cannonball offers insight into the possible firing scenario. The cannonball was reportedly found at an elevation of approximately 138-153 feet above sea level, while the opposite side of the river stands at roughly 95-97 feet above sea level, creating an elevation difference of approximately 60 feet. Using standard ballistic estimates for a 9-pounder cannon fired at low battlefield angles, a projectile could reach a point sixty feet higher than the gun’s position at distances ranging roughly from 700 to 1,500 feet, depending on the exact firing angle. A four-degree elevation, which was common in historical artillery use, would place the likely firing position at approximately 900 to 1,000 feet from the point of impact. This scenario suggests that the cannon may have been positioned on the lower river terrace or bank, firing across the river toward a higher terrace or settlement area.

Such a configuration would have been tactically practical in frontier engagements.

Rivers frequently served as defensive barriers, and artillery positioned on a lower bank could fire across the water toward villages or encampments located on elevated terraces. Because cannonballs often ricochet upon impact or roll downhill after landing, the present find location may not represent the exact point of initial impact. Flood events and sediment movement along river corridors can also relocate heavy iron objects over time.

25 Although archaeological investigations associated with the New Melones Reservoir project documented numerous prehistoric and Gold Rush era sites along the Stanislaus River, published reports do not describe recovered cannonballs or other artillery artifacts associated with Mexican military campaigns. Consequently, the discovery of a ninepound iron cannonball in this context could represent rare physical evidence of early military activity in the region. When considered alongside historical accounts of armed expeditions and conflicts involving Native communities in the Sierra foothills, the artifact may contribute to reconstructing a previously undocumented episode of frontier warfare along the Stanislaus River corridor.

Metallurgy of Spanish / Mexican Cannon Balls
The identification and interpretation of the cannon balls recovered from the Riverbank site can be strengthened through an examination of their metallurgical composition and methods of manufacture. Spanish and Mexican artillery projectiles of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were typically composed of cast iron, a material selected for its density, durability, and relative ease of production (Peterson, 1969; Norris, 2001).

Cast iron used in artillery shot mostly were between two and four percent carbon, along with trace elements such as silicon, sulfur, and phosphorus. This composition produced metal that was both hard and brittle, making it designed to deliver less explosive effects and more kinetic force upon impact (Muller, 1968/1768; Norris, 2001).

Sand casting techniques were the main manufacturing process for these cannon balls.

Molten iron was poured into spherical molds formed within compacted sand. These molds were typically constructed in two halves, resulting in a faint seam line around the circumference of the finished projectile. After cooling, excess material from the pouring channel, known as the sprue, was removed, and the surface might be ground or filed to reduce fraction. Despite these finishing efforts, imperfections such as slight asymmetry, air pockets, and surface irregularities were common and are frequently observed in archaeological specimens (Peterson, 1969; Brinkerhoff & Chamberlain, 1972). These characteristics can provide valuable diagnostic information regarding production techniques and technological context.

Standardization in artillery production required that cannon balls be manufactured according to specific weight classes corresponding to the caliber of the cannon. A ninepound cannon ball, such as the specimen reported at the Riverbank site, typically measured approximately four to 4.1 inches in diameter (Peterson, 1969; Norris, 2001).

However, these projectiles were intentionally cast slightly smaller than the bore of the cannon to allow for windage, the space between the projectile and the barrel, which facilitated loading and accounted for fouling during repeated firing (Muller, 1968/1768).

As a result, minor variations in size and weight were common and should be expected in surviving examples.

26 The production of artillery and ammunition during the Spanish colonial period was centered in royal foundries in Spain, most notably the Real Fábrica de Artillería de Sevilla, which supplied standardized military equipment throughout the Spanish Empire (Brinkerhoff & Chamberlain, 1972). By the late eighteenth century, production required being closer to the campaigns moving to New Spain and locating mining for new resource areas closer to the demands and more rapid replenishing. Discovery and labor surrounding the sources for the metal had to move to the new world. Important mining and metallurgical centers such as Guanajuato and Real del Monte contributed raw materials and technical expertise for the casting of artillery shot. Foundries in and around Mexico City produced cannon balls and other military hardware for distribution to frontier regions, including Alta California (Norris, 2001). In contrast, Alta California lacked the industrial infrastructure necessary for large-scale iron production during this period. While limited repair or recasting of metal objects may have occurred at presidios, there is little evidence to suggest that cannon balls were manufactured locally in significant quantities (Brinkerhoff & Chamberlain, 1972). Instead, artillery and ammunition were transported over long distances, first by ship to coastal settlements and then inland by wagon or pack animals. This logistical constraint limited the availability of artillery and influenced its selective use in military engagements in frontier regions. The surface characteristics of surviving cannon balls provide further insight into their origin and use. Features such as mold seams, sprue marks, and casting imperfections can often be observed even after significant corrosion. Over time, exposure to moisture and soil conditions leads to oxidation, forming layers of iron oxide that obscure finer details while preserving the overall shape and mass of the object (Peterson, 1969). These processes are consistent with the condition of many archaeological iron artifacts recovered from riverine environments.

When considered within this metallurgical and historical framework, the cannon balls recovered from the Riverbank site are consistent with early nineteenth-century Spanish or Mexican military production. Their material composition, size, and manufacturing characteristics align with known artillery standards of the period. Furthermore, the absence of local iron foundries in Alta California strongly suggests that these objects were imported rather than produced locally. This interpretation supports the conclusion that the artifacts are associated with documented military activity in the region and may represent physical evidence of conflict along the Stanislaus River corridor.

Origins of Colonial Artillery Production
The Basque region of Spain being the source for most iron, logistics required a local source. The blast furnace technology of Spain needed to be established on the western continent. One early ironworks established in the 1700s was the Ferrería de Coalcomán where iron smelting was begun. The silver mining industry contributed to the foundries being able to produce artillery. By the early 19th century, small foundries in central

27 Mexico were producing artillery shot and repairing military equipment, especially during the Mexican War of Independence (1810–1821). Within Alta California there were not any iron mining or true foundries during 1769-1848. Limited metalworking occurred at presidios such as the Presidio of Monterey, but this was restricted to repair, blacksmithing, and reuse, not primary production. An important early example is the Pacific Iron Works, established in the 1850s during the Gold Rush era.

This historical pattern is critical for interpreting the cannon ball recovered from the Riverbank site. During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Spain functioned as the primary center for the production and standardization of artillery and munitions, while Mexico (New Spain and later the Mexican Republic) developed more limited regional production and redistribution systems. In contrast, Alta California operated largely as a zone of consumption and use, lacking the industrial infrastructure necessary for iron mining or large-scale foundry production. As a result, any cannon ball recovered within this region was almost certainly manufactured in Spain or Mexico and subsequently transported into California for military purposes. This context strongly supports the interpretation that the Riverbank cannon ball is associated with organized military activity, rather than local or informal production, reinforcing its potential connection to documented Spanish / Mexican campaigns in the Stanislaus River region.

Hise-ti’: Significant People in History of Hise-ti
Developing a boundary of the ancient settlement of Hise-ti’ has been based upon the oral histories gathered during the New Melones Dam project, the literature available, and the archaeological discoveries of residents and of the recent archaeological projects for various development environmental studies. Because many of the farm relatives of Burwood and Burneyville continue to own the artifacts found from their farming practices along with the recorded resources, the lowlands and the bluffs are included within the boundaries of Hise-ti. Information regarding the Cucunutci / Cucunuchi found in the Spanish documentation, the writing of Charles Weber, and the research of Gray (1993), Hall (1978) and some interpretation by Brotherton (1976) regarding the early significant names of the population of Hise-ti’ included the physical properties along the Stanislaus River from the San Joaquin River up to the region now known as Sonora. The record of the conflicts between the military and the local indigenous gave names of the most important individuals of this area.

The two individuals that gave the route of the family use area were Louie of Knights Ferry and by Joe Guzman of Lathrop. When Charles Weber sent the Siyakumna Indians on the route from Stockton to Knights Ferry up to the foothills to train Jose Jesus (Casoos) how to gold mine along Woods Creek. Gilbert (1879) stated that that Jose Jesus was the captain of the Si-yak-umna of 1845. Again in 1846 Jose Jesus took 30 indigenous from Sutter’s Fort to fight in the San Joaquin during the Flores Insurrection. Settlements along the Stanislaus River beginning at the confluence with

28 the San Joaquin River were somewhere at Mapes Ranch, then the next settlement was about Ripon possibly the location of Jedediah Smith’s encampment he called the river Appelaminy which was called a camp of Lacquisamnes. The next settlement would have been Hise-ti’ (Burneyville / Riverbank) and then upriver about Oakdale, a settlement named by Frank Wilson in 1906 as Wallakumne, and between there and Knights Ferry was a settlement about Keeler’s Ferry which today is a walnut orchard.

The configuration of Knights
Ferry was divided into three named segments because of the three family use areas of the Lakisumne Lukusu, the Siakumne- Cha-pa-er-sy, Chapairsy, and the Takin’, Tamkan with three probable separate ceremonial structures.

Research by Gray (1993), Brotherton (1976), and Gilbert (1879) discuss the negotiations between the head captain of the Siakumne of the Stanislaus and Sutter where there was an alliance between the indigenous families of Stockton and Charles Weber. Indigenous family names from these families were preceding the indigenous of today since later in history due to the influx of miners they congregated about Knights Ferry. Although there were indigenous people in the settlement on the hill at Knights Ferry into the 1960s, the people also lived on ranches, dairies, and in towns having employment locally. Some of these names appear in Cooperstown, Montpelier, and other towns. Homes up by the schoolhouse in Knights Ferry were owned by local indigenous into the 1980s. The route between the San Joaquin River and Burneyville was part of this route and there was a seasonal routine of following the resources needed even after the region was civilized.

People on the Route of Appelimany-Hise-ti-Wallakumne
Considering the names listed in the documentation of Gray and others, the vague nature of the records from that era leaves only a few original people using the Stanislaus River route. Estanislao of the Lakisumni tribe of the Coocoonoon/Cucunuchi as was confirmed by Frank Wilson in 1906, the Cucunuchi were dominant along the river. Names of people in his era and previous were Huhuyut or Cipriano, Younate the wife of Estanialao, Pitzenete the mother of Estanislao, Lanucuye the daughter of Estanislao, and Jose Jesus of a younger generation than Estanislao who took over as the captain of the Siyak-umna (about 1845) (Gilbert, 1879). Estanislao had a brother named Saulon according to research of Gray (1993, p. 123). Memories of the Indians at Knights Ferry in Prowse (1976) quoted Marjorie Wilms and there is a list of the Indian names from between 1920-1940 where they list 20 names. These 20 names have moved forward in history and continue the tradition of the tribal affiliations with local people. From these 20 names there have been many descendants. The last names of these Indian families seem closer to English names than the indigenous heritage of the 1860s. Descendants are spread across the territory now, some at the three reservations, and others in important positions of government and public domain

29 business ownership. Prior to the 1820s the transient nature of resource use placed them along the route from Stockton to Sonora.

History of Hise-ti: Now Burneyville
Once the trail to the gold fields became important and the river crossings became valuable for trade and supply routes for miners and military, settlement changed from indigenous resource use to a more colonized existence. Once the Mariposa Indian War had completed, the Sheriff Burney of Mariposa County decided to move to develop a ferry boat location further downstream from the Islip Ferry. The two towns came into existence of Burwood and Burneyville. James Burney ran the ferry business from 1853- 1867, when Thomas and Henry Ross took over from 1867-1870. Henry Ross became the postmaster in 1901 at Burneyville, and at Burwood in 1864 by President Abraham Lincoln, Ismael Monroe had the post office in his farmhouse. Evidence of the Burney home where the ferry office was located can be seen in photographs. Evidence of the Monroe house can be seen on Burwood Road where the home is the residence of descendants. This was an attribute at Riverbank making the surrounding area feasible for building the first town site of the region. Steam ships transported goods up to Knights Ferry in the early 1850s. The early ferry crossing town at this spot was called Burneyville in about 1850 (Santos, 2002).

These are some of the names of the ancestors where farms were operated: Monroe, Sneidegar, Elison, Cahill, Thomas and Henry Ross, Fred Myers, Jacob Myers, Leighton, Drake, Wheeler, Hogue, AJ Patterson, Barton, Christianson, Hall, Roberson, Crow, Frederick, Dickey, Semone, Walton, Amerine, Wells, Gerber, Huntley, Chester Smith, Adrian, Beard, McKinsey, Bedell, Bevaro, and others. Contributions from these families have informed the locations of Indigenous habitation and activities since these farmers have retained the objects which had been uncovered during their farming practices.

Historic Significance of Objects
The ancient trail system along the Stanislaus River became part of the Spanish Rancho in 1846 where eight leagues along the Stanislaus River was granted as the Thompson Rancho. Thompson came to California in 1834 and married the daughter of the Governor of Alta California with land later patented to Thompson in 1851. So in 1846 the ancient trail system still intact was used by the incursion forces, the early Spanish ranchers, and then the Gold Rush colonizers. Oral history of local indigenous reported being employed at the rancho as vaqueros and as laborers at the winery of the rancho (Gaskell, 2005).

Military Attributes
Between 1829 and 1850 when the Mariposa Indian War began, the only other military encampment was along the Tuolumne River near Roberts Ferry when in 1844, 1846,

30 and 1850 soldiers used the river crossing at Wu-ye settlement. Within the records researched thus far, there have been no cannonballs discovered in archaeological investigations nor private reports along these rivers making any potential conflict tied directly to the Mexican Indigenous wars in the Central Valley. Previous indications of the location were estimated further upstream near the Isslip Ferry region. This was between Riverbank and Oakdale. The Yokut village at the site of the Oakdale California (Wallakumne) river bottom had less evidence. On the north side of the river there are some small caves in the shelf of the bluff. On the south side of the river in the Riverbank area there are caves in the shelf under the bluff below the Setliff Brothers garage, and also at the end of the Claus Road intersection with Highway 108. These caves appeared in a 2025 news report of homeless encampments taking over the ancient caves in the cliffs. Recent news reports document the presence of homeless encampments and cave dwellings along the Stanislaus River banks in Riverbank, where individuals have excavated shelters into the cliffs below Highway 108 and 120 (Moeller & Ramos, 2024).

The trajectory of a cannon set up on the north side of the river at the crossing near Burneyville and Burwood/Monroeville has an even elevation on both sides of the river which would allow for the trajectory of the cannon ball to strike in a manner which was visible from both sides of the river and at a closer distance than at the other two proposed locations. There were no cannonballs found at the Knights Ferry site of the three settlements where Jose Jesus (Casoos) a Cucunuchi Laksiumne inhabited the area called Lakiu (later called Buena Vista) in the early to mid-1800s, nor at the Oakdale site of the settlement called Wallakumne.

Taking into consideration the size, trajectory, and elevations of the three locations (Riverbank, Oakdale near Isslip Ferry, and Knights Ferry), and the absence of any Spanish or Mexican war relics or objects, the possible scenario for the 1820s battle to

31 have occurred near the location of the cannonball is probable. Many archaeological excavations have occurred along the river, including gravel company and recreational areas in the gold rush mining tailings. The Spanish Land Grant was along this part of the Stanislaus River.

Figure 12. The field cannon was the most logical delivery system used for this projectile Indigenous Attributes
According to Kroeber (1959, p. 19) there was a settlement below Oakdale along the Stanislaus River named “Hise-ti” which was a part of the water moiety and may have been the settlements below the Oakdale settlement of “ Wallakumne.” Wallakumne was a large Si-yante (Cucunuchi) Yokut village reported to Samuel Barrett by Frank Hooky Wilson (Barrett, 1906). The Si-yante (plains Yokut) encompassed the Co-co-noon who were a smaller group out of the A-pang-as-ne. According to Wilson (a captain of the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation 1820-1906) the Cucunuchi-Coocoonoon had settlements from Mariposa to Oakdale on the Stanislaus. The larger group of Apangasne occupied from the Merced River to near Sonora and was a larger group of which the Cucunuchi were a part. The Si-yante inhabited the lower elevation foothills with intermarriage of the contact era showing family use tracts from the Stanislaus River at Oakdale (Wallakumne), Waterford (Tagualames), Snelling (Ya’ppa northside and Po-toi’-un-te on southside), and Merced Falls (Olwī-ak of Oopla), Merced (Ke’trache -ket-watche), and Chowchilla / Chauchilla.

Attribute Tables and Current Impacts
The State of California Historic Preservation Office has a system for recording resources of both prehistoric and historic value. Historic attribute code HP19 can also be used for detailing the structures and ships and docking and pully systems. Evidence

32 of the moorings, pilons, pully systems or any structural element on the ground can be placed in the category of bridge. The ferry itself would be placed into the category for reporting as HP23- a ship or any vessel able to navigate inland or ocean waters. There are various photographs of the Burney Ferry and the town of Burneyville. Stanislaus River Bridge was originally built in 1905, named the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway at Stanislaus River, was determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places in 1994, and represents a rare extant truss bridge in California's San Joaquin Valley.
2021 Riverbank Sections 16, 21, 22, 27, and 28 on 7.5 Quadrangle The riparian zone and alluvial deposits over the entire southern shore of the Stanislaus River had been previously investigated for cultural resources. There had been recorded resources surveyed within official documents, and unrecorded resources have been documented by the landowners of farmland and residential properties surrounding the river. Some of the items listed on the official reports are similar to those reported by the landowners on nearby farmland in interviews without any archaeological survey. There were stone tools, debris from tool manufacture, bone tools and shell, fire cracked rock and black carbon left from burning in fire pits at a depth of 24 inches below the surface.

Minimally there was a hand stone and core for making obsidian tools. There were no human remains reported from the south side of the river. The items discovered were left in situ at the depth at which they were found. The three main areas where this evidence was located showed prehistoric occupation and some had been dated across 10,000 years of human history (from the late Holocene to the historic period). Categories of the resources referenced were named existing on the south side of the Stanislaus River:

AP2-lithic scatter consisting of chipped or flaked stone resulting from human manipulation like obsidian flakes, chipped stone or other artifacts; AP4- milling feature or bedrock mortar, some portable mortars are in the collections of the farmers consistent with material processing;
AP12. Quarry: site contains a source of lithic material with evidence of human usage.

AP15. Habitation debris: site contains a deposit characterized by a wide range of artifacts, materials or features which represent a variety of human activities. 2026 Riverbank Sections 23, 24, 25, and 26 on 7.5 Quadrangle Previous investigations of the occupation sites along the river systems of California show similar structures for settlements along the rivers entering the San Joaquin River from its tributaries. Evidence compiled from the documentation of the archaeological surveys from the record searches performed for the Stanislaus River may extrapolate the location of the settlement of Hise-ti. The archaeological record composed of information from the historic evidence of the Spanish cannon ball and cultural items

33 from various areas around the lowlands can contribute data. Interviews and visits with ranch and farm families along the Stanislaus River produced visual evidence of certain items collected over the century showing proofs for items from the time period from prehistoric occupation and some could possibly be dated across 10,000 years of human history (from the late Holocene to the historic period) as the items found from Sections 16, 21, 22, 27, and 28 of the Riverbank and Escalon 7.5 quadrangle topographic maps.

Prehistoric Archaeological site attribute definitions where evidence can be seen for these sorts of human occupation were gathered from farm and ranch owners that were willing to share the physical items if the items were not reported or recorded.

AP2-lithic scatter consisting of chipped or flaked stone resulting from human manipulation like obsidian flakes, chipped stone or other artifacts AP4- milling feature or bedrock mortar, some portable mortars are in the collections of the farmers consistent with material processing
AP7- the site contains any evidence of human construction activity (post holes, house pit depressions, fish traps, hunting blinds
AP8-structural changes of geologic materials out of place for a suspected purpose such as rock alignments, cairns, rock rings of unknown function AP9- site contains human bone which were not indicated in past record search findings.

Many of these types of resources have been reported by the farmers unrelated to any archaeological excavations. Recent oral interviews have located the resources and given provenience to the items. NO remains were viewed, and the farmers buried any suspected which they stated could have been faunal remains.

AP13. Lineal feature: site contains natural or constructed features indicating human use such as trails, earth works, windrows or stone fences AP14. Rock shelter/cave: a concavity within a rock surface evidencing human use Farming practices in the mid-to-late 1800s found in oral history told of farmers plowing the fields and removing items of human use such as arrowhead points, large stones like hand stones used for processing, portable mortars, and when removing trees with deep roots bringing up shells and beads and spear head tips in pieces showing a manufactured tool of obsidian. The working group has compiled a list of the provenience of items found by the early generations which have been archived with different families, and different members of the families original to the 1860 influx of settlers who were the first to farm. Later in the 1960s the farm hands were plowing pastures to change them to row crops and they found arrowheads as a regular occurrence. Tractor operators were allowed to discard or take the objects that they found during plowing the fields.

34 The Importance of the Cannon Ball at Hise-ti’
The discovery of a cast-iron cannon ball within the Hise-ti’ site area provides a critical line of material evidence for interpreting the 1828–1829 conflicts between Indigenous groups of the Stanislaus River region and Spanish / Mexican military forces. Expeditions led by figures such as Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo and campaigns associated with Estanislao used small field artillery including light cannons and swivel guns against Indigenous settlements. These accounts have often lacked corresponding physical evidence. Artillery was not only present in the region but actively used in combat operations along the Stanislaus River corridor. Its size, composition, and conformity to known Spanish and Mexican artillery standards further indicate that it was part of an organized military campaign rather than an isolated or incidental object.

Table. 2. Features and Description of the delivery system The cannon ball is particularly significant because it helps anchor documentary accounts of the conflict to a specific location on the landscape. When considered alongside the topographic settings, these elevated bluffs overlook the river and were reported in Spanish literature accounts of the battles. Known ballistic capabilities of early nineteenth-century artillery are supported by these artifacts show that military forces positioned on one side of the river engaged targets across the water using cannon fire. This aligns with descriptions of strategic engagements in which rivers served as natural defensive boundaries. Furthermore, the association of the cannon ball with Indigenous artifacts such as projectile points and milling tools suggests that the area was an occupied settlement at the time of conflict, reinforcing the likelihood that it was directly involved in military action. In a broader historical context, the artifact represents rare archaeological evidence of the Spanish / Mexican campaigns in the Central Valley, where few conflict-related materials have been formally documented. As such, the cannon ball not only corroborates written accounts of the 1828–1829 conflicts but also strengthens the interpretation of Hise-ti’ as a site of direct military engagement, providing tangible insight into the scale, technology, and geographic reality of these early California frontier Indian wars.

35

36 References
Bancroft, H. H., (1886). History of California Volumes I-II. San Francisco: A. L. Bancroft & Company.

Barbour, McKee, and Wozencroft, (1853). Kossus or Stanislaus Tribe. In Senate Ex. Doc. 4, Special Session, 1853, pp. 57-58.

Barrett, S.A. & Gifford, Edward, (1893-1977). Samuel Alfred Barrett Papers, (1893-1977). Collection No. BANC MSS 86/172c, Negative No. 2778, University of California, Berkeley. Accessed through microfilms in the Southern Sierra Miwuk Tribal Archives.

Bennyhoff, James A., (1977). Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Davis, CA; Center for Archaeological Research, University of California Davis, Publication No. 5.

Branch, J. (2010). Hints of battle between Mexican/Indian above Riverbank. Modesto Bee.

Brinkerhoff, S. B., & Chamberlain, P. A. (1972). Spanish military weapons in colonial America 1700–1821. Stackpole Books.

Broadbent, Sylvia, (1960). A Grammar of Southern Sierra Miwok. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.

Brotherton, J. (1982). Annals of Stanislaus County: River Towns and Ferries. Santa Cruz: Western Tanager Press.

Brotherton, Jack, and Thor Breton, (1975). Map of Stanislaus County 1776-1976. La Grange; Southern Mines Press.

California Office of Historic Preservation (1995). Instructions for Recording Historic Resources. Office of Historic Preservation.

California Historical Landmarks (1990), and the California Points of Historical Interest listing (1997), the California State Office of Historic Preservation (1976). California Inventory of Historic Resources. Sacramento. CA.

Callaghan, Catherine A., (1972). Plains Miwok Dictionary. University of California Publications in Linguistics, Vol. 105.

Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. viii-309.

Central Valley Concerned Citizens, (2024). Draft River Lowlands Farms Historic District Traditional Cultural Place Rural Landscape Report The Kroeber (1959) Lakisumne Name for the settlement is “Hise-ti” Historic Burwood / Monroeville and Burneyville from 1852: Stanislaus River Lowlands Historic Farmlands Traditional Cultural Property Bulletin 30, 38, & Section 106 Evaluation.

Coats, Waylon, & Sandra Gaskell, Danette Johnson, Anthony Lerma, William Leonard, and John Pryor.(2023). “Six Bands of the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation: Potoyunte, Awalache, Ahwahneechee, Siyante, Chowchilla, Nutchu.” A Provisional Report Approved by the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation Tribal Council for Submission to the U.S. Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs, Bryan Newland, in Support of the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation’s December 4, 2023 Response to the November 16, 2018 Proposed Finding Against Federal Acknowledgment. Mariposa, CA: Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation, 2023.

Colton, Joseph Hutchins, (1873). Colton’s California and Nevada. New York: G.W. and C.B. Colton & Co., 1:2,091,000, Courtesy the American Geographical Society Library, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Conrotto, E. L. (1973). Miwok means people; the life and fate of the native inhabitants of the California gold rush country. Valley Publishers.

Cook, S. F. (1960). Colonial expeditions to interior California: Central Valley, 1800–1820. University of California Press.

Cook, Sherburne ,(1955). The Aboriginal Populations of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Anthropological Records, Volume 16:2. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Cook, Sherburne, (1962). Expeditions to the Interior of California, Central Valley: 1820-1840. University of California Anthropological Records 20 (5), Berkeley: University of California Press.

Daily Alta California, (1851). Indian Treaty Stanislaus River Tribes. Article appearing on May 31, 1851. in the notes of C.H. Merriam, Bancroft Library.

Durham, David L., (1996). California Geographic Names A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State.

Clovis, CA; Quill Driver Books/Word Dancer Press.

Dyer, R. (1972). Frank Coleman (1894-1976) [sound recording in Jamestown California] : Indian freight driver and cowboy. A tape recorded interview by Richard L. Dyer. / Columbia College.

Elias, S. (1924). Stories of Stanislaus. McHenry Museum.

Engineer Department, U.S. Army, published by authority of the honorable the Secretary of War, in accordance with Acts of Congress of June 23, 1874, and February 15, 1875. In seven volumes and one supplement, accompanied by one topographic and one geologic atlas. By: George Montague Wheeler, Charles A. White, and E.D. Cope https://doi.org/10.3133/70039253
Freeland, Lucy S. and Sylvia M. Broadbent, (1960). Central Sierra Miwok Dictionary with Texts. Berkeley, CA; University of California Publications in Linguistics, 23:1-71.

Gaskell, Sandra, (2005). Law, Health, and Sacred Sites Resources of the Southern Sierra Miwuk Sacred Sites Inventory. Fresno, Turlock, CA: Unpublished thesis in partial requirement for the masters degree at CSU, Stanislaus and Archaeology at CSU Fresno.

37 Gaskell, Sandra, (2026). The Topeka Street Cannonballs: Artifact context and artillery analysis Cultural Resource Report, Stanislaus County, California. Modesto, CA; an unpublished manuscript for Kennesaw University Museum Studies MFA program.

Gaskell, S. (2005). Knights Ferry Homestead and Cemetery Research for the Three Indian Villages in the Town Boundaries. Unpublished Interviews and notes, ARC Archaeology archives.

Gaskell, S. (2008) Confidential Draft Cultural Resources Survey Report of the Land Use Application 2007-14 Tentative Subdivision Tract Map on Parcels Located Between Milton and Jenny Lind, Calaveras County, California. Unpublished Manuscript and Record Forms.

Gaskell, S. (2009). Cultural Resources Report: Land Use Application Costa Tentative Parcel Map, APN 062-018, 011, 4930 Santa Fe Avenue, Stanislaus County, California. Confidential Archaeological reconnaissance and site visits report. ARC Archaeology Resources and Culture. Modesto & Mariposa, CA.

Gifford, Edward Winslow, (1916). Miwok Moieties. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography, Berkeley, CA: Volume 12, No. 4, May 11, pp.283-338. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gilbert, F. T. (1879). History of San Joaquin County, California: With illustrations descriptive of its scenery, residences, public buildings, fine blocks and manufactories. Thompson & West.

Gomez, Vincente P., (1876). Lo que Sabe sobre Cosas de California [What I know about California Affairs], MS, Bancroft Library, from the notes of C.H. Merriam, 1876, pp. 25-29.

Gooch, K., (2003). Site Seeing in Stanislaus, A Tour of Historic Sites in the County. Modesto, California; Press and Publications Board McHenry Museum & Historical Society.

Government Land Office, (1848). Topographic Sketch of the Gold and Quicksilver District of California, July 25th 1848. E.O.C.O.L., USA; retrieved from the American Geographical Society Library, Milwaukee.

Gray, Thorne B., (1993). The Stanislaus Indian Wars, the Last of the California Northern Yokuts. Modesto, CA; The McHenry Museum Press.

Grissom, Lee, (1994). Thresholds of Significance: Criteria for Defining Environmental Significance, CEQA . Technical Advice Series; Sacramento, CA, Office of Research and Planning.

Hall, A. Louise, (1976). Ethnohistory in the New Melones archaeological project, Stanislaus River, Calaveras, and Tuolumne counties, California: Phase IV, Part 2, ethnography and ethnohistory. San Francisco State University Conservation Archaeology Papers, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp 81–110. San Francisco: San Francisco State University.

Hogg, O. F. G., (1970). Artillery: Its origin, heyday, and decline. London: Archon Books.

Houseworth, L. (1866). Digger Indian Camp, Knights Ferry, Stanislaus County. Clerks Office of the District Court of the United States for the northern District of Columbia. #599. Retrieved by the author from http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/76658/lawrence-houseworth-diggerindian-camp-knight’s-ferrystanislaus-county Kelsey, C. E., (1971). Census of Non-Reservation California Indians, 1905-1906. Archaeological Research Facility, Department of Anthropology. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Kroeber, A. L., (1925). Handbook of California Indians. Washington, D. C.; Government Printing Office, Bulletin 78 of the Bureau of American Ethnology.

Kroeber, A. L., (1959). Personal communication with an informant the name for a nena a little below Oakdale on the Stanislaus River. Field Notes microfilms of C.H. Merriam, Bancroft Library, Microfilms courtesy Tribal Archives Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation, Mariposa, CA.

Kroeber, A. L., (1963). Yokuts Dialects Survey. Berkeley, CA: Anthropological Records Volume 11:3, University of California Press.

Levy, Richard, (1978). Eastern Miwok in California. Handbook of North American Indians, vol.8, pp. 398-413. W.C.

Sturtevant (general editor), R.F. Heizer (ed.), Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Merriam C. Hart. 1900-1920 (1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1910, 1920) Field Journals. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress. Microfilms courtesy Tribal Archives Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation, Mariposa, CA.

McConnell, D. (1988). British smooth-bore artillery: A technological study. Ottawa: Parks Canada.

Milliken, Randall, (1993). A Time of Little Choice-The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810. Menlo Park, CA; Ballena Press.

Moeller, K., & Ramos, R. (2024, January 25). Shanty town, built-in homeless caves persist along Stanislaus River following Modesto discovery. CBS News Sacramento.

Muller, J. (1968). A treatise of artillery (Original work published 1768). Stackpole Books Norris, J. (2001). Artillery: A history. Sutton Publishing.

Office of Historic Preservation (1995). Instructions for recording Historic Resources. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Manual.

Parker, Carlyle, (1892). History of Merced, Stanislaus, Calaveras, Toulumne and Mariposa Counties, California.

Modesto, CA; The Guild McHenry Museum of Art ahd History.

Peak & Associates, Inc. (2021). Cultural Resource Assessment for the Riverwalk Project Area, City of Riverbank, California. DeNovo Planning Group Confidential Document Provided in discovery to the Registered Professional Archaeologist CVCC.

38 Peterson, H. L. (1969). Round shot and rammers: An introduction to muzzle-loading land artillery in the United States.

Bonanza Books.

Riverbank Museum. (2023). Archival documentation on recovered artillery projectile. Riverbank Museum Archives.

Ryer, W. M., (1852). Vouchers for vaccination. 32nd Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Doc. 61, pp. 20-23 (Serial No. 620).

Schenck, Egbert W., (1926). Historic Aboriginal Groups of the California Delta Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol 23, No. 2, Nov. 13. Berkeley: University of California.

Taylor, A. S. (1860–1863). Indianology of California (Nos. 1–X). The California Farmer and Journal of Useful Sciences. San Francisco, CA.

Van Bueren, Thad M.(1983). Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on Central Sierra Miwok culture Change During the Historic Period. Unpublished master’s thesis. San Francisco State University, San Francisco.

Wallace, W. J., (1978). Northern Valley Yokuts. Washington D.C.; in the Handbook of North American Indians (W.C.

Strutevante, general ed.), Volume 8, California (R.F. Heizer, ed.), Smithsonian Institution, pages 462-470.

Walsh, Sean, Scott Morgan, and Terry Roberts, (2005). The State of California Tribal Consultation Guidelines.

Sacramento, CA: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Publication, accessed by the author from http://www.opr.ca.gov/SB182004.html .

Wozencroft, O. M. , (1851). Letter dated July 12, 1851. 32nd Congress, 1st Session, Senate Ex. Doc. 1 pt. III, pp. 488-490, (serial No. 906).

Map Resources Reviewed
Asher & Adams, (1872). California and Nevada-North Portion. New York, 1:1,267,000, Courtesy of the Murray Hudson Collection, Halls, Tennessee.

Beale, E. F., (1861). Map of Public Surveys in California. Sacramento: Surveyor General’s Office, 1861, 1:1,140,000, Courtesy of the Murray Hudson Collection, Halls, Tennessee.

Bradley, Willima M., (1881). County Map of California and Nevada. Philadelphia, Bradley & Co.. 1:4,055,000.

Courtesy American Geographical Society Library, Miwaukee, Wisconsin.

Calaveras County Historical Society, (1992). An Album of the Pioneer Schools of Calaveras County. Fresno, CA; Linrose Publishing Company.

California Geographical Survey, (1873). Map of the San Joaquin, Sacramento and Tulare Valleys, State of California.

Washington D.C.: Chief of Engineers U.S. Army, prepared under the direction of the Board of Commissioners on Irrigation. 1:760,000. Courtesy American Geographical Society Library, Miwaukee, Wisconsin.

Colton, Joseph Hutchins, (1873). Colton’s California and Nevada. New York: G.W. and C.B. Colton & Co., 1:2,091,000, Courtesy the American Geographical Society Library, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Cram, George F., (1882). New Railroad and County Map of Northern California and Nevada. Chicago. 1:2,281,000, Courtesy American Geographical Society Library, Miwaukee, Wisconsin.

Cram, George F., (1888). Railroad and County Map of California. New York: A.A. Grant; from Grant’s Standard American Atlas of the World. 1:2,218,000. Courtesy of the Murray Hudson Collection, Halls, Tennessee.

Folger, L. B., (1892). California & Nevada. New York: Hunt & Eaton, map from the People’s Cyclopedia. 1:4,245,000.

Gray, Frank A., (1878). California and Nevada. Philadephia: Frank A. Gray. 1: 2,280,000. Courtesy of the Murray Hudson Collection, Halls, Tennessee.

Hermann, Binger, (1900). General Land Office of the State of California. Grafting Division GLO Washington D.C., Department of the Interior.

Hardesty, H.H., (1885). Central California. Chicago. 1:1,140,000. Courtesy American Geographical Society Library, Miwaukee, Wisconsin.

Mitchell, Samuel Augustus, Jr., (1884). County Map of the State of California. Philadelphia. 1:2,344,000, Courtesy American Geographical Society Library, Miwaukee, Wisconsin.

Rand McNally & Co., (1890). Chicago. From Rand McNally & Co.’s Family Atlas of the World. 1:2,534,400. Courtesy of the Murray Hudson Collection, Halls, Tennessee.

Warner and Beers, (1873). Lloyd H.H. and Company Atlas of the United States, 1:3,295,000, Courtesy of the Murray Hudson Collection, Halls, Tennessee.

Williams, J. David, (1873). Map of California and Nevada, 1:3,485,000, Courtesy of the Murray Hudson Collection, Halls, Tennessee.

39

Re: River Walk Specific Plan – Final Environmental Impact Report Professional Response Regarding Historic ProperƟes and Cultural Resources Dear City of Riverbank:

I am submiƫng this response in my professional capacity as the Secretary of the Interior–Qualified Cultural Resources professional retained by the Central Valley Concerned CiƟzens (CVCC) to independently review the historic resources invesƟgaƟon prepared for the River Walk Specific Plan. My review considered the City's cultural resources documentaƟon together with the CVCC's subsequent historic-property research, including the River Lowlands Farms Historic District TradiƟonal Cultural Place – Rural Landscape Report and the research concerning the 1828–1829 Stanislaus Indian Wars Riverbank cannonball discovery. Based upon my review, it is my professional opinion, and the opinion of the 28 historic farm families that the exisƟng cultural resources analysis does not adequately idenƟfy or evaluate the historic properƟes and cultural landscape associated with the River Walk project and its surrounding onemile regional context.

Historic Landscape Context
The River Walk project is located within a historically complex porƟon of the Stanislaus River corridor. This landscape cannot adequately be evaluated as an isolated development parcel because Indigenous seƩlement, transportaƟon routes, agriculture, irrigaƟon, historic residences and farms, military acƟvity, ferries, railroads, and river crossings developed as an interconnected system. The CVCC research team idenƟfies the River Lowlands Farming Historic District TradiƟonal Cultural Place as a broader cultural landscape extending along the Stanislaus River between Riverbank and Escalon. The research documents historic trails, roads, farms, ranches, irrigaƟon systems, residences, structures, agricultural equipment, cemeteries, railroad features, bridges, and archaeological resources. Of parƟcular importance is the Hise-Ɵ/Lakisumne landscape. Historical and ethnographic sources, including Kroeber and Gifford, idenƟfy Hise-Ɵ in associaƟon with the Stanislaus River. The available evidence indicates that Hise-Ɵ should not be understood simply as a single archaeological locaƟon but as part of a broader system of seƩlements, trails, resource-use areas, and riverine cultural features. The River Walk project should therefore be evaluated within this larger cultural landscape and not solely on the basis of previously recorded archaeological sites within the project boundary.

AddiƟonal Historic Resources IdenƟfied by CVCC
The subsequent CVCC research team idenƟfied substanƟal informaƟon that was not adequately represented in the original invesƟgaƟon. Through local interviews, archival research, historic photographs, museum research, and family and agricultural histories, the preliminary survey documented 154 historic and archaeological resource aƩributes, including Not idenƟfied in the 2022-2023 resources submission:
residences and agricultural buildings; railroad features; canals, ditches, flumes, wells, other water systems; historic trails and roads; bridges; agricultural machinery; historic farms and ranches; cemeteries and burial locaƟons; military-related properƟes; old-growth riparian areas; prehistoric archaeological materials These findings are significant because they demonstrate that the historic-resource inventory was not exhausted by the previous archaeological surveys.

Historic TransportaƟon and Military Context
The CVCC research team also idenƟfies acƟviƟes between 1806 through 1905 Stanislaus River railroad bridge as an important historic property and notes its previous evaluaƟon for NaƟonal Register eligibility. The research concerning the nine-pound iron cannonball discovered near Riverbank provides addiƟonal evidence of the historic complexity of the Dr. Sandra Gaskell, RPA #15296 SAA #67574963 ▪ Registered Professional Archaeologist 2601 Oakdale Road, H2-117, Modesto, CA 95355 ▪ 209-614-2505 ▪ [email protected]

EXHIBIT N

area. The cannonball was found in associaƟon with Indigenous archaeological materials, including obsidian projecƟle points and acorn-processing implements. Its characterisƟcs are consistent with early nineteenth-century Spanish or Mexican arƟllery reflecƟng on the 1828–1829 Stanislaus Indian conflicts. However, the discovery demonstrates the need to evaluate the River Walk area within its broader historical and archaeological context rather than treaƟng individual discoveries as isolated objects.

Deficiency in ExisƟng DocumentaƟon
A significant professional concern is that the complete underlying documentaƟon used for the original cultural resources’ invesƟgaƟon was not available for meaningful Tribal or independent review. The CVCC aƩorney requested • Record Search 11265L, dated December 18, 2019;
• Record Search 11579L, dated December 4, 2020; and
• the associated draŌ archaeological survey records.

The purpose of requesƟng these materials was not to conduct a duplicaƟve archaeological records search. It was to afford meaningful review to determine what informaƟon was originally reviewed, what geographic area was examined, what previous invesƟgaƟons were considered, and whether the conclusions of the original invesƟgaƟon were supported by the total available evidence. The City's FEIR response has focused primarily on the confidenƟality requirements governing CHRIS records. I recognize and support the need to protect confidenƟal archaeological and Tribal culturalresource informaƟon. However, confidenƟality does not resolve the separate professional quesƟon of whether a qualified reviewer can adequately evaluate the research supporƟng the City's conclusions. An appropriate confidenƟal mechanism should be established for professional and Tribal review of sensiƟve informaƟon.

Professional RecommendaƟon
Based upon the informaƟon currently available, I recommend that the City supplement the cultural resources analysis before relying upon the FEIR's conclusions regarding historic properƟes and cultural resources. At minimum, the supplemental analysis should:

1.Consider ALL of the River Lowlands Farming Historic District TradiƟonal Cultural Place;

2.Proper Tribal consultaƟon (not 2-yrs aŌer the digging of units) in Hise-Ɵ/Lakisumne associated cultural landscape;

3.Incorporate historic trails, transportaƟon routes, farms, ranches, irrigaƟon systems, and agricultural infrastructure;

4.Evaluate the steamboat dock, Ferries, & the 1905 Stanislaus River bridge and its historic seƫng;

5.Consider the archaeological and historical evidence associated with the 1828–1829 Stanislaus Indian conflicts;

6.Incorporate appropriate museum, archival, historic photographic, family-history, and oral-history stakeholders;

7.Consider the potenƟal for buried archaeological deposits resulƟng from flooding and alluvial processes; and

8.Provide a confidenƟal process allowing qualified professionals and affected Tribal governments to review the underlying documentaƟon relied upon by the original invesƟgaƟon.

Conclusion
The professional issue is whether the City currently has sufficient informaƟon to make that determinaƟon reliably. The CVCC research team demonstrates that substanƟal historic and archaeological informaƟon exists in 154 aƩributes beyond the resources idenƟfied through the original invesƟgaƟon. The River Walk project lies within a much more complex historic landscape than is reflected in the exisƟng analysis. Accordingly, in my professional opinion, the cultural resources secƟon of the FEIR should be supplemented and reevaluated by the best reasonably available historical, archaeological, ethnographic, and archival evidence before project approval.

Respecƞully submiƩed,
Dr. Sandra Gaskell, RPA Tribal Archaeologist
Secretary of the Interior–Qualified Professional Registered Professional Archaeologist RPA No. 15296 Founding Member
Historic Resources Reviewer for CVCC Research Team

EXHIBIT O

Chance

EXHIBIT Q- CONTINUED

Staff Report regarding Mitigation
for Impacts to Swainson's Hawks (Buteo swainsoni)
in the Central Valley of California

INTRODUCTION
The Legislature and the Fish and Game Commission have developed the policies, standards and regulatory mandates which, if implemented, are intended to help stabilize and reverse dramatic population declines of threatened and endangered species. In order to determine how the Department of Fish and Game (Department) could judge the adequacy of mitigation measures designed to offset impacts to Swainson's hawks in the Central Valley, Staff (WMD, ESD and Regions) has prepared this report. To ensure compliance with legislative and Commission policy, mitigation requirements which are consistent with this report should be incorporated into:
(1) Department comments to Lead Agencies and project sponsors pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); (2) Fish and Game Code Section 2081 Management Authorizations (Management Authorizations); and (3) Fish and Game Code Section 2090 Consultations with State CEQA Lead Agencies.

The report is designed to provide the Department (including regional offices and divisions), CEQA Lead Agencies and project proponents the context in which the Environmental Services Division (ESD) will review proposed project specific mitigation measures. This report also includes "model" mitigation measures which have been judged to be consistent with policies, standards and legal mandates of the Legislature and Fish and Game Commission. Alternative mitigation measures, tailored to specific projects, may be developed if consistent with this report.

Implementation of mitigation measures consistent with this report are intended to help achieve the conservation goals for the Swainson's hawk and should complement multi-species habitat conservation planning efforts currently underway.

The Department is preparing a recovery plan for the species and it is anticipated that this report will be revised to incorporate recovery plan goals. It is anticipated that the recovery plan will be completed by the end of 1995. The Swainson's hawk recovery plan will establish criteria for species recovery through preservation of existing habitat, population expansion into former habitat, recruitment of young into the population, and other specific recovery efforts.

During project review the Department should consider whether a proposed project will adversely affect suitable foraging habitat within a ten (10) mile radius of an active (used during one or more of the last 5 years) Swainson's hawk nest(s). Suitable Swainson's hawk foraging habitat will be those habitats and crops identified in Bechard (1983), Bloom (1980), and Estep (1989).

The following vegetation types/agricultural crops are considered small mammal and insect foraging habitat for Swainson's hawks:
· alfalfa
· fallow fields
· beet, tomato, and other low-growing row or field crops · dry-land and irrigated pasture

· rice land (when not flooded)
· cereal grain crops (including corn after harvest)
The ten mile radius standard is the flight distance between active (and successful) nest sites and suitable foraging habitats, as documented in telemetry studies (Estep 1989, Babcock 1993).

Based on the ten mile radius, new development projects which adversely modify nesting and/or foraging habitat should mitigate the project's impacts to the species. The ten mile foraging radius recognizes a need to strike a balance between the biological needs of reproducing pairs (including eggs and nestlings) and the economic benefit of developments) consistent with Fish and Game Code Section 2053.

Since over 95% of Swainson's hawk nests occur on private land, the Department's mitigation program should include incentives that preserve agricultural lands used for the production of crops, which are compatible with Swainson's hawk foraging needs, while providing an opportunity for urban development and other changes in land use adjacent to existing urban areas.

LEGAL STATUS
Federal
The Swainson's hawk is a migratory bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in Section 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 C.F.R. 21).

State
The Swainson's hawk has been listed as a threatened species by the California Fish and Game Commission pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), see Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 670.5(b)(5)(A).

LEGISLATIVE AND COMMISSION POLICIES,

LEGAL MANDATES AND STANDARDS
The FGC policy for threatened species is, in part, to: "Protect and preserve all native species ... and their habitats....” This policy also directs the Department to work with all interested persons to protect and preserve sensitive resources and their habitats. Consistent with this policy and direction, the Department is enjoined to implement measures that assure protection for the Swainson's hawk.

The California State Legislature, when enacting the provisions of CESA, made the following findings and declarations in Fish and Game Code Section 2051:
a) "Certain species of fish, wildlife, and plants have been rendered extinct as a consequence of man's activities, untempered by adequate concern and conservation"; b) "Other species of fish, wildlife, and plants are in danger of, or threatened with, extinction because their habitats are threatened with destruction, adverse modification, or severe curtailment because of overexploitation, disease, predation, or other factors (emphasis added)";and
c) "These species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of ecological, educational, historical, recreational, esthetic, economic, and scientific value to the people of this state, and the conservation, protection, and enhancement of these species and their habitat is of statewide concern" (emphasis added).

The Legislature also proclaimed that it "is the policy of the state to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance any endangered or threatened species and its habitat and that it is the intent of the Legislature, consistent with conserving the species, to acquire lands for habitat for these species" (emphasis added).

Section 2053 of the Fish and Game Code states, in part, "it is the policy of the state that state agencies should not approve projects as proposed which would jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of those species, if there are reasonable and prudent alternatives available consistent with conserving the species and or its habitat which would prevent jeopardy" (emphasis added).

Section 2054 states "The Legislature further finds and declares that, in the event specific economic, social, and or other conditions make infeasible such alternatives, individual projects may be approved if appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures are provided" (emphasis added).

Loss or alteration of foraging habitat or nest site disturbance which results in:

(1) nest abandonment; (2) loss of young; (3) reduced health and vigor of eggs and/or nestlings (resulting in reduced survival rates), may ultimately result in the take (killing) of nestling or fledgling Swainson's hawks incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The taking of Swainson's hawks in this manner can be, a violation of Section 2080 of the Fish and Game Code. This interpretation of take has been judicially affirmed by the landmark appellate court decision pertaining to CESA (DFG v. ACID, 8 CA App.4, 41554). The essence of the decision emphasized that the intent and purpose of CESA applies to all activities that take or kill endangered or threatened species, even when the taking is incidental to otherwise legal activities.

To avoid potential violations of Fish and Game Code Section 2080, the Department recommends and encourages project sponsors to obtain 2081 Management Authorizations for their projects.

Although this report has been prepared to assist the Department in working with the development community, the prohibition against take (Fish and Game Code Section 2080) applies to all persons, including those engaged in agricultural activities and routine maintenance of facilities. In addition, sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs.

To avoid potential violation of Fish and Game Code Section 2080 (i.e. killing of a listed species), project-related disturbance at active Swainson's hawk nesting sites should be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1 - September 15 annually).

Delineation of specific activities which could cause nest abandonment (take) of Swainson's hawk during the nesting period should be done on a case-by-case basis.

CEQA requires a mandatory findings of significance if a project's impacts to threatened or endangered species are likely to occur (Sections 21001 (c), 21083, Guidelines Sections 15380, 15064, 15065). Impacts must be avoided or mitigated to less than significant levels unless the CEQA Lead Agency makes and supports findings of Overriding Consideration. The CEQA Lead Agency's Findings of Overriding Consideration does not eliminate the project sponsor's obligation to comply with Fish and Game Code Section 2080.

NATURAL HISTORY
The Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is a large, broad winged buteo which frequents open country. They are about the same size as a red-tailed hawk (Buteo jatnaicensis), but trimmer, weighing approximately 800-1100 grams (1.75 - 2 lbs). They have about a 125 cm. (4+foot) wingspan. The basic body plumage may be highly variable and is characterized by several color morphs - light, dark, and rufous. In dark phase birds, the entire body of the bird may be sooty black. Adult birds generally have dark backs. The ventral or underneath sections may be light with a characteristic dark, wide "bib" from the lower throat down to the upper breast, light colored wing linings and pointed wing tips. The tail is gray ventrally with a subterminal dusky band, and narrow, less conspicuous barring proximally. The sexes are similar in appearance; females however, are slightly larger and heavier than males, as is the case in most sexually dimorphic raptors. There are no recognized subspecies (Palmer 1988).

The Swainson's hawk is a long distance migrator. The nesting grounds occur in northwestern Canada, the western U.S., and Mexico and most populations migrate to wintering grounds in the open pampas and agricultural areas of South America (Argentina, Uruguay, southern Brazil).

The species is included among the group of birds known as "neotropical migrants". Some individuals or small groups (20-30 birds) may winter in the U.S., including California (Delta Islands). This round trip journey may exceed 14,000 miles. The birds return to the nesting grounds and establish nesting territories in early March.

Swainson's hawks are monogamous and remain so until the loss of a mate (Palmer 1988). Nest construction and courtship continues through April. The clutch (commonly 3-4 eggs) is generally laid in early April to early May, but may occur later. Incubation lasts 34-35 days, with both parents participating in the brooding of eggs and young. The young fledge (leave the nest) approximately 42-44 days after hatching and remain with their parents until they depart in the fall. Large groups (up to 100+ birds) may congregate in holding areas in the fall and may exhibit a delayed migration depending upon forage availability. The specific purpose of these congregation areas is as yet unknown, but is likely related to: increasing energy reserves for migration; the timing of migration; aggregation into larger migratory groups (including assisting the young in learning migration routes); and providing a pairing and courtship opportunity for unattached adults.

Foraging Requirements
Swainson's hawk nests in the Central Valley of California are generally found in scattered trees or along riparian systems adjacent to agricultural fields or pastures. These open fields and pastures are the primary foraging areas. Major prey items for Central Valley birds include:

California voles (Microtus californicus), valley pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi), mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta), other passerines, grasshoppers (Conocephalinae sp.), crickets (Gryllidae sp.), and beetles (Estep 1989). Swainson's hawks generally search for prey by soaring in open country and agricultural fields similar to northern hariers (Circus cyaneus) and ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis). Often several hawks may be seen foraging together following tractors or other farm equipment capturing prey escaping from farming operations. During the breeding season, Swainson's hawks eat mainly vertebrates (small rodents and reptiles), whereas during migration vast numbers of insects are consumed (Palmer 1988).

Department funded research has documented the importance of suitable foraging habitats (e.g., annual grasslands, pasture lands, alfalfa and other hay crops, and combinations of hay, grain and row crops) within an energetically efficient flight distance from active Swainson's hawk nests (Estep pers. comm.). Recent telemetry studies to determine foraging requirements have shown that birds may use in excess of 15,000 acres of habitat or range up to 18.0 miles from the nest in search of prey (Estep 1989, Babcock 1993). The prey base (availability and abundance) for the species is highly variable from year to year, with major prey population (small mammals and insects) fluctuations occurring based on rainfall patterns, natural cycles and agricultural cropping and harvesting patterns. Based on these variables, significant acreages of potential foraging habitat (primarily agricultural lands) should be preserved per nesting pair (or aggregation of

nesting pairs) to avoid jeopardizing existing populations. Preserved foraging areas should be adequate to allow additional Swainson's hawk nesting pairs to successfully breed and use the foraging habitat during good prey production years.

Suitable foraging habitat is necessary to provide an adequate energy source for breeding adults, including support of nestlings and fledglings. Adults must achieve an energy balance between the needs of themselves and the demands of nestlings and fledglings, or the health and survival of both may be jeopardized. If prey resources are not sufficient, or if adults must hunt long distances from the nest site, the energetics of the foraging effort may result in reduced nestling vigor with an increased likelihood of disease and/or starvation. In more extreme cases, the breeding pair, in an effort to assure their own existence, may even abandon the nest and young (Woodbridge 1985).

Prey abundance and availability is determined by land and farming patterns including crop types, agricultural practices and harvesting regimes. Estep (1989) found that 73.4% of observed prey captures were in fields being harvested, disced, mowed, or irrigated. Preferred foraging habitats for Swainson's hawks include:
· alfalfa;
· fallow fields;
· beet, tomato, and other low-growing row or field crops; · dry-land and irrigated pasture;
· rice land (during the non-flooded period); and
· cereal grain crops (including corn after harvest).

Unsuitable foraging habitat types include crops where prey species (even if present) are not available due to vegetation characteristics (e.g. vineyards, mature orchards, and cotton fields, dense vegetation).

Nesting Requirements
Although the Swainson's hawk's current nesting habitat is fragmented and unevenly distributed, Swainson's hawks nest throughout most of the Central Valley floor. More than 85% of the known nests in the Central Valley are within riparian systems in Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and San Joaquin counties. Much of the potential nesting habitat remaining in this area is in riparian forests, although isolated and roadside trees are also used. Nest sites are generally adjacent to or within easy flying distance to alfalfa or hay fields or other habitats or agricultural crops which provide an abundant and available prey source. Department research has shown that valley oaks (Quercus lobata), Fremont's cottonwood (Populus fremontii), willows (Salix spp.), sycamores (Platanus spp.), and walnuts (juglans spp.) are the preferred nest trees for Swainson's hawks (Bloom 1980, Schlorff and Bloom 1983, Estep 1989).

Fall and Winter Migration Habitats
During their annual fall and winter migration periods, Swainson's hawks may congregate in large groups (up to 100+ birds). Some of these sites may be used during delayed migration periods lasting up to three months. Such sites have been identified in Yolo, Tulare, Kern and San Joaquin counties and protection is needed for these critical foraging areas which support birds during their long migration.

Historical and Current Population Status
The Swainson's hawk was historically regarded as one of the most common and numerous raptor species in the state, so much so that they were often not given special mention in field notes.

The breeding population has declined by an estimated 91% in California since the turn of the century (Bloom 1980). The historical Swainson's hawk population estimates are based on current densities and extrapolated based on the historical amount of available habitat. The historical population estimate is 4,284-17,136 pairs (Bloom 1980). In 1979, approximately 375 (± 50) breeding pairs of Swainson's hawks were estimated in California, and 280 (75%) of those pairs were estimated to be in the Central Valley (Bloom 1980). In 1988, 241 active breeding pairs were found in the Central Valley, with an additional 78 active pairs known in northeastern California. The 1989 population estimate was 430 pairs for the Central Valley and 550 pairs statewide (Estep, 1989). This difference in population estimates is probably a result of increased survey effort rather than an actual population increase.

Reasons for decline
The dramatic Swainson's hawk population decline has been attributed to loss of native nesting and foraging habitat, and more recently to the loss of suitable nesting trees and the conversion of agricultural lands. Agricultural lands have been converted to urban land uses and incompatible crops. In addition, pesticides, shooting, disturbance at the nest site, and impacts on wintering areas may have contributed to their decline. Although losses on the wintering areas in South America may occur, they are not considered significant since breeding populations outside of California are stable. The loss of nesting habitat within riparian areas has been accelerated by flood control practices and bank stabilization programs. Smith (1977) estimated that in 1850

over 770,000 acres of riparian habitat were present in the Sacramento Valley. By the mid-1980s, Warner and Hendrix (1984) estimated that there was only 120,000 acres of riparian habitat remaining in the Central Valley (Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys combined). Based on Warner and Hendrix's estimates approximately 93% of the San Joaquin Valley and 73% of the Sacramento Valley riparian habitat has been eliminated since 1850.

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Management and mitigation strategies for the Central Valley population of the Swainson's hawk should ensure that:
· suitable nesting habitat continues to be available (this can be accomplished by protecting existing nesting habitat from destruction or disturbance and by increasing the number of suitable nest trees); and
· foraging habitat is available during the period of the year when Swainson's hawks are present in the Central Valley (this should be accomplished by maintaining or creating adequate and suitable foraging habitat in areas of existing and potential nest sites and along migratory routes within the state).

A key to the ultimate success in meeting the Legislature's goal of maintaining habitat sufficient to preserve this species is the implementation of these management strategies in cooperation with project sponsors and local, state and federal agencies.

DEPARTMENT'S ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN

PROJECT CONSULTATION AND ADMINISTRATION

OF CEQA AND THE FISH AND GAME CODE
The Department, through its administration of the Fish and Game Code and its trust responsibilities, should continue its efforts to minimize further habitat destruction and should seek mitigation to offset unavoidable losses by (1) including the mitigation measures in this document in CEQA comment letters and/or as management conditions in Department issued Management Authorizations or (2) by developing project specific mitigation measures (consistent with the Commission's and the Legislature's mandates) and including them in CEQA comment letters and/or as management conditions in Fish and Game Code Section 2081 Management Authorizations issued by the Department and/or in Fish and Game Code Section 2090 Biological Opinions.

The Department should submit comments to CEQA Lead Agencies on all projects which adversely affect Swainson's hawks. CEQA requires a mandatory findings of significance if a project's impacts to threatened or endangered species are likely to occur (Sections 21001 fc), 21083. Guidelines 15380, 15064, 15065). Impacts must be: (1) avoided; or (2) appropriate mitigation must be provided to reduce impacts to less than significant levels; or (3) the lead agency must make and support findings of overriding consideration. If the CEQA Lead Agency makes a Finding of Overriding Consideration, it does not eliminate the project sponsor's obligation to comply with the take prohibitions of Fish and Game Code Section 2080. Activities

which result in (1) nest abandonment; (2) starvation of young; and/or (3) reduced health and vigor of eggs and nestlings may result in the take (killing) of Swainson's hawks incidental to otherwise lawful activities (urban development, recreational activities, agricultural practices, levee maintenance and similar activities. The taking of Swainson's hawk in this manner may be a violation of Section 2080 of the Fish and Game Code. To avoid potential violations of Fish and Game Code Section 2080, the Department should recommend and encourage project sponsors to obtain 2081 Management Authorizations.

In aggregate, the mitigation measures incorporated into CEQA comment letters and/or 2081 Management Authorizations for a project should be consistent with Section 2053 and 2054 of the Fish and Game Code. Section 2053 states, in part, "it is the policy of the state that state agencies should not approve projects as proposed which would jeopardize the continued existence of'any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of those species, if there are reasonable and prudent alternatives available consistent with conserving the species and or its habitat which would prevent jeopardy" - Section 2054 states: "The Legislature further finds and declares that, in the event specific economic, social, and or other conditions make infeasible such alternatives, individual projects may be approved if appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures are provided."
State lead agencies are required to consult with the Department pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2090 to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by that state agency will not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species. Comment letters to State Lead Agencies should also include a reminder that the State Lead Agency has the responsibility to consult with the Department pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2090 and obtain a written findings (Biological Opinion). Mitigation measures included in Biological Opinions issued to State Lead Agencies must be consistent with Fish and Game Code Sections 2051-2054 and 2091-2092.

NEST SITE AND HABITAT LOCATION

INFORMATION SOURCES
The Department's Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) is a continually updated, computerized inventory of location information on the State's rarest plants, animals, and natural communities.

Department personnel should encourage project proponents and CEQA Lead Agencies, either directly or through CEQA comment letters, to purchase NDDB products for information on the locations of Swainson's hawk nesting areas as well as other sensitive species. The Department's Nongame Bird and Mammal Program also maintains information on Swainson's hawk nesting areas and may be contacted for additional information on the species.

Project applicants and CEQA Lead Agencies may also need to conduct site specific surveys (conducted by qualified biologists at the appropriate time of the year using approved protocols) to determine the status (location of nest sites, foraging areas, etc.) of listed species as part of the CEQA and 2081 Management Authorization process. Since these studies may require multiple years to complete, the Department shall identify any needed studies at the earliest possible time in the project review process. To facilitate project review and reduce the potential for costly

project delays, the Department should make it a standard practice to advise developers or others planning projects that may impact one or more Swainson's hawk nesting or foraging areas to initiate communication with the Department as early as possible .

MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS
Staff believes the following mitigation measures (nos. 1-4) are adequate to meet the Commission's and Legislature's policy regarding listed species and are considered as preapproved for incorporation into any Management Authorizations for the Swainson's hawk issued by the Department. The incorporation of measures 1-4 into a CEQA document should reduce a project's impact to a Swainson's hawk(s) to less than significant levels. Since these measures are Staff recommendations, a project sponsor or CEQA Lead agency may choose to negotiate project specific mitigation measures which differ. In such cases, the negotiated Management Conditions must be consistent with Commission and Legislative policy and be submitted to the ESD for review and approval prior to reaching agreement with the project sponsor or CEQA Lead Agency.

Staff recommended Management Conditions are:

1. No intensive new disturbances (e.g. heavy equipment operation associated with construction, use of cranes or draglines, new rock crushing activities) or other project related activities which may cause nest abandonment or forced fledging, should be initiated within 1/4 mile (buffer zone) of an active nest between March 1 - September 15 or until August 15 if a Management Authorization or Biological Opinion is obtained for the project. The buffer zone should be increased to ½ mile in nesting areas away from urban development (i.e. in areas where disturbance [e.g. heavy equipment operation associated with construction, use of cranes or draglines, new rock crushing activities] is not a normal occurrence during the nesting season). Nest trees should not be removed unless there is no feasible way of avoiding it. If a nest tree must be removed, a Management Authorization (including conditions to off-set the loss of the nest tree) must be obtained with the tree removal period specified in the Management Authorization, generally between October 1- February 1. If construction or other project related activities which may cause nest abandonment or forced fledging are necessary within the buffer zone, monitoring of the nest site (funded by the project sponsor) by a qualified biologist (to determine if the nest is abandoned) should be required . If it is abandoned and if the nestlings are still alive, the project sponsor shall fund the recovery and hacking (controlled release of captive reared young) of the nestling(s). Routine disturbances such as agricultural activities, commuter traffic, and routine facility maintenance activities within 1/4 mile of an active nest should not be prohibited.

2. Hacking as a substitute for avoidance of impacts during the nesting period may be used in unusual circumstances after review and approval of a hacking plan by ESD and WMD. Proponents who propose using hacking will be required to fund the full costs of the effort, including any telemetry work specified by the

Department.

3. To mitigate for the loss of foraging habitat (as specified in this document), the Management Authorization holder/project sponsor shall provide Habitat Management (HM) lands to the Department based on the following ratios:
(a) Projects within I mile of an active nest tree shall provide:
· one acre of HM land (at least 10% of the HM land requirements shall be met by fee title acquisition or a conservation easement allowing for the active management of the habitat, with the remaining 90% of the HM lands protected by a conservation easement [acceptable to the Department] on agricultural lands or other suitable habitats which provide foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk) for each acre of development authorized (1:1 ratio); or
· One-half acre of HM land (all of the HM land requirements shall be met by fee title acquisition or a conservation easement [acceptable to the Department) which allows for the active management of the habitat for prey production on-the HM lands) for each acre of development authorized (0.5:1 ratio).
(b) Projects within 5 miles of an active nest tree but greater than 1 mile from the nest tree shall plovide 0.75 acres of HM land for each acre of urban development authorized (0-75:1 ratio). All HM lands protected under this requirement may be protected through fee title acquisition or conservation easement (acceptable to the Department) on agricultural lands or other suitable habitats which provide foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk.
(c) Projects within 10 miles of an active nest tree but gleater than 5 miles from an active nest tree shall provide 0.5 acres of HM land for each acre of urban development authorized (0.5:1 ratio). All HM lands- protected under this requirement may be protected through fee title acquisition or a conservation easement (acceptable to the Department) on agricultural lands or other suitable habitats which provide foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk.

4. Management Authorization holders/project sponsors shall provide for the long-term management of the HM lands by funding a management endowment (the interest on which shall be used for managing the HM lands) at the rate of $400 per HM land acre (adjusted annually for inflation and varying interest rates).

Some project sponsors may desire to provide funds to the Department for HM land protection.

This option is acceptable to the extent the proposal is consistent with Department policy regarding acceptance of funds for land acquisition. All HM lands should be located in areas which are consistent with a multi-species habitat conservation focus. Management

Authorization holders/project sponsors who are willing to establish a significant mitigation bank (> 900 acres) should be given special consideration such as 1.1 acres of mitigation credit for each acre preserved.

PROJECT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MEASURES
Although this report includes recommended Management Measures, the Department should encourage project proponents to propose alternative mitigation strategies that provide equal or greater protection of the species and which also expedite project environmental review or issuance of a CESA Management Authorization. The Department and sponsor may choose to conduct cooperative, multi-year field studies to assess the site's habitat value and determine its use by nesting and foraging Swainson's hawk. Study plans should include clearly defined criteria for judging the project's impacts on Swainson's hawks and the methodologies (days of monitoring, foraging effort/efficiency, etc.) that will be used.

The study plans should be submitted to the Wildlife Management Division and ESD for review.

Mitigation measures developed as a result of the study.must be reviewed by ESD (for consistency with the policies of the Legislature and Fish and Game Commission) and approved by the Director.

EXCEPTIONS
Cities, counties and project sponsors should be encouraged to focus development on open lands within already urbanized areas. Since small disjunct parcels of habitat seldom provide foraging habitat needed to sustain the reproductive effort of a Swainson's hawk pair, Staff does not recommend requiring mitigation pursuant to CEQA nor a Management Authorization by the Department for infill (within an already urbanized area) projects in areas which have less than 5 acres of foraging habitat and are surrounded by existing urban development, unless the project area is within 1/4 mile of an active nest tree.

REVIEW
Staff should revise this report at least annually to determine if the proposed mitigation strategies should be retained, modified or if additional mitigation strategies should be included as a result of new scientific information.

LITERATURE CITED
Babcock, K.W. 1993. Home range and habitat analysis of Swainson's hawks in West Sacramento. Michael Brandman Associates report prepared for the Southport Property Owner's Group, City of West Sacramento, CA. 21pp.

Bechard, M.J. 1983. Food supply and the occurrence of brood reduction in Swainson's Hawk.

Wilson Bull. 95(2):233-242.

Bloom, P.H. 1980. The status of the Swainson's Hawk in California, 1979. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Project W-54-R-12, Nongame Wildl. Invest. job Final Report 11-8-0. 24p + appendix.

Estep, J.A. 1989. Biology, movements, and habitat relationships of the Swainson's Hawk in the Central Valley of California, 1986-87. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section Report, 53pp.

Palmer, R.S. 1988a. Handbook of North American birds. Vol. 4: diurnal raptors (part 1). Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT.

Palmer, R.S. 1988b. Handbook of North American birds. Vol. 5: diurnal raptors (part 2). Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT.

Schlorff, R.W. and P.H. Bloom. 1983. Importance of riparian systems to nesting Swainson's Hawks in the Central Valley of California. pp 612-618. In: R.E Warner and K.M. Hendrix, (Eds.). 1984. California Riparian Systems. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Smith, F. 1977. Short review of the status of riparian forests in California. In: Stet, A. (Ed.).

Riparian forests in California: Their ecology and conservation. Inst. of Ecology Pubi. 15. Univ. of Calif., Davis.

Warner, R.E. and K. M. Hendrix, Eds. 1984. California riparian systems; ecology, conservation, and productive management. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Woodbridge, B. 1985. Biology and management of Swainson's Hawk in Butte Valley, California. U.S. Forest Service Report, 19pp.

1 8867 Bluff Lane
Fair Oaks, California 95628
September 17, 2026
Mayor and City Council
City Clerk
Executive Director, Stanislaus LAFCo
via email
Re: Riverwalk Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Hearing September 22, 2026
Dear Mayor Hernandez and Members of the City Council:

This letter concerns your deliberations on the Riverwalk Specific Plan and certification of the Final EIR scheduled for September 22, 2026. For the reasons stated below, we urge you
• to not certify the FEIR;
• to oppose the proposed Sphere of Influence Expansion of 1500 acres of farmland; and
• to deny any other approvals before you for the Riverwalk Specific Plan.

City as Lead Agency Inappropriate
We stated in our Draft EIR comment letter that the lead agency for the EIR should have been Stanislaus LAFCo because the Sphere of Influence Expansion approval is the prerequisite and necessary condition for the City to consider any project in the unincorporated area of the County. The LAFCo must first affirmatively approve the SOI expansion as a separate action before considering the annexation proposal. The FEIR preparers responded that the whole of the project must be analyzed in one EIR, and the City is the appropriate agency to lead because of its land use authority and the application for the Specific Plan.

EXHIBIT Q

2 We argue below that combining all the actions into one EIR with the City as the lead agency has resulted in an EIR that does not adequately disclose to the public and to the LAFCo commissioners the requirements for an SOI expansion approval by LAFCo, and is prejudicial. It also includes 525 acres of land outside the Specific Plan to be authorized for Sphere of Influence expansion without full environmental impact analysis and mitigation.

Project Description is Unstable
The City is clear in the DEIR (p. 11) that the River Walk Specific Plan is the "project" which the EIR addresses. But it fails to explain why the EIR also includes an expansion of the SOI beyond the project to include a "Reserve" for future projects (p. 11 DEIR). If the Project is the Specific Plan, why include over 500 acres of land outside the Project Area as a "Reserve" for future development? This is not justified by the argument that CEQA Guideline 15378[c] requires the whole of an action to be included in an EIR. Thus the EIR also violates a core CEQA principle that an unstable project description constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion.

The unstable project description is a direct consequence of the City's choice to be lead agency for the EIR. To do so, it had to define the project as the Specific Plan.

But it failed to confine the EIR to the Specific Plan, creating an unstable project description. Had LAFCo been the lead agency, the whole of the SOI expansion would have been included in the project description and environmental analysis.

LAFCo Policies Regarding Sphere of Influence Approvals Ignored Our concern about the lead agency designation is reinforced by the comments of LAFCo and the community that the proposed SOI Expansion is contrary to core LAFCo policies and statutory responsibilities.

While the FEIR preparers deftly argue that the City can be the lead agency for all of the actions required for environmental assessment of the Riverwalk Specific Plan adoption, it cannot proceed in a way that violates the California Environmental Quality Act. We have noted prejudicial bias in the preparation of the EIR indicating that the City's role as lead agency has undermined the integrity of the EIR as an informational document for the LAFCo decision makers and for the public. Below we present further evidence of this prejudicial bias.

Throughout the discussion of LAFCo's role (see FEIR Master Responses), and throughout the DEIR, the EIR's focus is on LAFCo's role in annexation, and its

3 policies for mitigation for loss of agricultural land from annexation, while information about LAFCo's policies and requirements regarding Sphere of Influence expansion are not fully disclosed nor explained.

An important example is total disregard for LAFCo's SOI Expansion policy 6:
"6. Prime Agricultural Land. Amendment proposals involving Sphere expansion which contain prime agricultural land will not be approved by LAFCO if there is sufficient alternative land available for annexation within the existing Sphere of Influence." (p. 68 LAFCo Policy Manual)
There is ample land available in the existing SOI, which the FEIR acknowledges.

The FEIR Master Response on the issue of vacant land available within the SOI itemizes various reasons why developing large acreages of open land is a quicker, better way to get housing built than working with smaller, scattered, vacant landholdings in the existing Sphere of Influence. It fails to address issues that would be relevant to LAFCo's decision, such as Policy 6, and whether the City of Riverbank can demonstrate compliance with its regional housing need allocation without further SOI expansion.

The FEIR does not discuss what findings LAFCo must make in order to approve this Sphere expansion which is largely on prime agricultural land given Policy 6.

It says that LAFCo can adopt its own findings. But the purpose of an EIR is informational and the FEIR fails as an informational document for the Sphere of Influence expansion. In important ways, the EIR is an advocacy document for the City of Riverbank and applicant rather than the informational document that CEQA requires.

We note also that the EIR claims consistency of the project with LAFCo policies but there is no discussion of how it is consistent with LAFCo Policy 6. This is significant missing information.

FEIR Fails to Apply LAFCo Definition of Prime to EIR Analysis Further complicating the public and decision makers attempt to understand the impact of the SOI expansion proposed on prime agricultural land is that the EIR definition of "prime" is not the LAFCo definition of "prime." (Cortese Knox Hertzberg, defines "Prime agricultural land" at Government Code 56064.) Though the DEIR acknowledges that the LAFCo definition is different, it does not explain how this difference affects assessment of impacts of the SOI Expansion for the

4 LAFCo commissioners. It does not explain why the EIR uses a different definition of prime to assess impacts on agricultural land rather than the statutory definition for purposes of evaluating Sphere of Influence expansion (and annexation). The EIR fails as an informational document.

State Policy Priority for Avoiding Prime Agricultural Land in Responding to Housing Crisis is Ignored
The FEIR claims that State Housing Policy (Gov. Code Section 65589.5) creates a priority for building housing over conservation of prime agricultural land, but it fails to mention the section of that very same law stating "(c) The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas." (Gov.

Code Section 65589.5[c])
The State Housing Policy in fact prefers infill to paving over agricultural land.

But, instead of including this information in the FEIR, the EIR tells the public and LAFCo commissioners that the State's Housing Policy is the reason why approvals for this project are justified. This is prejudicial.

Migitation Measure for Swainson's Hawk Foraging Loss is Inadequate The FEIR (corrected 9/9/26 Errata) describes the mitigation measure for loss of Swainson's Hawk foraging habitat in part as (emphasis added):
"To mitigate for the loss of foraging habitat (as specified in this document), the Management Authorization holder/project sponsor shall provide Habitat Management (HM) lands to the Department based on the following ratios:
(a) Projects within 1 mile of an active nest tree shall provide:
· one acre of HM land (at least 10% of the HM land requirements shall be met by fee title acquisition or a conservation easement allowing for the active management of the habitat, with the remaining 90% of the HM lands protected by a conservation easement [acceptable to the Department] on agricultural lands or

5 other suitable habitats which provide foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk) for each acre of development authorized (1:1 ratio); or
· One-half acre of HM land (all of the HM land requirements shall be met by fee title acquisition or a conservation easement [acceptable to the Department) which allows for the active management of the habitat for prey production on-the HM lands) for each acre of development authorized (0.5:1 ratio)." This mitigation measure is taken from the 1994 California Department of Fish and Game, " Staff Report regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California." (attached) This mitigation measure does not reduce impacts to Swainson's Hawks to less than significant for the following reasons.

The EIR (see p. 3.4-50, DEIR) relies upon a thirty-two year old internal memorandum by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to claim that this mitigation measure for foraging habitat loss reduces impacts to less than significant. The referenced memorandum was never adopted as a regulation and has no standing as regulatory guidance.

Not only is this guidance seriously out of date, but it is also insufficient to meet today's CEQA requirements. The effectiveness of a mitigation measure must be backed by substantial evidence in the administrative record prepared by the lead agency. The lead agency must show how and why the measure will successfully reduce, avoid, rectify, or compensate for the environmental harm. Instead this FEIR claims that the 32 year old CDFW Staff Report alone constitutes the only evidence needed to justify their mitigation measure.

Clearly the EIR Preparers cannot ignore this report as a statement of "best practices" in a trustee agency memorandum. Nonetheless, the Staff Report serves as guidance only to the Department. It is an internal document and the Department is bound by it. The Department staff reviewing an EIR cannot do other than approve a mitigation measure recommended in an internal memorandum. The scientific knowledge expansion about Swainson's Hawks and the changes in Central Valley land use over the last 32 years are completely absent from this document and any consideration by CDFW scientists about the adequacy of this mitigation measure.

6 Nothing in this document supports a claim that an EIR in conformity with the recommended mitigation measure has met the substantial evidence test. We think it does not. The claim that this report is substantial evidence that the EIR mitigates impacts to Swainson's Hawk foraging habitat loss in the Riverwalk Specific Plan to less than significant stretches credulity. Even the report itself (see attachment) recognizes that alternative project-specific mitigation measures may be used.

Given the facts in the EIR, preparers could reasonably assume that the entire plan area is within a mile of nesting activity and can reasonably specify the exact acreage required to mitigate for the loss in the Specific Plan area based on the one mile criteria (304.8 acres). It could specify that any construction within the Specific Plan removing foraging habitat will mitigate at the 1:1 ratio. Instead, the EIR defers to a future project approval whether a specific project would have to mitigate for loss of foraging habitat depending upon whether an active nest site can be identified at that time within one mile of the project. This is deferred mitigation.

The EIR's explanation of the mitigation measure effectiveness is inadequate because:
• the project area is noted in the EIR to be in the breeding range of Swainson's Hawks;
• the DEIR acknowledges that Swainsons' Hawks are common in the area; • the EIR identifies over 80 acres of nesting habitat within the project area; • the Smallwood field survey identified a pair on site during nesting season; • and historically there have been documented nesting sites within or in close proximity to the project site.

The evidence in the record supports a finding for the 1:1 mitigation ratio and the requirement that an "active nest site" be identified to impose the 1:1 mitigation ratio is an unreasonable requirement given these facts.

Hinging the mitigation ratio on finding active nests is a flimsy method of measuring impact as we explain further below. Moreover, the use of the preconstruction survey to identify nesting hawks for the purpose of determining how much foraging habitat loss must be mitigated simply doesn't make sense. The mitigation obligation must be identified and satisfied well before dirt is turned.

The preconstruction survey is intended to be used to avoid impacts to sensitive species. It is a poor performance measure for determining the value of the acknowledged foraging habitat to be destroyed. It is unlikely to result in the kind

7 of certainty needed to establish mitigation will reduce impacts to less than significant for the removal of foraging habitat next to acknowledged and occupied nesting territory.

What introduces uncertainty? The developer can avoid mitigation simply by choosing to do the preconstruction survey earlier than nests can be expected to be established. The preconstruction survey can occur well before any nesting activity is begun since it can occur as early as February 1. Typically Swainson's Hawks do not return from wintering grounds until late March and nesting initiation can be observed in April and May. This mitigation measure does not reduce impacts to less than significant because it is entirely possible to miscalculate the proximity to active nesting and thereby miscalculate the required amount of mitigation foraging habitat. The intent of the measure is defeated in the implementation. In that sense as well, the mitigation measure is not enforceable because it does not reliably ensure that the mitigation will be required as intended.

There is uncertainty also because nesting behavior can vary from year to year.

Measurements in the preconstruction survey year may be inconsistent with nesting experience in other years. Weather, loss of one of a pair, a loss of a nest site to another raptor that is able to nest earlier in the year, can mean a nesting site is not used every year consistently.

Nesting territories do not always result in an active or productive nest. Swainson's Hawk pairs have high nesting territory loyalty and return year after year to the same locations. In any given year, a pair may establish a nesting territory but because of a variety of factors fail to establish or are unable to maintain an active nest. Egg failure and nestling mortality are not insignificant. Estimates are 15 percent for egg failure and 30 percent for nestling mortality. Spring storms, high wind events, and a host of other threats can impede active nests in any given year.

Lack of presence of an active nest site is not a reliable indicator of the value of the property as foraging habitat for nesting pairs. Assessing foraging habitat for impact on the species should not depend upon identification of an active nest during a preconstruction survey.

Instructive is data from the Natomas Basin Conservancy monitoring study of nesting Swainson's Hawks in the Natomas Basin, Sacramento, California, from 2025 which states:
"In 2025, there were 56 occupied Swainson’s hawk territories, 22 occupied territories where pairs did not nest, 11 successful nests, and 13 young fledged (Table 4-1).”

8 So of the 56 pairs actively seeking to nest, 34 (60 percent) established a nest and just 11 (20 percent) were successful at reproduction.

What then is the definition in the mitigation measure of an "active nest?" The EIR does not explain. A nest can be abandoned at a number of different stages but the EIR does not explain how the mitigation measure implementation will deal with these different stages. How does the EIR explain why only the identification of an "active nest" can qualify the ratio used for the mitigation measure? It does not.

The lack of specificity introduces more uncertainty as to how the measure will be implemented.

Smallwood's survey, reported to the EIR preparers in DEIR comment, establishes a nesting territory in the Specific Plan area. This should be sufficient documentation to establish a mitigation ratio of 1:1 for compensation for lost foraging habitat in the Specific Plan area. Anything less does not meet the test of mitigation to less than significant.

FEIR Fails to Respond to Comments by Friends of the Swainson's Hawk CEQA Guidelines 15088 and 15204 require the City to make a good faith effort to consider and respond to public comments on the DEIR. (See also (Comite Civico del Valle v. County of Imperial (Aug. 11, 2026, No. D085747) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 538, at *43].)
Since the mitigation measure chosen by the preparers for loss of Swainson's Hawk foraging habitat requires measurement of distance between project site and nest sites, we asked the EIR preparers to provide more information about the distance of known nesting sites from the project. However, the preparers declined to request that information from California Department of Fish and Wildlife regional office, nor to conduct their own nest site survey. They relied on an out of date and poorly maintained database which is specifically noted as inadequate to document absence of a species.

The preparers also failed to respond to our comments that Swainson's Hawk foraging habitat mitigation lands could not be layered on agricultural land mitigation (that is, double counting agricultural mitigation easements as Swainson's Hawk foraging habitat easements). The only way to legitimately layer Swainson's Hawk easements on agricultural easements is to restrict the agricultural easements to crops capatible with Swainson's Hawk foraging, something for which landowners want significantly more compensation than farmland conservation

9 pays. The FEIR does not include this restriction. It does not clarify that the foraging easement will not be combined with the farmland conservation easement.

Therefore, the mitigation measure does not mitigate to less than significant because the language of the mitigation measure would allow farmland conservation of orchards and vineyards to be counted as Swainson's Hawk foraging habitat. Yet the EIR excludes orchards and vineyards as foraging habitat in the assessment of impacts on the species.

The FEIR fails to analyze the biological impacts of the Sphere of Influence expansion to the "Reserve" area.

While the EIR is intended to cover the whole of the action, and the EIR claims the action includes LAFCo authorization to urbanize 525 acres of farmland outside of the Specific Plan, we expected the EIR to analyze the biological impacts on the 525 acres of "Reserve", including the impacts on the Swainson's Hawk. The EIR does not. This is a failure to comply with CEQA.

We appreciate this opportunity to comment further on the Riverbank Specific Plan FEIR before you are called to certify it. We urge the City Council not to certify the EIR for all the reasons stated previously. However, if the Council intends to certify,
• We urge the City Council to require as a condition of certifying the EIR that the FEIR specify all projects within the Specific Plan area will apply for a California Fish and Wildlife 2081 permit to ensure that all impacts to Swainson's Hawks will be mitigated to less than significant throughout the construction of all phases of the Specific Plan.
• We urge the City to require foraging habitat mitigation at a ratio of 1:1 for all development in the River Walk Specific Plan.
• We urge the City to exclude the "Reserve" area from the SOI Expansion and that the certification of the EIR exclude the "Reserve" area since it is not part of the Project Area and is not fully analyzed in the EIR.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Please advise us via email at [email protected] of any future public hearings on this project and/or the EIR.

10 Sincerely,
Judith Lamare Ph.D. James P. Pachl
Attachment:

California Department of Fish and Game, " Staff Report regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California." (1994)

EXHIBIT S

Item 9.3. - CC / LRA – 10/13/2026

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.3.

SECTION : CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: 10/13/2026
Subject: Resolution Approving a Wastewater Generation and Capacity Assessment for Crossroads West Specific Plan Area by KSN, Inc.

From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Cody Bridgewater, Director of Public Works

RECOMMENDATION
City Council approve a Wastewater Generation and Capacity Assessment for Crossroads West Specific Plan Area conducted by KSN, Inc.

SUMMARY
The enclosed scope of services is to document current wastewater flow characteristics from existing development within the Crossroads West Specific Plan (Crossroads) area and to evaluate remaining wastewater capacity in the City’s sewer system, including the sewers in Westgate Drive and the current Phase I Crawford Lift Station and Force Main improvements. This assessment relates to the Crossroads West Specific Plan Development Agreement requirement for certain off-site sewer improvements to be constructed in phases as development proceeds. Phase 1 sewer improvements have been constructed and provide capacity for a portion of the Crossroads development to proceed.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This item is directly related to the City Council's Strategic Plan Goal of "Infrastructure" which includes evaluating aging infrastructure.

BACKGROUND
In a May 2025 letter request to the City, Benchmark Engineering requested City consideration of an exception to the City’s Improvement Standards related to wastewater flow generation rates and use of a lower wastewater generation rate that would allow additional units to be constructed before triggering the Phase II off-site improvements.

The City considered the exception request and required confirmation of wastewater generation rates from the current level of Crossroads development, as well as confirmation of the available capacity of the existing Phase 1 improvements to serve future Crossroads development. The attached proposed scope of services has been developed based on the existing facilities’ condition and configuration to include:

1. A hydraulic evaluation of the existing sewer trunk system, including the Phase 1 Off-Site Improvements:
a. Measurement (flow monitoring) of the current flow rates.

Item 9.3. - CC / LRA – 10/13/2026
b. Evaluation of the capacity of the system to accommodate additional flows.

2. Wastewater flow and peaking factor validation for the existing occupied residential units to validate actual wastewater generation rates and peaking factors.

3. Overall evaluation of the existing system and quantification of the additional units that can reasonably be accommodated by the existing Phase 1 system before the Phase 2 improvements are triggered.

For this study, KSN will contract with V&A Engineering to conduct the flow monitoring. KSN will evaluate the flow data, existing facilities configuration, and capacity, and will develop a Technical Memorandum summarizing the results and recommendations.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Cost for the proposed scope is not to exceed $39,662.00. These funds will be allocated from the Wastewater System Development Fee Fund 207.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Reso_KSN Flow Analysis

2. 260722l_Crossroads_West_Sewer_Cap

CC/LRA – 10/13/26
CC Resolution No. 2026-

CITY OF RIVEBANK
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XXX

RESOLUTION APPROVING OF A WASTEWATER GENERATION AND CAPACITY ASSESSMENT FOR CROSSROADS WEST SPECIFIC PLAN AREA BY KSN, INC.

WHEREAS, this assessment relates to the Crossroads West Specific Plan Development Agreement requirement for certain off-site sewer improvements to be constructed in phases as development proceeds; and
WHEREAS, Phase 1 sewer improvements have been constructed and provide capacity for a portion of the Crossroads development to proceed; and WHEREAS, the attached proposed scope of services has been developed based on the existing facilities’ condition and configuration to include:

1. A hydraulic evaluation of the existing sewer trunk system, including the PhaseI Off-Site Improvements:
a. Measurement (flow monitoring) of the current flow rates. b. Evaluation of the capacity of the system to accommodate additional flows.

2. Wastewater flow and peaking factor validation for the existing occupied residential units to validate actual wastewater generation rates and peaking factors.

3. Overall evaluation of the existing system and quantification of the additional units that can reasonably be accommodated by the existing Phase 1 system before the Phase 2 improvements are triggered; and
WHEREAS, KSN will contract with V&A Engineering to conduct the flow monitoring. KSN will evaluate the flow data, existing facilities configuration, and capacity, and will develop a Technical Memorandum summarizing the results and recommendations.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Riverbank approves a wastewater generation and capacity assessment for Crossroads West Specific Plan area by KSN, Inc.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of October, 2026; motioned by Councilmember , seconded by Councilmember , and upon roll call was carried by the following City Council vote of :

AYES:

CC/LRA – 10/13/26
CC Resolution No. 2026-
NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________________ __________________________ Gabriela Hernandez Rachel Hernandez
City Clerk Mayor

Christopher H. Neudeck, P.E
Neal T. Colwell, P.E.

Barry O’Regan, P.E., CFM
Jefferey A. Mueller, P.E.
2249-02
99-100
July 22, 2026
Cody Bridgewater
Director of Public Works
City of Riverbank
6707 3rd Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
Via email only: [email protected]
Re: Wastewater Generation and Capacity Assessment for Crossroads West Specific Plan Area Dear Cody,
Pursuant to your request, we have developed the enclosed scope of services to document current wastewater flow characteristics from existing development within the Crossroads West Specific Plan (Crossroads) area and to evaluate remaining wastewater capacity in the City’s sewer system, including the sewers in Westgate Drive and the current Phase I Crawford Lift Station and Force Main improvements. This assessment relates to the Crossroads West Specific Plan Development Agreement requirement for certain off-site sewer improvements to be constructed in phases as development proceeds. Phase 1 sewer improvements have been constructed and provide capacity for a portion of the Crossroads development to proceed. In a May 2025 letter request to the City, Benchmark Engineering requested City consideration of an exception to the City’s Improvement Standards related to wastewater flow generation rates and use of a lower wastewater generation rate that would allow additional units to be constructed before triggering the Phase II off-site improvements.

The City considered the exception request and required confirmation of wastewater generation rates from the current level of Crossroads development, as well as confirmation of the available capacity of the existing Phase 1 improvements to serve future Crossroads development. The attached proposed scope of services has been developed based on the existing facilities’ condition and configuration to include:

1. A hydraulic evaluation of the existing sewer trunk system, including the Phase 1 Off-Site Improvements:
a. Measurement (flow monitoring) of the current flow rates. b. Evaluation of the capacity of the system to accommodate additional flows.

2. Wastewater flow and peaking factor validation for the existing occupied residential units to validate actual wastewater generation rates and peaking factors.

3. Overall evaluation of the existing system and quantification of the additional units that can reasonably be accommodated by the existing Phase 1 system before the Phase 2 improvements are triggered.

For this study, KSN will contract with V&A Engineering to conduct the flow monitoring. KSN will evaluate the flow data, existing facilities configuration, and capacity, and will develop a Technical Memorandum summarizing the results and recommendations. We propose to provide these services under our existing February 2022 City Utility Engineering Agreement. Based on the enclosed scope of services, we propose a limiting fee of $39,662, with our estimated level of effort detailed in the attached Task Hours Breakdown.

Cody Bridgewater
City of Riverbank
July 22, 2026

We are prepared to commence this study upon authorization and anticipate delivering draft results within approximately four weeks. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. You may contact me at (209) 946-0268 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
KJELDSEN, SINNOCK & NEUDECK, INC.
____________________________ Neal T. Colwell, RCE 59437 Vice President
Authorization:
____________________________
Cody Bridgewater Date
Director of Public Works
w/enclosures

Wastewater Generation and Capacity
Assessment for
Crossroads West Specific Plan Area
City of Riverbank
Wastewater Generation and Capacity Assessment for
Crossroads West Specific Plan Area
Kjeldsen, Sinnock & Neudeck, Inc. (KSN)
Scope of Services
July 22, 2026
Task 1: Data Collection and Flow Monitoring
KSN and its subconsultant, V&A Engineering, will gather information regarding the existing system for use in developing the capacity assessment, including:

1.1 KSN will obtain existing sewer record documents from the City for use in evaluating the capacity of existing facilities, including the Phase 1 improvements to the Crawford Road Lift Station and force main. Documents anticipated to be available for review include:
• Sanitary sewer improvement drawings for the Crossroads residential subdivisions at the intersection of Oakdale Road and Westgate Drive.
• Sanitary sewer improvement drawings, including the sewer lift station, for the commercial subdivision northwest of the intersection of Oakdale Road and Claribel Road. • Record sewer drawings for the sewer in Westgate Drive. • Record drawings and related design documents for the Crawford Lift Station and force main to Patterson Road.

1.2 Daily flow totals will be obtained from the City for the sanitary sewer lift station that serves the commercial subdivision northwest of the intersection of Oakdale Road and Claribel Road.

1.3 As a subconsultant to KSN, V&A Engineering will conduct two weeks of sanitary sewer flow monitoring at up to four locations in Westgate Drive to measure flows from the existing Crossroads West residential subdivisions and flows entering the Crawford Lift Station. The proposed flow monitoring locations are shown on the attached map. V&A will provide up to two weeks of flow monitoring data for this study.

1.4 KSN will coordinate with the City to collect available information regarding building occupancy within the newly constructed Crossroads West development. Information anticipated to be available includes:
• Dates of initiation of sewer and/or water service.
• Certificates of occupancy to determine active uses.
• Non-residential building characteristics, such as total square footage and use type. • Water use data, if needed.

Wastewater Generation and Capacity
Assessment for
Crossroads West Specific Plan Area
Task Understandings:
− The City will provide KSN relevant background information to facilitate documentation of existing development.
− The study does not include review of facilities capacity downstream of the Phase 1 Crawford Lift Station force main, which terminates at Patterson Road. − Flow monitoring is proposed for July/August, and therefore will not capture wet weather flows.

Task 2: Data Review and Capacity Assessment
Using information obtained under Task 1, KSN will assess current flows and flow characteristics tributary to the Crawford Lift Station and identify current wastewater flow characteristics from existing development within the Crossroads West Specific Plan area. This subtask will include:

1.1 Evaluating data to determine wastewater flow characteristics and generation factors for use in conducting the capacity assessment.

1.2 Evaluating the capacity of the existing sewer systems, including the gravity sanitary sewer in Westgate Drive and the Crawford Lift Station.

1.3 Preparing a Technical Memorandum which includes:
• Summary of background information and data collection and review. • Assessment of current flows and flow characteristics tributary to the Crawford Lift Station.
• Calculation of apparent wastewater generation rates from the current Crossroads West Specific Plan area development, including:
o Current average wastewater flows.
o Per-unit wastewater flows (if data granularity allows). o Peaking factors.
• Assessment of available capacity in existing City sewer system components, including:
o Westgate Drive sewers.
o Crawford Lift Station and Phase 1 force main.
• Identification of the number of additional units that could be accommodated by the subject existing sewer system components before triggering the Phase 2 improvements. • Observations and recommendations.
• Appendices containing data from the field investigation and supporting calculations or model results.

Task Deliverables:
− Capacity Assessment Technical Memorandum in PDF format in draft and final versions.

Task 3: Project Coordination and Management
KSN will coordinate with the City during this study and provide project management and coordination of the team, as follows:

Wastewater Generation and Capacity
Assessment for
Crossroads West Specific Plan Area

3.1 KSN and V&A Engineering will communicate and coordinate with the City during the study, including coordination of the timing for flow monitoring equipment installation, review, and retrieval.

3.2 Following delivery of the draft Technical Memorandum, KSN will meet with City staff to review the draft before finalizing the memorandum.

3.3 We have assumed limited coordination with the Crossroads West Specific Plan developer team, consisting of no more than four engineering hours for review of the report results with the developer team, assistance to the City in communicating the study results, or preparation of Development Agreement amendment language.

Date Prepared: Page 1 of 1
Classification Principal Engineer Engineer II Junior Engineer Tech/GIS/ CAD Designer II Project Coordinator II Rates $307 $220 $171 $150 $110 110% 0.725 110%

PROJECT TASKS

1.0 Data Collection and Flow Monitoring 3 5 28 0 0 36 6,809.00 $ 275 $ 109 $ 17,050 $ 17,434 $ 24,243.00 $

1.1 Obtain and Compile Existing Record Documents 1 8 9 1,588.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 1,588.00 $

1.2 Commercial Development Lift Station Flow Data Collection 1 2 8 11 2,115.00 $275 $109 $0 $384 2,498.75 $

1.3 Gravity Sewer Flow Monitoring (two weeks) 1 4 5 991.00 $0 $0 $17,050 $17,050 18,041.00 $

1.4 Development Occupancy Data Compilation 1 2 8 11 2,115.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 2,115.00 $

2.0 Data Review and Capacity Assessmetn 6 8 42 8 1 65 12,094.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 12,094.00 $

2.1 Wastewater Flow Characteristics Development 1 2 12 15 2,799.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 2,799.00 $

2.2 Existing Sewer Systems Capacity Assessment 1 4 14 19 3,581.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 3,581.00 $

2.3 Assessment Technical Memorandum 4 2 16 8 1 31 5,714.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 5,714.00 $

3.0 Project Coordination and Management 9 0 2 0 2 13 3, $ - 325.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,325.00 $

3.1 Coordination and Communication 4 2 6 1,448.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 1,448.00 $

3.2 Draft Technical Memorandum Review 1 2 3 649.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 649.00 $

3.3 Development Team Communications Support 4 4 1,228.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 1,228.00 $ PROJECT TOTALS 18 13 72 8 3 114 22,228.00 $ 275.00 $ 108.75 $ 17,050.00 $ 17,433.75 $ 39,662.00 $ General Note: This costs allocation represents our best estimate at this time and may change subject to future developments during the project. It is possible that some of the estimated manpower requirements for specific task items may increase while others may not require the entire anticipated effort. Charges to this project will be made for actual time spent on the project and will be charged as per the attached Fee Schedule.

Sub
Consultant Total Budget (Rounded)
Direct
Expense
Mileage
Expense
City of Riverbank
Wastewater Generation and Capacity Assessment for Crossroads West Specific Plan Area Total Labor
Budget

OTHER DIRECT COSTS
Other Direct
Costs Budget

TASK HOURS BREAKDOWN
KJELDSEN, SINNOCK & NEUDECK, INC. STAFF HOURS

TASKS AND DESCRIPTIONS

July 1, 2026 July 1, 2027 July 1, 2028 July 1, 2029 July 1, 2030 Principal Engineer $307.00 $316.00 $325.00 $335.00 $345.00 Associate Engineer $278.00 $286.00 $295.00 $304.00 $313.00 Senior Engineer $243.00 $250.00 $258.00 $266.00 $274.00 Engineer II $220.00 $227.00 $234.00 $241.00 $248.00
Engineer I $209.00 $215.00 $221.00 $228.00 $235.00
Junior Engineer $171.00 $176.00 $181.00 $186.00 $192.00 Senior Surveyor $249.00 $221.00 $228.00 $235.00 $242.00 Surveyor $215.00 $191.00 $197.00 $203.00 $209.00
Assistant Surveyor $180.00 $160.00 $165.00 $170.00 $175.00 Field Crew-One Man & Vehicle $243.00 $216.00 $222.00 $229.00 $236.00 Field Crew-Two Man & Vehicle $372.00 $330.00 $340.00 $350.00 $361.00 Inspector $191.00 $170.00 $175.00 $180.00 $185.00
Inspector & Vehicle $226.00 $201.00 $207.00 $213.00 $219.00 Senior Project Manager $272.00 $280.00 $288.00 $297.00 $306.00 Project Manager $232.00 $239.00 $246.00 $253.00 $261.00 Assistant Project Manager $209.00 $215.00 $221.00 $228.00 $235.00 Grant Manager $180.00 $185.00 $191.00 $197.00 $203.00
GIS Specialist $175.00 $180.00 $185.00 $191.00 $197.00
Technician/GIS/CAD Designer III $171.00 $176.00 $181.00 $186.00 $192.00 Technician/GIS/CAD Designer II $150.00 $155.00 $160.00 $165.00 $170.00 Technician/GIS/CAD Designer I $115.00 $118.00 $122.00 $126.00 $130.00 Project Accountant $163.00 $145.00 $149.00 $153.00 $158.00 Administrative III $127.00 $113.00 $116.00 $119.00 $123.00 Administrative II $110.00 $98.00 $101.00 $104.00 $107.00 Administrative I $93.00 $82.00 $84.00 $87.00 $90.00
Hourly Rate Hourly Rate Hourly Rate Hourly Rate Hourly Rate 3D Print Cloud Work Station $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 GPS Receivers-Per Receiver Per Hour $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Robotic Total Station $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 $35.00 HDS Scanner $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00
Boat $55.00 $55.00 $55.00 $55.00 $55.00
Auto Mileage per current Federal Rates
Special Consultants Cost Plus 10%
Reimbursable Expenses Cost Plus 10%
(Printing, Photos, Copies, Travel,
Telephone, Fax, Survey Materials, etc.)
Hourly rates are subject to review and adjustment July 1st of each year.

KJELDSEN, SINNOCK & NEUDECK, INC.

PREVAILING WAGE FEE SCHEDULE
City of Riverbank On-Call Utility Engineering
Effective July 1, 2026
Position
Equipment
Expenses
Note: Fees are due and payable within 30 days from the date of billing. Fees past due may be subject to a finance charge computed on the basis of 1 1/2% of the unpaid balance per month.

Item 9.4. - CC / LRA – 10/13/2026

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.4.

SECTION : CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: 10/13/2026
Subject: Second Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance Pre-zoning the Approximately 997.18-Acre River Walk Specific Plan Area to Specific Plan No. 5 (SP-5) (Department File No. 20-0026)
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Joshua Mann, Director of Community Development

RECOMMENDATION
Waive the second reading in full and adopt by title only Ordinance No. 2026-___ prezoning the approximately 997.18-acre River Walk Specific Plan Area to Specific Plan No. 5 (SP-5) (Department File No. 20-0026).

SUMMARY
The River Walk Specific Plan is a long-range mixed-use development plan anticipated to build out over approximately 15 to 20 years. The Specific Plan allows no more than 2,682 dwelling units, together with the nonresidential development analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report.

The Project also includes parks, trails, open space, drainage facilities, roadways and public utilities.

On September 22, 2026, following a duly noticed public hearing, public testimony and Council deliberation, the City Council voted 3-2 to approve the Project. The Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopted the related CEQA findings, approved the General Plan Amendment and River Walk Specific Plan, introduced the prezoning and Development Agreement ordinances and authorized submission of the Sphere of Influence, Municipal Services Review and annexation applications to Stanislaus LAFCo.

The prezoning ordinance would designate the approximately 997.18-acre Specific Plan Area as Specific Plan No. 5 (SP-5) and establish the zoning regulations that will apply upon annexation. The ordinance is now before the Council for second reading and final adoption. Adoption of the ordinance does not annex the property or approve subdivision maps, construction plans or building permits.

STRATEGIC PLAN
The Project supports the City's goals related to planned growth, housing, economic development and coordinated infrastructure planning.

BACKGROUND
Government Code section 56375(a)(7) requires territory proposed for annexation to a city to be prezoned unless other specified evidence is provided to LAFCo. Riverbank Municipal Code sections 153.308 and 153.309 require property governed by a specific plan to be placed in a numbered Specific Plan zoning district. The ordinance therefore prezones the River Walk Specific Plan Area to

Item 9.4. - CC / LRA – 10/13/2026
Specific Plan No. 5 (SP-5).

Principal effects of the prezoning ordinance include:
• The River Walk Specific Plan will provide the land-use regulations, development standards, design guidelines and administrative procedures for the SP-5 zoning district. • The SP-5 zoning designation will become operative only upon completion of annexation to the City.
• If LAFCo approves annexation of less than the entire Specific Plan Area, SP-5 will become operative only for the property included in the completed annexation. The remaining property will retain its prezoned status pending future annexation. • Following annexation, the Community Development Director will update the City's Official Zoning Map. For two years after annexation, the City may not approve a General Plan or zoning change for the annexed territory that does not conform to the prezoning, except as allowed by Government Code section 56375(e).
• The Ordinance does not approve a subdivision map, grading plan, improvement plan, site plan, building permit or other subsequent development application.

If adopted, the ordinance will take effect 30 days after final passage. Its zoning provisions will remain inoperative until LAFCo completes annexation of the affected property. Stanislaus LAFCo remains the final decision-making body for the proposed Sphere of Influence amendment and annexation.

Future development will remain subject to the River Walk Specific Plan, applicable City regulations, the Development Agreement, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and all required subsequent approvals.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On September 22, 2026, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the River Walk Specific Plan Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2021060098, and adopted CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The environmental effects of the prezoning were evaluated as part of the Project.

The second reading and adoption of the ordinance do not change the Project or the prezoning previously considered by the Council. No additional environmental review is required.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of the September 22, 2026 public hearing was published in the Riverbank News, posted at City Hall and mailed on August 19, 2026 to property owners within 500 feet of the Project Area and interested parties. No additional public hearing is required for this second reading. The ordinance or a summary will be published in accordance with Government Code section 36933.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The River Walk applicant has fully funded the City's application processing, environmental review, consultant and legal costs through a deposit account and funding agreement. Adoption of the prezoning ordinance does not create a separate immediate General Fund expenditure. Future development will remain subject to applicable fees, financing requirements and infrastructure obligations.

ATTACHMENTS

1. City Council Ordinance No. 2026-___ prezoning the approximately 997.18-acre River Walk Specific Plan Area to Specific Plan No. 5 (SP-5)

Item 9.4. - CC / LRA – 10/13/2026

CC/LRA – 10/13/2026
CC Ordinance No. 2026-___

CITY OF RIVERBANK
ORDINANCE NO. 2026- __

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK, CALIFORNIA PREZONING THE APPROXIMATELY 997.18-ACRE RIVER WALK SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5 (SP-5)
(DEPARTMENT FILE NO. 20-0026)
WHEREAS, the River Walk Specific Plan Project (Department File No. 20-0026) includes an approximately 997.18-acre Specific Plan Area located in unincorporated Stanislaus County adjacent to the City of Riverbank. The Specific Plan Area is generally located north of Patterson Road/State Route 108, east of McHenry Avenue and south of the Stanislaus River; and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan Area is outside the Riverbank city limits and is proposed for annexation to the City through proceedings before the Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo); and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 56375(a)(7) requires, as a condition of annexation, that a city prezone territory proposed for annexation or provide other evidence satisfactory to LAFCo that existing development entitlements are vested or built out and consistent with the city's general plan; and WHEREAS, Riverbank Municipal Code sections 153.308 and 153.309 require an area governed by a specific plan to be zoned Specific Plan (SP) and assigned a number that distinguishes it from other specific plan areas. Accordingly, the River Walk Specific Plan Area would be designated Specific Plan No. 5 (SP-5); and WHEREAS, the SP-5 zoning designation would implement the River Walk Specific Plan by making the land uses, development standards, design guidelines and administrative procedures contained in the Specific Plan applicable to future development within the Specific Plan Area; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed special public hearing to consider the River Walk Specific Plan Project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment, River Walk Specific Plan and prezoning of the Specific Plan Area. After receiving staff and applicant presentations, public testimony and other evidence submitted into the record, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend denial of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report for the River Walk Specific Plan Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2021060098, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines; and

CC/LRA – 10/13/2026
CC Ordinance No. 2026-___
WHEREAS, before approving this Ordinance, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-_____ certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopting CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, before or concurrently with approving this Ordinance, the City Council approved the General Plan Amendment and adopted the River Walk Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, notice of the September 22, 2026 City Council public hearing was published in the Riverbank News, posted at City Hall and mailed on August 19, 2026 to property owners within 500 feet of the Project Area and interested parties in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at which it received and considered the staff report, the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Final Environmental Impact Report, the General Plan Amendment, the River Walk Specific Plan, the proposed prezoning, public and agency testimony and all other evidence in the administrative record; and WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the proposed prezoning and the entire administrative record and has determined that the Specific Plan Area should be prezoned SP-5 based on the findings in this Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The City Council of the City of Riverbank, California does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS
Based on the entire administrative record, the City Council finds as follows:

A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into this Ordinance by reference.

B. The City Council has considered the Planning Commission's recommendation and, based on the entire record and the findings in this Ordinance, determines that the proposed prezoning should be approved.

C. The prezoning is consistent with the Riverbank General Plan, as amended, and implements the land-use and circulation framework established by the River Walk Specific Plan.

D. The prezoning facilitates orderly annexation and development by establishing the zoning regulations that will apply to the Specific Plan Area upon annexation.

E. The SP-5 zoning designation is consistent with the River Walk Specific Plan because it requires future development within the Specific Plan Area to comply with the land uses, development standards, design guidelines and administrative procedures contained in the Specific Plan.

CC/LRA – 10/13/2026
CC Ordinance No. 2026-___
F. The potential environmental effects of the prezoning were evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Report. All applicable mitigation measures shall be implemented and enforced in accordance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

G. The prezoning is in the public interest and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.

SECTION 2. PREZONING APPROVAL
The approximately 997.18-acre River Walk Specific Plan Area shown on the prezoning map attached as Exhibit A and incorporated into this Ordinance by reference is hereby prezoned Specific Plan No. 5 (SP-5).

The River Walk Specific Plan, as adopted by the City Council, shall constitute the governing land-use regulations, development standards, design guidelines and administrative procedures for property within the SP-5 zoning district. Nothing in this Ordinance authorizes development exceeding the cumulative residential or nonresidential limits established by the River Walk Specific Plan and analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report.

SECTION 3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
The Official Zoning Map of the City of Riverbank is hereby amended to identify the River Walk Specific Plan Area as Specific Plan No. 5 (SP-5), as shown in Exhibit A.

The Community Development Director is authorized and directed to update the Official Zoning Map to reflect the SP-5 designation following annexation of the affected property.

SECTION 4. EFFECT OF ANNEXATION
This Ordinance establishes the prezoning required for the proposed annexation.

The SP-5 zoning designation shall become operative for property within the Specific Plan Area only upon completion of annexation of that property to the City of Riverbank.

If LAFCo approves annexation of less than the entire Specific Plan Area, the SP-5 zoning designation shall become operative only for the property included within the completed annexation. Property not included in the completed annexation shall retain its prezoned status pending any subsequent annexation.

For two years after completion of annexation, the City may not make a change to the General Plan or zoning for the annexed territory that does not conform to this prezoning, except in accordance with Government Code section 56375(e).

SECTION 5. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS
Adoption of this Ordinance does not approve any tentative subdivision map, final map, improvement plan, grading plan, architectural and site plan review, conditional use

CC/LRA – 10/13/2026
CC Ordinance No. 2026-___
permit, building permit or other subsequent development application. Future development within the SP-5 zoning district shall comply with the River Walk Specific Plan, applicable provisions of the Riverbank Municipal Code, the Development Agreement, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and all other applicable requirements.

SECTION 6. CEQA COMPLIANCE
Before approving this Ordinance, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopted CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the River Walk Specific Plan Project. The documents and other materials constituting the administrative record for the City's environmental review are maintained by the City Clerk and are available for public review at the City of Riverbank, 6707 Third Street, Riverbank, California 95367.

SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, that 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, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase and portion thereof regardless of the fact that any one or more portions are declared invalid.

SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION
This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its final passage and adoption pursuant to Government Code section 36937. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance or a summary thereof to be published in accordance with Government Code section 36933. The operative effect of the SP-5 zoning designation remains subject to Section 4 of this Ordinance.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of September, 2026; motioned by Councilmember ______, seconded by Councilmember ______, and upon roll call was carried by the following vote of ___:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
Gabriela Hernandez, CMC Rachel Hernandez

CC/LRA – 10/13/2026
CC Ordinance No. 2026-___
City Clerk Mayor
Attachments:

Exhibit A – Pre-Zone to Specific Plan No. 5 (SP-5)

Mc Henry Av
Burwoo
R
Burwood Ln
Patterson Rd
Skittone Rd
Mc Henry Ave
Stewart Rd
Hartle y Dr
Patterson Rd
Coffee Rd
Ladd Rd
Hogue Rd

RIVERWALK SPECIFIC PLAN
Exhibit A:

Pre-Zone to Specific Plan 5
Legend
Project Area
Specific Plan Area
City of Riverbank
Proposed Zoning Designation
Mixed Use (CX-1)
Single Family Residential (R-1)
Specific Plan Area
Unassigned
Sources: Stanislaus County GIS. Map date: June 15, 2022. q 01 500 ,000
Feet
Sta nisl aus River
S at nislaus Cou nty
San Joaquin County
River Rd

Item 9.5. - CC / LRA – 10/13/2026

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.5.

SECTION : CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: 10/13/2026
Subject: Second Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance Approving and Authorizing Execution of a Development Agreement Between the City of Riverbank and River Walk, LLC for the River Walk Specific Plan Project (Department File No. 20-0026)
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Joshua Mann, Director of Community Development

RECOMMENDATION
Waive the second reading in full and adopt by title only Ordinance No. 2026-___ approving and authorizing execution of a Development Agreement between the City of Riverbank and River Walk, LLC for the River Walk Specific Plan Project (Department File No. 20-0026).

SUMMARY
The River Walk Specific Plan is a long-range mixed-use development plan anticipated to build out over approximately 15 to 20 years. The Specific Plan allows no more than 2,682 dwelling units, together with the nonresidential development analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report.

The Project also includes parks, trails, open space, drainage facilities, roadways and public utilities.

On September 22, 2026, following a duly noticed public hearing, public testimony and Council deliberation, the City Council voted 3-2 to approve the Project. The Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopted the related CEQA findings, approved the General Plan Amendment and River Walk Specific Plan, introduced the prezoning and Development Agreement ordinances and authorized submission of the Sphere of Influence, Municipal Services Review and annexation applications to Stanislaus LAFCo.

The Development Agreement establishes the contractual framework for phased development of approximately 769 gross acres controlled by River Walk, LLC within the approximately 997.18-acre Specific Plan Area. The ordinance is now before the Council for second reading and final adoption.

Adoption of the ordinance does not annex the property or approve subdivision maps, construction plans or building permits.

STRATEGIC PLAN
The Project supports the City's goals related to planned growth, housing, economic development and coordinated infrastructure planning.

BACKGROUND
The Development Agreement establishes the rights and obligations that will apply to development of the affected property. The initial term is 20 years. The City may approve five-year extensions when

Item 9.5. - CC / LRA – 10/13/2026
the conditions in the Agreement are satisfied, subject to a maximum cumulative term of 35 years. If annexation of the property, or any portion of it, is not completed within five years of the Agreement's effective date, the Agreement becomes null and void, subject to the litigation-tolling provision.

Principal provisions of the Development Agreement include:
• A comprehensive infrastructure phasing plan must be accepted as complete before the City is required to process a tentative subdivision map or parcel map within the Specific Plan Area. • The Developer is responsible for identified backbone infrastructure, applicable impact and capacity fees, service and maintenance financing, public benefit fees and the City's ongoing Project processing and administration costs.
• The City is not required to use its General Fund or bonding capacity to construct or extend Project infrastructure or complete Project improvements. • The Agreement does not approve a subdivision map, grading plan, improvement plan, site plan, building permit or other subsequent development application. • The City will conduct an annual review of the Developer's good-faith compliance with the Agreement.

Once adopted, the ordinance will take effect 30 days after final passage. After the ordinance becomes effective and the parties execute the Agreement, the City Clerk will record the Agreement with the Stanislaus County Recorder. Approval of the Agreement does not complete annexation.

Stanislaus LAFCo remains the final decision-making body for the proposed Sphere of Influence amendment and annexation, and development may proceed only after annexation and receipt of all required subsequent approvals.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On September 22, 2026, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the River Walk Specific Plan Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2021060098, and adopted CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The environmental effects of the Development Agreement were evaluated as part of the Project. The second reading and adoption of the ordinance do not change the Project or the Development Agreement previously considered by the Council. No additional environmental review is required.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of the September 22, 2026 public hearing was published in the Riverbank News, posted at City Hall and mailed on August 19, 2026 to property owners within 500 feet of the Project Area and interested parties. No additional public hearing is required for this second reading. The ordinance or a summary will be published in accordance with Government Code section 36933.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
River Walk, LLC has fully funded the City's application processing, environmental review, consultant and legal costs through a deposit account and funding agreement. The Development Agreement requires reimbursement of the City's ongoing costs to process, administer and implement the Project.

It also provides that the City is not required to use its General Fund or bonding capacity for Project infrastructure. Adoption of the ordinance does not create a separate immediate General Fund expenditure.

ATTACHMENTS

Item 9.5. - CC / LRA – 10/13/2026

1. City Council Ordinance No. 2026-___ approving and authorizing execution of the Development Agreement between the City of Riverbank and River Walk, LLC

CC/LRA – 10/13/2026
CC Ordinance No. 2026-___

CITY OF RIVERBANK
ORDINANCE NO. 2026- __

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK,

CALIFORNIA APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RIVERBANK AND RIVER WALK, LLC FOR

THE RIVER WALK SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
(DEPARTMENT FILE NO. 20-0026)
WHEREAS, the River Walk Specific Plan Project (Department File No. 20-0026) includes an approximately 997.18-acre Specific Plan Area located in unincorporated Stanislaus County adjacent to the City of Riverbank. The Specific Plan Area is generally located north of Patterson Road/State Route 108, east of McHenry Avenue and south of the Stanislaus River; and
WHEREAS, River Walk, LLC represents that it holds legal title to or an equitable interest in approximately 769 gross acres within the Specific Plan Area, as more particularly described in the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, Government Code sections 65864 through 65869.5 authorize a city to enter into a development agreement with a person having a legal or equitable interest in real property. A development agreement is a legislative act that must be approved by ordinance and may not be approved unless its provisions are consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan; and
WHEREAS, the City and River Walk, LLC have negotiated a Development Agreement that establishes the rights and obligations governing development of the affected property. The Agreement has an initial term of 20 years and allows discretionary five-year extensions, subject to the conditions stated in the Agreement, for a cumulative term not to exceed 35 years; and
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement requires a comprehensive infrastructure phasing plan before the City is required to process a tentative subdivision map or parcel map within the Specific Plan Area. It also addresses backbone infrastructure, impact and capacity fees, service and maintenance financing, public benefit fees, annual compliance review and other implementation obligations; and WHEREAS, the Development Agreement provides that the City is not required to use its General Fund or bonding capacity to construct or extend Project infrastructure or complete Project improvements; and
WHEREAS, River Walk, LLC has fully funded the City's application processing and environmental review, including consultant and legal review costs, through a deposit account and funding agreement. The Development Agreement requires reimbursement of the City's ongoing costs to process, administer and implement the Project; and

CC/LRA – 10/13/2026
CC Ordinance No. 2026-___
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement does not approve a tentative subdivision map, final map, grading plan, improvement plan, architectural or site plan, building permit or other subsequent development application. Later discretionary approvals remain subject to City review, applicable conditions, required public hearings and any further environmental review required by law; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed special public hearing at which it received and considered the staff report, the proposed Development Agreement, the River Walk Specific Plan, the proposed General Plan Amendment and prezoning, the Final Environmental Impact Report, the proposed LAFCo applications, staff and applicant presentations, public testimony and all other evidence submitted into the record. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend denial of the River Walk Project; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report for the River Walk Specific Plan Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2021060098, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, before approving this Ordinance, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-___ certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopting CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, before or concurrently with approving this Ordinance, the City Council approved the General Plan Amendment and adopted the River Walk Specific Plan. The City Council also introduced an ordinance prezoning the Specific Plan Area and authorized the filing of applications with the Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission for a Sphere of Influence amendment and annexation; and WHEREAS, notice of the September 22, 2026 City Council public hearing was published in the Riverbank News, posted at City Hall and mailed on August 19, 2026 to property owners within 500 feet of the Project Area and interested parties in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at which it received and considered the staff report, the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Development Agreement, the Final Environmental Impact Report, staff and applicant presentations, public and agency testimony and all other evidence in the administrative record; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Development Agreement and the entire administrative record and has determined that the Development Agreement should be approved based on the findings in this Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The City Council of the City of Riverbank, California does ordain as follows:

CC/LRA – 10/13/2026
CC Ordinance No. 2026-___
SECTION 1. FINDINGS
Based on the entire administrative record, the City Council finds as follows:

A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into this Ordinance by reference.

B. The City Council has considered the Planning Commission's 4-1 recommendation to deny the River Walk Project and, based on its independent review of the entire record and the findings in this Ordinance, determines that the Development Agreement should be approved.

C. The Development Agreement is consistent with the Riverbank General Plan, as amended, and the River Walk Specific Plan as required by Government Code section 65867.5.

D. The Development Agreement is compatible with the land uses, density and development standards authorized by the River Walk Specific Plan and the applicable zoning for the affected property.

E. The Development Agreement provides for orderly, phased development and identifies obligations related to infrastructure, public services, financing, fees, parks, trails, open space and community amenities.

F. The benefits identified in the Development Agreement, including housing, mixeduse development, public improvements, community amenities and Projectfunded processing and implementation costs, provide sufficient public benefit to support approval of the Agreement.

G. The Development Agreement provides that each tentative map prepared for a subdivision within the Project shall comply with Government Code section 66473.7, including the applicable water supply verification requirements.

H. The Development Agreement contains an adequate legal description of the affected property and includes the provisions required by Government Code sections 65864 through 65869.5.

I. The environmental effects of the Development Agreement were evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Report. All applicable mitigation measures shall be implemented and enforced in accordance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

J. Approval of the Development Agreement is in the public interest and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.

SECTION 2. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement between the City of Riverbank and River Walk, LLC, including its agreement exhibits, attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit A and incorporated into this Ordinance by reference.

CC/LRA – 10/13/2026
CC Ordinance No. 2026-___
SECTION 3. AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE
The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the Development Agreement on behalf of the City after the effective date of this Ordinance and after approval as to form by the City Attorney. The City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, may approve nonsubstantive corrections and conforming revisions that do not materially change the rights or obligations of the parties.

SECTION 4. EFFECT AND LIMITATIONS
The Development Agreement shall become effective as provided in the Agreement and shall not become effective before this Ordinance takes effect.

Approval of the Development Agreement does not annex the affected property to the City. The Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission remains the final decision-making body for the proposed Sphere of Influence amendment and annexation. Development may proceed only after completion of the applicable annexation and receipt of all required subsequent approvals.

Nothing in this Ordinance approves a tentative subdivision map, final map, grading plan, improvement plan, architectural or site plan, conditional use permit, building permit or other subsequent development application. Nothing in this Ordinance authorizes development exceeding the cumulative residential or nonresidential limits established by the River Walk Specific Plan and analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report.

SECTION 5. ADMINISTRATION AND ANNUAL REVIEW
The City Manager or designee is authorized to administer the Development Agreement in accordance with its terms. The City shall review good faith compliance with the Development Agreement at least once every 12 months during its term as required by Government Code section 65865.1 and the Agreement.

SECTION 6. RECORDATION
After the parties execute the Development Agreement, the City Clerk shall cause the Agreement to be recorded with the Stanislaus County Recorder in accordance with Government Code section 65868.5 and the terms of the Agreement.

SECTION 7. CEQA COMPLIANCE
Before approving this Ordinance, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopted CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the River Walk Specific Plan Project. Those documents and the supporting administrative record are incorporated into this Ordinance by reference. The documents and other materials constituting the record of proceedings are maintained by the City Clerk and are available for public review at the City of Riverbank, 6707 Third Street, Riverbank, California 95367.

CC/LRA – 10/13/2026
CC Ordinance No. 2026-___
SECTION 8. SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, that 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, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase and portion thereof regardless of the fact that any one or more portions are declared invalid.

SECTION 9. EFFECTIVE DATE, REFERENDUM AND PUBLICATION
This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its final passage and adoption pursuant to Government Code section 36937. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance or a summary thereof to be published in accordance with Government Code section 36933.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of September, 2026; motioned by Councilmember ______, seconded by Councilmember ______, and upon roll call was carried by the following vote of ___:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
Gabriela Hernandez, CMC Rachel Hernandez
City Clerk Mayor
Attachments:

Exhibit A – Development Agreement between the City of Riverbank & River Walk, LLC, including Agreement Exhibits A through J (attached separately)

EXHIBIT A

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF RIVERBANK
&

RIVER WALK, LLC

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Document entitled to free recording
Government Code Section 6103

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Riverbank
6707 Third Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
Attn: City Clerk
Ph: (209) 863-7122
Space Above This Line Reserved for Recorder’s Use.

Exempt from Recording Fee. (Government Code
sections 6103 and 27383)

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF RIVERBANK
AND

RIVER WALK, LLC

THE RIVER WALK PROJECT
Adopted by City Council Ordinance No. , on
_________________

River Walk Development Agreement

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

RIVER WALK SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between River Walk, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Developer”), and the City of Riverbank, a California municipal corporation (“City”), as of ____________________________, 2026 (the “Effective Date”). City and Developer may be referred to herein individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties.” There are no other parties to this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. Authorization. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted Government Code Section 65864, et seq. (the "Development Agreement Statute"), which authorizes the City and any person having a legal or equitable interest in the real property to enter into a development agreement, establishing certain development rights in the property which is the subject of the development project application. As the Legislature found at the time, “[a]ssurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development.” (Gov. Code, § 65864(b).) As the courts have observed, a development agreement “allows a city or county to freeze zoning and other land use regulation applicable to specified property to guarantee that a developer will not be affected by changes in the standards for government approval during the period of development.” (Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo County (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 221, 226–227, citing City of West Hollywood v. Beverly Towers, Inc. (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1184, 1193, fn. 6, and Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Albany (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1213.) B. Housing Crisis. In recent years, the Legislature has also emphasized the importance of facilitating the development of new housing. “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(a)(2)(A).) “California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the state’s housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing.” (Id., § 65589.5(a)(1)(C).) “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against lowincome and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.” (Id., § 65589.5(a)(l)(B).)
C. Property. Developer represents that, upon approval of this Agreement, it has legal title to or an equitable interest (i.e., contractual acquisition right) in that certain real property located on the north side of Patterson Road, south of the Stanislaus River, and east of McHenry Boulevard, consisting of approximately 769 gross acres, located in the County of Stanislaus, State of California and, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated

River Walk Development Agreement

herein (the "Property"). Developer represents that all persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property shall be bound by this Agreement.

D. Project. The Property is located within that certain specific plan area consisting of approximately 997 gross acres known as the Specific Plan, an area for which the City will apply for reorganization (“Annexation”) to Stanislaus County LAFCO (“LAFCO”) pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Gov. Code § 56000 et seq.), with such approval to be effective upon LAFCO’s recordation of a certificate of completion.

Development of the River Walk Specific Plan pursuant to this Agreement and all such other entitlements contained herein shall be referred to as the “Project.” The Project also includes a Sphere of Influence amendment (the “SOI Amendment”) of approximately 1,522 acres and which includes the entire area of the River Walk Specific Plan. A copy of the Project’s Proposed Specific Plan Conceptual Land Use Diagram is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

E. Project Approvals. Numerous actions must be taken by the City in connection with the Project for the Project to proceed, which include, but are not limited to, the following, as may be modified or amended from time to time as provided for in this Agreement (collectively, the “Project Approvals”).

1. Planning Commission. On ______________________, Planning Commission for the City of Riverbank (“Planning Commission”) adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. _______________________, recommending that the City Council for the City of Riverbank (“City Council”) certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project. The Planning Commission further recommended that the City Council approve the following for the Project: (1) Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. _____________), (2) The Specific Plan (the “Specific Plan”) (Resolution No. _____________), (3) Pre-Zoning (Resolution No. _________________); (4) a request for SOI Amendment and annexation (Resolution No. _____________); and (5) this Agreement (Resolution No. _________________).

2. Certified Final Environmental Impact Report. On
______________________, the City Council adopted Resolution No. _____________, certifying as adequate and complete, the Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (SCH #: 2021060098) for the Project. Mitigation measures as contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (“MMRP”) have been established to reduce the levels of identified impacts to less than significant, with the exception of those that remain significant and unavoidable. The City Council also considered and adopted Resolution No. _____________, granting a Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to these potentially significant impacts. The mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project and into the terms and conditions of this Agreement, as reflected by the findings adopted by the City Council concurrently with this Agreement. As that document explained, it provided “project-level” analysis for some portions of the Project area and “program-level” analysis for other areas. In particular, “the component of the proposed Project that includes a Specific Plan includes a very high level of design detail for that portion of the proposed Project. To the extent that sufficient detail is available in the Specific Plan, a full projectlevel analysis is provided in this EIR.” (Draft EIR, p. 1.0-2.) No further formal environmental documentation is anticipated through the buildout of the Specific Plan portion of the Project. The EIR goes on to explain that “[s]ubsequent individual development that requires further discretionary approvals will be examined in light of this EIR to determine whether additional environmental documentation must be prepared.” (Id.)

River Walk Development Agreement

3. Specific Plan. On ______________________, the City Council adopted Resolution No. _____________, approving the Specific Plan.

4. Prezoning. On ______________________, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. _____________, approving the pre-zoning for the Specific Plan area.

5. Annexation and SOI Amendment. On ______________________, the City Council adopted Resolution No. _____________, authorizing the filing of an application, or applications, with the Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”), for modification of the City’s Sphere of Influence (“SOI”), and annexation of the Specific Plan area.

6. Development Agreement. On ______________________, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. _________________, approving this Agreement.

F. Need for Services and Facilities. Development of the Property will result in a need for municipal services and facilities, some of which services and facilities will be provided by the City to the Project subject to the performance of Developer’s obligations hereunder. In entering into this Agreement, the Parties acknowledge that this Agreement and the Project Approvals shall be the primary instrument whereby the timing, phasing, and construction of the entirety of the major infrastructure improvements and all other terms and conditions pertinent thereto shall be set forth and agreed to by the Parties. In exchange for these benefits to City, together with the public benefits provided by the development of the Project pursuant to this Agreement and the Project Approvals, Developer desires to receive the vested right that it may proceed with development of the Project in accordance with applicable laws in effect as of the Approval Date, and the Project Approvals, including without limitation, the existing Project Approvals and Subsequent Approvals. The Parties intend that, except as qualified in Article 4 below, this vested right would protect Developer against future actions of the City, including the City’s electorate through mechanisms such as initiative and referenda, to modify the operative General Plan and zoning designations, subdivision standards and criteria, including design standards, and other laws, ordinances, resolutions, initiatives, rules, regulations, or other measures described in more detail in Article 4 below, in a manner that reduces the permitted density and intensity of use authorized by the operative General Plan and zoning designations, subdivision standards and criteria, including design standards, laws, ordinances, resolutions, initiatives, rules, regulations, or other measures in place and in effect at the time of the approval of this Agreement.

G. Intent of the Parties; Benefit to Public Health, Safety, and Welfare. The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement relating to the Property in conformance with the applicable provisions of state and local law in order to achieve development of the Project in accordance with the Project Approvals, City ordinances and resolutions, the City Code, and the Zoning Code, which together assure the health, safety, and general welfare of the City and its existing residents.

In addition, the Parties want to provide clear public benefits not usually obtained through the land development approval process and to achieve the development permitted under this Agreement and the provision of public services, public uses, and infrastructure all in the promotion of the health, safety, and general welfare of the City. City has determined that as a result of the development of the Property in accordance with the Project Approvals, including this Agreement, clear public benefits will accrue to the City and its residents that may not otherwise be obtained to the same extent through applicable development approval processes.

River Walk Development Agreement

H. Contribution to Costs of Facilities and Services. Developer agrees to contribute to the costs of such public facilities and services as may be required herein to mitigate impacts on the community resulting from the development of the Property, and City agrees to provide such public facilities and services, as required under its municipal responsibilities, as may be required herein to assure that Developer may proceed with and complete development of the Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. City and Developer recognize and agree that, but for Developer’s contributions to mitigate the impacts arising from the development entitlements granted pursuant to this Agreement, City would not and could not approve the development of the Property as provided by this Agreement and that, but for City's covenant to provide certain facilities and services for development of the Property, Developer would not and could not commit to provide the mitigation as provided by this Agreement. City's vesting of the right to develop the Property as provided herein is reliant upon and in consideration of Developer’s agreement to make contributions toward the cost of public improvements as herein provided to mitigate the impacts of development of the Property as development occurs.

I. Development Agreement. City and Developer have taken all actions mandated by, and fulfilled all requirements set forth in the Development Agreement Statute establishing procedures for consideration of Development Agreements.

J. Intent of the Parties: Application of Development Agreement. In order to achieve the level of certainty needed to justify the major investments that Developer must make to finance and build the key backbone infrastructure needed for the Project, the City has agreed to extend the vesting of development rights under the Agreement even to properties not subject to the control or ownership of Developer, provided such properties join this Agreement or execute a separate development agreement with City. Without such broad vesting, development as contemplated by the Specific Plan, with all of its necessary infrastructure, would not be financially feasible. By law, “Specific plans are required … to identify proposed major components of infrastructure needed to support planned land uses.” (The Planner’s Guide to Specific Plans (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2001) (“Planner’s Guide”), p. 6, italics added.) Among the required contents of any Specific Plan are text and diagrams specifying all of the following: “[t]he proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan”; and “[a] program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures[.]” (Gov. Code, §§ 65451(a)(2), (a)(4).) A key goal for a Specific Plan is to size the infrastructure so that it is sufficient to serve the new development while functioning within a larger planning framework created by the local General Plan. “A specific plan may be used to implement the policies of an optional economic development element of a general plan. Policies of the general plan which are specific to financing infrastructure improvements and extensions, or cost recovery programs may be implemented by matching land uses with supporting public facilities. This is done to assist development engineering departments and developers avoid ineffective or undersized streets, sewers, water lines, and other necessary improvements. In addition, it may directly impose exactions in association with the general plan’s capitol improvement policies.” (Planner’s Guide, p. 4.) Here, Developer’s burden to finance and build key infrastructure to support the entire Specific Plan area requires that all of the land uses authorized by the Specific Plan will be fully vested. An internal patchwork within the Specific Plan by which certain land uses in certain areas are fully vested while others are not vested would be totally unworkable. Such an approach would thwart the City’s policy objective of facilitating the development of large numbers of new housing

River Walk Development Agreement

units in furtherance of State policies intended to create such housing. The legal requirement that Specific Plans provide for the financing and construction of all needed infrastructure is commendable public policy, but it imposes very substantial burdens on the entrepreneurs who assume the primary responsibility for obtaining the regulatory approvals, engineering plans, and on-the-ground physical improvements needed to set the stage for constructing new development, including housing. Here, Developer is the primary actor facilitating development within the Specific Plan.

K. Consistency with General Plan and State Law. City has determined that development of the Project, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, is consistent with the City of Riverbank’s General Plan and Government Code Section 65867.5, and that the City has conducted all necessary proceedings in accordance with City and state rules and regulations. Development of the subject Property pursuant to the Project Approvals, the Specific Plan, as applicable to the Project and as set forth in Subsequent City Approvals and conditions of approval, will provide for orderly growth and development consistent with City’s General Plan, and other applicable development policies and programs of City.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties do hereby agree as follows:

AGREEMENT
ARTICLE 1

GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1.1. Effective Date of Development Agreement. The effective date of this Agreement ("Effective Date") is ______________, which is the effective date of City Ordinance No. _________________, approving this Agreement. If annexation of the Property (or any portion thereof) is not completed within five (5) years of the Effective Date, then this Agreement shall become null and void. The tolling period for any legal challenge, as set forth in Section 2.3 of this Agreement, shall apply to and extend such five-year period for the duration of the legal challenge.

Section 1.2. Recitals. The Recitals above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between the Recitals and the provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail.

Section 1.3. Exhibits. The following (“Exhibits”) are attached hereto and incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement:

Designation Description
Exhibit A Legal Description of River Walk Property
Exhibit B Proposed Specific Plan Conceptual Land Use Diagram Exhibit C Development Phasing Plan
Exhibit D Water Supply Plan
Exhibit E Wastewater Collection Plan
Exhibit F Wastewater River Crossing

River Walk Development Agreement

Exhibit G Storm Drainage Plan
Exhibit H Park Plan
Exhibit I Sample Disclosure Form
Exhibit J Assignment & Assumption Form
Section 1.4. Project is a Private Undertaking. It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and Developer, and that Developer is not an agent of City. City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making City and Developer joint venturers or partners.

Section 1.5. Project Subject to Municipal Code and Policies. Various provisions of the City’s Municipal Code and numerous development policies, regulations, standards, and specifications have been adopted by City that affect the development of the Project (collectively, “Municipal Code and Policies”). Development of the Project shall be subject to the Municipal Code and Policies that are in effect Citywide during development of the Project. The Municipal Code and Policies shall be applied and construed consistent with the purpose of this Agreement.

Amendments to the Municipal Code and Policies after the Effective Date may only apply to the Project if they are: (a) not in conflict with the terms of this Agreement and they would not unduly increase the cost of, delay, or prevent, the development of the Project, or (b) are expressly authorized by this Agreement or mutually agreed to by the Parties in signed writing.

Section 1.6. Covenant Running with the Land. Developer represents that it has a legal or equitable interest in the Property, as identified in Exhibit A. This Agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the land, and the burdens and benefits of this Agreement shall bind and inure to all successors-in-interest to Developer, until such time that the Agreement terminates.

Section 1.7. Recordation of Development Agreement. City shall cause a copy of this Agreement to be recorded against the title to the Property subject to this Agreement within ten (10) business days of the Effective Date. City shall deliver a recorded copy of the Agreement to Developer following recordation of the Agreement.

Section 1.8. Priority of Enactment. In the event of conflict in interpreting between the various land use documents that govern development and use of the Property, the Parties agree that the following sequence of approvals establishes the relative priority of the approvals, each approval superior to the approvals listed thereafter: (1) This Agreement; (2) the Specific Plan; (3) Project Approvals (not including the foregoing); and (4) the Municipal Code and Policies.

Section 1.9. Agreement Costs/Ongoing Project Administration. Developer agrees to reimburse City for all necessary expenses incurred by City related to preparation of this Agreement, including recording fees, publishing fees, legal fees, staff time, and consultant fees and costs not otherwise included in Developer’s application fees or deposit/funding agreement for the Project. Payments under this Section shall be due and payable within thirty (30) calendar days of presentation from City to Developer of a written statement of charges. At any time, Developer may request that City issue an accounting of costs and expenses paid. Developer shall further be obligated to pay all ongoing costs and expenses of City staff, the City Attorney, and consultants of City required to process, administer, and implement the Project throughout the

River Walk Development Agreement

life of the Project. City shall send Developer periodic invoices for reimbursement of the charges incurred for such administration of the Project. Developer’s failure to pay the costs required hereunder shall be cause for City to not process applications, issue building permits or occupancy certificates, and schedule public hearings required for subsequent Project applications or approvals.

ARTICLE 2

TERM AND TERMINATION
Section 2.1. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and extend for a period of twenty (20) years (“Term”). Upon written request by the Developer, the City may, in its reasonable discretion, approve one or more extensions of the Term for additional five (5) year periods, provided that as of the date of each such extension: (a) Developer is not in material default under the Agreement; and (b) Developer has completed, and obtained City acceptance, of at least Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000) in new qualifying public infrastructure during the immediately preceding 5-year extension period, as documented by Developer and verified by City. “Qualifying public infrastructure” shall refer to the major improvements required for development of the Specific Plan as described in this Agreement and shall not include in-tract improvements. In no event will the cumulative Term go beyond thirty-five (35) years. Following the expiration of the Term, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force or effect. At all times during the life and development of the Project, Developer shall be required to have an effective Development Agreement with City.

Section 2.2. Term for Project Maps. Pursuant to California Government Code section 66452.6(a), City will automatically extend the term of any parcel map or tentative subdivision map subject to this Agreement for the Term of this Agreement.

Section 2.3. Legal Challenge Tolling. In the event that this Agreement or any of the Project Approvals are the subject of legal challenge or any subsequent approvals or permits required to implement the Project Approvals are subjected to legal challenge by a third party, the terms, timing of obligations imposed, and the requirement to perform any obligations pursuant to this Agreement shall be tolled during the pendency of the litigation, deemed to commence upon service of lawsuit on the City. The tolling shall terminate upon the earlier of the two following dates:
(1) the date of entry of a final order or judgment upholding this Agreement, the Project Approvals, or the challenged approvals with no further appeals remaining, or (2) the date of entry of dismissal of the litigation pursuant to stipulation of the Parties. In the event a court enjoins either City or Developer from taking actions with regard to the Project as a result of such litigation that would preclude either or any of them from enjoying the benefits of this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall be automatically tolled during the period of time such injunction or restraining order is in effect. Similarly, if Developer is unable to develop the Project due to a development moratoria for a health or safety reason unrelated to the performance of Developer’s obligations hereunder, the Term of this Agreement and timing for obligations imposed pursuant to this Agreement shall, upon written request of Developer, be extended and tolled for the period of time that such moratoria prevents development of the Project.

Section 2.4. Termination Upon Completion and Sale of Lots/Parcels. This Agreement shall be considered terminated with respect to any lot designated by the Project Approvals upon (a) completion of construction of all required improvements to serve the lot, (b) issuance by City of a final occupancy permit, (c) conveyance of such improved lot by Developer to a bona-fide goodPage 280 of 384 River Walk Development Agreement

faith purchaser thereof, and (d) all fees and charges owed to City pertaining to applicable lot(s) are paid. In connection with its issuance of a final inspection and occupancy for such improved lot, City shall confirm the foregoing conditions are satisfied and that all improvements, which are required to serve the lot, as determined by City, have been installed and accepted by City.

Termination of this Agreement for any such lot or parcel, as provided for in this Section shall in no way be construed to terminate or modify any assessment district, services or maintenance district, Mello-Roos Community Facilities District lien, area of benefit obligation, or such other continuing obligation affecting such lot at the time of termination. The Parties shall use commercially reasonable efforts to record a notice of termination, in a form agreed to by the Parties, on all parcels which have satisfied all obligations under this Agreement.

Section 2.5. Survival After Termination. The rights and obligations of the Parties set forth in the terms and conditions of this Agreement, which by their express terms or nature and context are intended to survive termination of this Agreement, will survive any such termination under this Article.

ARTICLE 3

SUBSEQUENT APPROVALS
Section 3.1. Subsequent City Approvals. Development of the Project will require Developer to obtain additional approvals and permits from City, in addition to the Project Approvals (collectively, the “Subsequent Approvals”). Subsequent Approvals may include, without limitation, tentative subdivision maps, final maps, parcel maps, subdivision improvement plans and agreements, design review for architectural and site plan reviews, encroachment permits, building permits, landscaping plans, grading plans and permits, lot line adjustments, use permits, and occupancy certificates. Subsequent Approvals shall also include any conditions of approval adopted in conjunction with or made a part of any Subsequent City Approvals. In the course of taking action on these applications and requests, and except for ministerial actions, City may exercise discretion in imposing conditions of approval required for orderly development of the Specific Plan area, including but not limited to, the major backbone improvements required for each Subsequent City Approval, and fair share obligations of benefitting parcels pursuant to areas of benefit or oversized improvements.

Section 3.2. Further Discretionary Actions. The exercise of City's authority and independent judgment is recognized under this Agreement, and nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted as limiting City’s discretion to approve or deny any Subsequent Approvals or impose any conditions on Subsequent Approvals, where allowed by law or necessary for consistency with the Project Approvals, to require additional information or studies from Developers, or to hold legally required public hearings. Except as otherwise set forth herein, such discretion and action taken by City shall be reasonable and not prevent development of the Property for the uses set forth herein or limit the rate or timing of development as contemplated in this Agreement.

Section 3.3. Cooperation Between City and Developer. City shall use its best efforts to process, within a reasonable time, any Subsequent Approvals requested by Developer during the Term of this Agreement. City agrees to cooperate with Developer, on a timely basis, to secure permits or licenses that may be required by any other public agency with permitting or licensing jurisdiction over the Project.

River Walk Development Agreement

Section 3.4. City's Right to Withhold Subsequent Approvals. City reserves the right to withhold any Subsequent Approvals or schedule hearings for such applications if any portion of the Project owned or controlled by a party (including successors of Developer) seeking such Subsequent Approvals fails to conform to the Project Approvals, or has not complied with its obligations under this Agreement, or if City reasonably determines that additional information is required in accordance with CEQA. City’s rights under this Section include if Developer is delinquent on any City fees, City processing costs (in accordance with Section 1.9 above), or reimbursements owed to other landowners or developers within the Specific Plan area.

Section 3.5. Government Code section 66473.7 Compliance. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Project includes a subdivision within the meaning of Government Code section 66473.7. Any phased maps prepared for the Project shall comply with section 66473.7 and shall include as a condition of approval of any such map that, among other things, written verification from the City that sufficient water supply infrastructure is available to serve the subdivision subject to the phased map.

ARTICLE 4

RIGHT TO DEVELOP AND APPROVED LAND USES
Section 4.1. Right to Develop. Developer shall have the right to develop the Property and Project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Project Approvals and Subsequent Approvals. Developer is assured, and City agrees, that the development rights, obligations, terms, and conditions specified in the Project Approvals and Subsequent Approvals are fully vested in Developer and may not be modified or terminated by City, except as set forth in this Agreement or with Developer’s written consent (collectively, Developer’s “Vested Rights”).

Except where provided otherwise in this Agreement, including Section 4.4, no ordinance, resolution, growth control measure, initiative, referendum, or other land use restriction adopted or enacted after the Effective Date, whether by action of City or otherwise, which reduces the development rights conferred by the Project Approvals or Subsequent City Approvals shall apply to development of the Property. For reasons explained in Recital J above, in the event Developer acquires other parcels within the Specific Plan which are not included in the Property as defined herein, the vesting provided by this Agreement shall extend to those parcels that are not controlled or owned by Developer.

Section 4.2. Permitted Uses and Development Standards. The permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, the location, design and maintenance of on-site and off-site improvements, location of public utilities, and other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Property shall be those set forth in the Project Approvals and the Subsequent Approvals. City acknowledges that the Project Approvals provide for the land uses and approximate acreages shown in the Specific Plan.

Section 4.3 Minor Amendment of Project Approvals. Developer may provide written request for a minor amendment or modification to any of the Project Approvals, including, but not limited to (a) the location of buildings, streets and roadways and other physical facilities, or (b) the configuration of the buildings, the site plan, elevations, the configuration and number of parcels, lots or development areas. To the extent allowable by law, the Community Development Director shall determine whether the requested amendment or modification is consistent with this Agreement, Specific Plan, and applicable provisions of City zoning and subdivision ordinances in

River Walk Development Agreement

effect as of the Effective Date of this agreement. For purposes of this Agreement, the determination of whether such amendment is minor shall be made by reference to whether such amendment or modification is minor in the context of the overall Project. If the Community Development Director finds that the proposed amendment is both minor and consistent with this Agreement, the Specific Plan, and the applicable provisions of City zoning and subdivision ordinances, the Community Development Director may approve the minor amendment administratively. For purposes of this Agreement and notwithstanding any City ordinance or resolution to the contrary, the following shall be deemed a minor amendment or modification: lot line adjustments, minor adjustments in the number of parcels on a Phased Map, minor variances as to density, relocation of densities and/or uses which do not materially alter the overall density of the subject Property as presently set forth in the Specific Plan, minor changes to any bulk, height, lot coverage, and building setbacks, any modifications made to Specific Plan boundaries, and minor modifications to adopted conditions of approval associated with Subsequent Approvals.

The Community Development Director shall reserve the discretion to refer and process any such request through the Planning Commission and/or City Council consistent with City procedures for such approvals.

Section 4.4. Limitations on Developer’s Vested Rights. Notwithstanding Section 4.1, City and Developer agree that the vested rights conferred by this Agreement are subordinate to the following:
(a) Initiatives and Referenda. Any City ordinance, rule, or regulation enacted or imposed by a citizen-sponsored initiative or referendum after the Effective Date that reduces the development rights provided to Developer in this Agreement shall not apply to the Project. The Parties acknowledge, however, that this Agreement is a legislative act subject to referendum. In the event of any such referendum that reduces the development rights conferred by this Agreement, including Developer’s vested rights, City shall cooperate with Developer and undertake such reasonable actions as may be appropriate to ensure that Developers may develop the Project in accordance with State law, the Project Approvals, and all development rights as set forth herein. Nothing herein shall be construed to require City to take any action in violation of state law or duly adopted initiatives or referendums applicable to the Project Approvals. (b) Regulation by Other Public Agencies. The Parties acknowledge that other public agencies, outside of the control and authority of City, regulate or have authority over City and the public infrastructure required to serve the Project, and that the exercise of such public agency authority could negatively impact development of the Project. Nothing in this Agreement limits the authority of such public agencies. City shall not be found to be in breach of this Agreement due to any action taken by another public agency that negatively impacts this Agreement or development of the Project.
(c) Changes in California Building Standards Codes. Development of the Project shall be subject to changes occurring from time to time to the California Building Code, as well as all associated California Codes (Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire, etc.), as adopted by the City Council.
(d) Changes Mandated by Federal or State Law. The Project shall be subject to subsequently enacted federal or state laws or regulations that conflict with this Agreement or the Project Approvals, that mandate adoption of local regulations, or that preempt the Municipal Code and Policies. As provided in section 65869.5 of the Development Agreement Statute, in the event

River Walk Development Agreement

that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, such provisions shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such state or federal laws or regulations. Upon discovery of a subsequently enacted federal or state law that conflicts with this Agreement or otherwise affects the Project, City or Developer shall provide the other Party with written notice of the federal or state law or regulation and a written statement of the conflicts raised by such law or regulation. Promptly thereafter, City and Developer shall meet and confer in good faith to modify this Agreement, as necessary, to comply with such law or regulation. In such discussions to resolve the conflict, City and Developer shall attempt to preserve the terms of this Agreement to the maximum extent feasible.
(e) Health and Safety Emergencies. In the event that any future public health and safety emergencies arise during development of the Project, City agrees that it shall attempt to address such emergency in a way that does not have a material adverse impact on the Project. If City determines that it is not reasonably possible to address such emergency without adversely affecting the Project, City shall address such emergency in a way that minimizes the adverse impacts to the Project while still addressing such health and safety emergency in a manner acceptable to City, as to be determined by City in its sole discretion.

Section 4.5. Timing of Development. The Parties acknowledge that Developer cannot, at this time, definitively predict when each phase of the Project will be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors that are not within the control of Developer, such as economic conditions, consumer demand, interest rates, absorption rates, and other factors. It is the desire of the Parties that Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project in such order, rate, and time as Developer deems appropriate in the exercise of its business judgment, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

Section 4.6. Waiver of Vesting Through Other Mechanisms. Developer, for itself and all successors-in-interest to the Property, hereby waives and relinquishes any right to obtain or claim vested rights in the Project through the filing of a preliminary application under the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5) and Government Code section 65941.1 (under the Permit Streamlining Act), as such statutes may be amended. Without limiting the foregoing, Developer waives any right under the foregoing statutes, or under any other law limiting a public agency's authority to impose a fee, charge, or monetary exaction on a development project, to the extent such right would impair the City's ability to impose the SDF Fees (defined in Article 7), Plan Area Fees (defined in Article 7), or to implement the required ongoing funding for maintenance and public services in the Specific Plan area (described in Section 6.4).

Section 4.7. Eminent Domain. City’s statutory powers of eminent domain are available, if necessary, to acquire all properties needed for rights-of-way or easements to be located on properties other than the Property or for construction of the improvements which are necessary for the development of the Project. Any such use of eminent domain by City shall be at Developer’s sole cost and expense, including without limitation, the cost of any staff time, legal costs, appraisals, experts, formal litigation, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs. City may use its statutory powers of eminent domain only after Developer has exhausted all other methods to secure such required property, as determined by City. The Parties acknowledge that exercise of eminent domain powers shall be considered a last resort, and the Parties agree to meet and confer before any formal initiation of eminent domain powers to acquire the necessary property, rights-of-way, or easements.

River Walk Development Agreement

Section 4.8. Phasing. A preliminary phasing of the Project villages, excluding infrastructure analysis, is depicted in Exhibit C, attached hereto. City agrees that Developer may proceed with development of the Property in accordance with their business judgment, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Project Approvals, and phases may change in shape, size and order at the time of actual development. Project phasing and improvement requirements will be refined with the submittal of the first tentative subdivision map and project-specific agreements and/or conditions of approval, and will continue to be analyzed and refined with each subsequent tentative subdivision map.

Section 4.9. Age-Restricted Villages. As contemplated in the Specific Plan, Developer has elected to restrict the Project as an age-restricted active adult development and, as such, to require Villages C, and F through O (11 Villages) to be occupied or held available for occupancy by households that include residents at least fifty-five (55) years of age, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. The age restriction will be applied through a deed restriction or similar instrument consistent with applicable laws and regulations recorded against each lot to which the restriction applies. Developer hereby covenants and agrees, for itself and its successors and assigns, that the Property shall be used for the development and operation of active adult housing development in compliance with the requirements set forth herein, and as further specified in the Project’s conditions, covenants, and restrictions (“CC&Rs”). Developer covenants that it shall not enter into any agreement that is inconsistent with such restrictions without the express written consent of City. Prior to issuance of any building permit within the restricted villages, Developer shall execute, acknowledge, and record CC&Rs in a form reasonably acceptable to City, which shall require, among other things, that (a) the Project comply with the active adult occupancy requirements set forth above, (b) implement appropriate age verification procedures to ensure compliance with such CC&Rs, (c) the Project allow or accommodate other qualified residents as required by law (e.g., caretakers, disabled children or grandchildren, unanticipated child custody, or multi-generational living arrangements).

ARTICLE 5

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Section 5.1. Major Improvements Consistent with Project Approvals. Unless otherwise specified herein, Developer shall be responsible for constructing the infrastructure improvements and facilities required for the Specific Plan consistent with the Project Approvals (referred to herein as the “Major Improvements”). The Major Improvements are described in more detail in the Project Approvals and this Article 5. All plans establishing the design and specifications of the Major Improvements constructed by Developers shall be considered Subsequent Approvals subject to review and approval by City.

Section 5.2. Phasing Plan for Major Improvements. As provided by Section 9.3 of the Specific Plan, prior to the filing of any tentative or parcel map application within the Specific Plan area, Developer shall file with City a comprehensive phasing plan for all Major Improvements required for development of the Specific Plan, including without limitation, stormwater and drainage, potable water, non-potable water, wastewater, roadways and circulation, and parkland/buffers/greenway/trails/open space sites (“Phasing Plan”). The Phasing Plan shall be added as an addendum and be incorporated into and made part of the Specific Plan and this Agreement. The Phasing Plan and all provisions contained therein shall be subject to City’s approval. Developer shall have no right to develop the Project, and City shall have no obligation to accept, process, or schedule hearings for any subdivision map application filed by any

River Walk Development Agreement

Developer, until the Phasing Plan is accepted as complete, as determined by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.

Section 5.3. Water. The water infrastructure required for the Specific Plan shall be considered a Developer obligation. The backbone water supply infrastructure contemplated in the Specific Plan is identified in Exhibit D and includes the following:
(a) Backbone Water Facilities. The backbone water infrastructure includes the following:
(3) new water wells;
A two (2) million gallon peaking reservoir (water tank) with booster pump; Two (2) pressure regulating stations;
12-inch water transmission pipelines; associated gate valves and fire hydrants.

Developer will install the above water facilities incrementally, as they are needed to serve phases of development. Such incremental construction shall be based upon a water engineering analysis for each phase and shall be approved by the City Engineer. Based on the current state of the City’s water system, at least one (1) new water well is expected to be a minimum requirement for the first phase of development. Developer shall construct the transmission improvements necessary to serve each subdivision, including any looping of the lines necessary to maintain adequate water pressure.
(b) In-Tract Water Facilities. The balance of the water transmission infrastructure within the Project area consists of in-tract water transmission improvements within subdivisions or similar transmission improvements located onsite in other development projects, such as, for example, apartments, office buildings or retail buildings. These improvements are referred to as “In-Tract Water Lines”. The In-Tract Water Lines are not considered backbone facilities and shall be financed through their installation by Developer, or other Project applicants, and secured in the approval process for subdivision maps or other Subsequent Approvals.

Section 5.4. Wastewater Collection and Treatment. Except as specified herein, the wastewater infrastructure for the Specific Plan shall be a Developer obligation. In advance of construction, Developer shall perform an engineering analysis of the existing City wastewater conveyance system to determine and verify the capacity of the downstream conveyance system to accommodate the additional flows from the Project villages. The analysis shall also identify necessary improvements to the existing conveyance system that may be necessary to accommodate additional flows. The wastewater infrastructure contemplated in the Specific Plan is identified in Exhibit E and includes the following:
(a) Backbone Wastewater Facilities. The backbone wastewater infrastructure includes the following and unless specified otherwise, shall be installed and financed by Developer:

Interim Offsite Wastewater Collection Improvement. An initial investigation has identified potentially available capacity in the existing City wastewater conveyance system

River Walk Development Agreement

downstream of the Specific Plan of up to 225 single-family dwelling unit equivalents. Additional analysis will be required to determine if upgrades to City’s existing conveyance pipelines and/or pump stations will be necessary to accommodate this additional flow.

Offsite Sewer Force Main and Conveyance System. Residential development beyond the first 225 single-family residential units will require construction of (i) approximately 900 lineal-feet of ten (10) inch sewer force main under the Stanislaus River, (ii) approximately 900 lineal-feet of a redundant sixteen (16) inch sewer force main under the Stanislaus River, and (iii) approximately seventy-four hundred (7,400) lineal feet of ten (10) inch sewer force main connecting to the City’s wastewater treatment plant headworks, and (iv) a 24” gravity sewer line in Coffee Road to the force main pump station and the parallel force mains under the Stanislaus River. These improvements are anticipated to provide enough wastewater conveyance capacity for the balance of the residential development and other development in the Specific Plan areas, as well as service for future growth areas outlined in the City Sewer Master Plan. The sewer force main may require the acquisition of certain easements from private property owners and/or permission to construct and operate from other local or state agencies, with all such costs to be at Developer’s expense.

Wastewater Collection Infrastructure Within Project Area. The Specific Plan (Figure 6-2a) identifies wastewater lines as follows: (1) 24” gravity main extending from Patterson Road within Coffee Road, through Village C, and connecting to the Northeast Pump Station; (2) additional gravity mains within Coffee Road providing service to the various villages; (3) gravity mains and force mains in collector streets providing service to two or more villages and/or development areas. These improvements are referred to as “Backbone Wastewater Collection Infrastructure.” The Backbone Wastewater Collection Infrastructure shall be installed and financed as a Developer obligation in the tentative subdivision map approval process or in the approval process for other Subsequent Approvals.

South Lift Station. A sanitary sewer lift station may be utilized in the vicinity of Villages A and B. This improvement is referred to as the “South Lift Station” as shown in Figure 6-2a of the Specific Plan. The South Lift Station shall be constructed by Developer or an applicant for Subsequent Approvals and the timing of such construction shall be determined in the conditions of approval of phased subdivision maps or other Subsequent Approvals. The South Lift Station may, on an interim basis, be used to discharge flows via force main to the existing City conveyance system. The South Lift Station will be required prior to the first residential building permit of the Specific Plan.

West Lift Station. A sanitary sewer lift station may be utilized in the vicinity of Villages H and F. This improvement is referred to as the “West Lift Station” as shown in Figure 6-2a of the Specific Plan. The West Lift Station shall be constructed by Developer or an applicant for Subsequent Approvals and the timing of such construction shall be determined in the conditions of approval of phased subdivision maps or other Subsequent Approvals.

Northeast Lift Station. A lift station will be installed in the northeast portion of the Project as shown in Figure 6-2a of the Specific Plan. This improvement is referred to as the “Northeast Lift Station”. The lift station will collect flows from within the Project Area as well as from areas outside of the Project as described in the City’s Sewer Master Plan. Flows will be pumped via force main crossing the Stanislaus River and ultimately conveyed to the City’s treatment plant. The Northeast Lift Station shall be constructed by Developer or an applicant for