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

Any documents that are not privileged or part of a Closed Session provided to a majority of the City Council / LRA Board after distribution of the agenda packet, regarding any item on this agenda, will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office 6707 Third St., Suite A, Riverbank.

CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD CITY OF RIVERBANK
Regular City Council and Local
Redevelopment Authority Board
Meetings
Mayor/Chair
Rachel Hernandez
Council/Authority Members
District 1 — Luis Uribe
District 2 — Cindy Fosi
Vice Mayor, District 3 — John Pimentel
District 4 — Stacy Call
Council Chambers
6707 Third Street, Suite B
Riverbank, CA 95367
TUESDAY,OCTOBER 13, 2026 — 6:00 PM
(THE AGENDA PACKET IS ONLINE AT HTTPS://RIVERBANKCA.PORTAL.CIVICCLERK.COM/) FAVOR DE REFERIRSE A LA ULTIMA PAGINA DE LA AGENDA PARA TRADUCCION EN ESPAÑOL Due To Limited Seating In The Council Chambers,
There Will Be Available Overflow Seating At The
McRitchie Community Center, 6600 Third Street

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. FLAG SALUTE

3. INVOCATION

4. ROLL CALL

5. AGENDA CHANGES

6. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Any Council/Authority Member who has a direct Conflict of Interest on any scheduled agenda item to be considered is to declare their conflict at this time. Pursuant to Government Code Section 84308 (Levine Act), any Council /Authority Member who has received a contribution of $500 or more within the preceding 12 months from a party, participant, or their agent related to an item on the agenda must disclose that contribution on the record prior to participation in the discussion or decision on the item and may be required to recuse themselves, as applicable.

7. PRESENTATIONS (Informational only)
Item 7.1. Presentation — Lights On After School Celebration- It is recommended City Council receive an invitation from the RUSD ELOP Program Students.

Item 7.2. Recognition of Sergeant David Hickman – Retirement and Service Acknowledgment

8. PUBLIC COMMENTS (No action can be taken)
At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda, and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council/LRA Board. Individual comments will be limited to a

Any documents that are not privileged or part of a Closed Session provided to a majority of the City Council / LRA Board after distribution of the agenda packet, regarding any item on this agenda, will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office 6707 Third St., Suite A, Riverbank.

maximum of 3 minutes (or as stated by the presiding Officer) and time cannot be yielded to another person. Under State law, matters presented during the public comment period cannot be discussed or acted upon.

Refer to the last page of this agenda for the Public Comment Procedures via ZOOM.

IN PERSON COMMENTS: Please fill out a Comment Card and return it to the City Clerk.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR (No obligation to read aloud)
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are to be acted upon by a single action of the City Council/LRA Board unless requested by an individual Council/Authority Member or member of the public for special consideration. Otherwise, the recommendation of staff will be accepted and acted upon by motion of the City Council/LRA Board.

Item 9.1. Waiver of Readings
Item 9.2. Approval of the City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority Board Meeting Minutes for the Special Meeting of September 22, 2026 and the Regular Meeting of September 22, 2026.

Item 9.3. Resolution Approving a Wastewater Generation and Capacity Assessment for Crossroads West Specific Plan Area by KSN, Inc.

Item 9.4. 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)
Item 9.5. 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)

10. PUBLIC HEARING The Public Notice for item 10.1 was published in the Riverbank Newspaper on 09/30/2026.

Item 10.1. Public Hearing to Consider an Interim Urgency Ordinance Extending the Temporary Moratorium on the Approval of New Land Use Applications for Data Centers for 10 Months and 15 Days and Issuance of Written Report.

11. NEW BUSINESS
Item 11.1. Approval of a Conditional Award of Up to $1,500,000 in Affordable Housing Development Funding to Stanislaus Equity Partners for the Paradise Village Permanent Supportive Housing Project (APN 075-010-065), and Authorization for the City Manager to Negotiate a Regulatory and Funding Agreement.

Item 11.2. Direction Regarding the Jacob Myers Park Trail Expansion Project and Associated American Rescue Plan Act Funding.

12. COMMENTS/REPORTS

Any documents that are not privileged or part of a Closed Session provided to a majority of the City Council / LRA Board after distribution of the agenda packet, regarding any item on this agenda, will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office 6707 Third St., Suite A, Riverbank.

A brief report on notable attendance of a meeting or conference or other notable topics of City business shall be made. The Brown Act does not allow for discussion or action of items by the City Council/LRA Board during this time.

Item 12.1. Staff
Item 12.2. Council / Authority Member
Item 12.3. Mayor / Chair

13. CLOSED SESSION
Item 13.1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6)
Agency representative: City Manager Marisela Garcia
Unrepresented Employee: Director of Parks and Recreation Item 13.2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6)
Agency representative: City Manager Marisela H. Garcia
Employee Organizations: Riverbank Miscellaneous Employee Group and Riverbank Mid-Management Employee Association

14. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
Item 14.1. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION ITEM 13.1

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6)
Agency representative: City Manager Marisela Garcia
Unrepresented Employee: Director of Parks and Recreation Item 14.2. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION ITEM 13.2

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6)
Agency representative: City Manager Marisela H. Garcia
Employee Organizations: Riverbank Miscellaneous Employee Group and Riverbank Mid-Management Employee Association

15. ADJOURNMENT

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted at the meeting location, on the North City Hall public exterior bulletin board, South City Hall public exterior Bulletin, Riverbank Community Center exterior bulletin, and the City’s website 72 hours prior to the meeting in accordance to the California Ralph M. Brown Act.

Posted this 8th Day of September,2026
/s/Gabriela Hernandez, CMC, City Clerk

Any documents that are not privileged or part of a Closed Session provided to a majority of the City Council / LRA Board after distribution of the agenda packet, regarding any item on this agenda, will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office 6707 Third St., Suite A, Riverbank.

ADA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, the City will make every effort to make reasonable modifications or accommodations from individuals with disabilities. Contact the Administration Dept. at (209) 863-7122 or the City Clerk at [email protected] at least (48) hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements for accessibility.

NOTICE REGARDING NON-ENGLISH SPEAKERS
Pursuant to California Constitution Article III, Section IV, establishing English as the official language for the State of California, and in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedures Section 185, which requires proceedings before any State Court to be in English, notice is hereby given that all proceedings before the City of Riverbank City Council/LRA Board shall be in English and anyone wishing to address the Council is required to have a translator present who will take an oath to make an accurate translation from any language not English into the English language.

Any documents that are not privileged or part of a Closed Session provided to a majority of the City Council / LRA Board after distribution of the agenda packet, regarding any item on this agenda, will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office 6707 Third St., Suite A, Riverbank.

TELECONFERENCE/VIRTUAL PLATFORM PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

COMMENT PROCEDURES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD IN

CONFORMANCE WITH THE BROWN ACT
PUBLIC "LIVE" VIEWING
• Government Channels: SPECTRUM— 2
• YouTube Live — City of Riverbank
• Via ZOOM Platform (See instructions below)

SUBMITTING PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD
Written comments must be received before 4:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting in order for them to be distributed to the Council prior to consideration of the matter.

Written comments will not be read aloud at the meeting, but will be reported as received for the record. If you do not receive an acknowledgement of receipt within an hour of submission or by 5:00 p.m., please call the City Clerk's Office at (209) 863-7198 or the Administration Dept. at (209) 863- 7122.

ACCEPTABLE METHODS OF SUBMITTING COMMENTS BEFORE THE 5:00 PM DEADLINE • Via Mail Service: Mail comments to City of Riverbank, Attn: City Clerk, 6707 Third Street, Suite A, Riverbank, CA 95367. (Call 209-863-7198 / 209-863-7122 to ensure they were received.)
• Via Email: [email protected]
(Note: This technology is not a guaranteed method.)
o Indicate Agenda Item # in the subject line. (Call 209-863-7198 / 209-863-7122 to ensure receipt.)
• Oral Comments In-Person: The Mayor will ask the public if anyone wishes to comment, at that time you may approach the podium.
• Oral Comments Via Zoom:The Mayor will announce when public comments may be made for a limit of 3 minutes on the agenda item being considered, at which time you will:
o Using a computer — click on the “raise hand” feature in the webinar controls.

This will alert staff that you wish to speak, and you will be unmuted. o Using a Phone — press *9 to “raise the hand”. This will alert staff that you wish to speak, and you will be unmuted.
o (Please make sure the volume on your device is on and that any nearby device or any nearby device is turned down.)
Teleconference Phone Number: (This system is a backup for ZOOM technical difficulties only when providing oral comments.) If there are technical difficulties or disconnection with ZOOM while making oral comments, please immediately call the teleconference phone number (209)

Any documents that are not privileged or part of a Closed Session provided to a majority of the City Council / LRA Board after distribution of the agenda packet, regarding any item on this agenda, will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office 6707 Third St., Suite A, Riverbank.

863-7151 so that Council may receive your comments. Council will be waiting for your call.

Thank you.

JOIN THE MEETING VIA ZOOM PLATFORM
Join by this link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89443415826 Join by accessing website: https://zoom.us/join — enter Webinar ID: 894 4341 5826 Join by telephone: 1 669 444 9171 OR 1 669 900 9128, plus Webinar ID: 894 4341 5826 Learn about using ZOOM - Visit https://zoom.us/j/ for a free account or to download the app.

How to Use Live Spanish Translation/ Como Usar Traducción en Español En Vivo https://attend.wordly.ai/join/LHDA-5715
STEP 1/PASO 1 STEP 2/PASO 2 STEP 3/PASO 3
Scan QR Code Choose Spanish Language Read Captions on Device Use Headset for Audio
Escanea el código Escoja el idioma Español Lea subtítulos en su aparato Use auriculares para audio

Item 7.1. - CC / LRA – 10/13/2026

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.1.

SECTION : PRESENTATIONS
Meeting Date: 10/13/2026
Subject: Presentation — Lights On After School Celebration- It is recommended City Council receive an invitation from the RUSD ELOP Program Students.

From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council receive an invitation from the Riverbank Unified School District Expanded Learning Oppurtunities Program (ELOP) Students to their Light On After School Celebration on Friday, October 23, 2026.

SUMMARY
The Riverbank Unified School District ELOP Programs will be participating and invite all to attend their Lights On After-School Celebration on, Friday, October 23, 2026, from 3:00P.M. to 7:00P.M at California Avenue Elementary. Expanded Learning Families, Community Members and students are all welcomed.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This item aligns with the 2025-2030 Strategic Plan to Provide community education on health, safety, and resources.

BACKGROUND
Lights On Afterschool is a nationwide annual celebration held every October—with the 27th annual event scheduled for October 2026—that highlights the vital role of afterschool and expanded learning programs for children, families, and communities.

In California, these initiatives are heavily supported and amplified by the state's Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), which provides funding for afterschool and summer enrichment for transitional kindergarten through sixth grade

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact associate with with this item.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Lights On _Flyer

CALIFORNIA AVE ELEMENTARY
3800 CALIFORNIA AVE, RIVERBANK CA 95367

LIGHTS ON

AFTER SCHOOL

CELEBRATION
ALL RUSD ELOP PROGRAMS WILL BE PARTICIPATING.

EXPANDED LEARNING FAMILIES, COMMUNITY
MEMBERS & STUDENTS WELCOME!
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23 | 3-7PM
Fun games | Kids Activities | Food | Entertainment & More!

ESCUELA PRIMARIA CALIFORNIA AVE
3800 CALIFORNIA AVE, RIVERBANK CA 95367
¡LIGHTS ON!
DESPUÉS DE LA ESCUELA

S DE LA ESCUELA
¡CELEBREMOS JUNTOS!
¡TODOS LOS PROGRAMAS ELOP DE RUSD SERÁN PARTE
DE ESTA GRAN CELEBRACIÓN!
¡INVITAMOS A TODAS LAS FAMILIAS, ESTUDIANTES Y

MIEMBROS DE NUESTRA COMUNIDAD A
ACOMPAÑARNOS!
VIERNES, 23 DE OCTUBRE | 3–7PM
¡Juegos y diversión | Actividades para niños | Comida
Entretenimiento y mucho más!

Item 7.2. - CC / LRA – 10/13/2026

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.2.

SECTION : PRESENTATIONS
Meeting Date: 10/13/2026
Subject: Recognition of Sergeant David Hickman – Retirement and Service Acknowledgment
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Edward Ridenour, Chief of Police

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council formally recognize Sergeant David Hickman for more than 25 years of dedicated service to the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Office, including his four years of leadership and service to Riverbank Police Services.

SUMMARY
The City Council will present a formal acknowledgment of Sergeant David Hickman’s retirement and his distinguished career in law enforcement. Sergeant Hickman has served the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Office for over 25 years, including supervising operations in Riverbank and serving as Acting Police Chief when needed. His professionalism, leadership, and commitment to the community have made a lasting impact on Riverbank Police Services and the City of Riverbank.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This presentation aligns with the City of Riverbanks goal of supporting public safety.

BACKGROUND
Sergeant David Hickman has served with the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Office for more than 25 years, demonstrating unwavering commitment, professionalism, and integrity throughout his distinguished career. His assignments have included patrol, detective duties, and supervisory leadership, each marked by exceptional performance and dedication to public service.

For the past four years, Sergeant Hickman has been assigned to Riverbank Police Services, where he has provided steady, reliable leadership to the men and women who serve this community. In addition to his responsibilities as a patrol sergeant, he has, at times, assumed the role of Acting Police Chief, ensuring continuity of operations and maintaining the high standards expected by both the Sheriff’s Office and the City of Riverbank.

Sergeant Hickman is widely recognized for his extraordinary memory and deep institutional knowledge, often recalling names, addresses, and case details from years prior with exceptional precision. His colleagues frequently relied on this expertise, and his ability to recall information quickly and accurately has been a tremendous asset to the department.

He is also remembered for his distinctive laugh and sense of humor, both of which contributed to a

Item 7.2. - CC / LRA – 10/13/2026
positive and supportive work environment. Beneath those moments of levity was a leader who cared deeply for his team, upheld the values of the profession, and consistently supported those working alongside him.

This evening, the City of Riverbank formally recognizes Sergeant Hickman for his more than 25 years of honorable service. His contributions have made a lasting impact not only on the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Office, but also on Riverbank Police Services and the community he proudly served. We extend our sincere appreciation for his dedication, leadership, and professionalism. We also acknowledge and thank his family for their support and sacrifice, which made his service to this community possible.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact associated with this recognition.

ATTACHMENTS
None

Item 9.1. - CC / LRA – 10/13/2026

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.1.

SECTION : CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: 10/13/2026
Subject: Waiver of Readings
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council / LRA Board approve the waiver of readings of any proposed ordinances and resolutions for consideration, except by title.

SUMMARY
In lieu of reading the entire text of a proposed ordinance or resolution that is introduced for consideration for adoption and approval, by majority vote, the City Council/LRA Board may waive the reading of the text and introduce the ordinance or resolution by title only for the record. The full text of the proposed ordinances and resolutions, and any related documents that are part of the agenda packet, are available for review by the public on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s office at City Hall (North) upon distribution to a majority of the City Council/LRA Board; typically 72 hours prior to the scheduled date and time of the meeting.

STRATEGIC PLAN
Waiver of reading supports the City's 2025-2030 Strategic Plan by promoting efficient and transparent decision-making.

BACKGROUND
The full readings are being waved to allow the City Council/LRA Board to introduce and consider the items in a timely and efficient manner. The items have been provided to the City Council/LRA Board in advance of the meeting for review.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact associated with this item.

ATTACHMENTS
None

Item 9.2. - CC / LRA – 10/13/2026

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.2.

SECTION : CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: 10/13/2026
Subject: Approval of the City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority Board Meeting Minutes for the Special Meeting of September 22, 2026 and the Regular Meeting of September 22, 2026.

From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council/Local Redevelopment Authority Board approve the City Council/LRA Meeting Minutes for the Special Meeting Minutes For Septemebr 22, 2026 and the Regular Meeting of Septemeber 22, 2026.

SUMMARY
The Draft Minutes of the City Council and the Local Redevelopment Authority Board meeting have been prepared for review and approval.

STRATEGIC PLAN
Preparation and approval of the meeting minutes align with the City's 2025-2030 Strategic Plan core values of transparency and accountability.

BACKGROUND
The meeting minutes provide an official record of the actions taken and discussions held during the City Council Meetings. Staff prepares the minutes in accordance with the applicable laws and established procedures, and they are presented for review and approval to ensure accuracy and transparency

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact associated with this report.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Minutes- CC-LRA Meeting-09-22-2026_Special

2. Minutes_CC-LRA Meeting_09-22-2026

3. Exhibit A- Annabel Gammon_Redacted

4. Exhibit A Cont- Annabel Gammon

5. Exhibit B- Colleen Preston_Redacted

6. Exhibit C- Karen Conrotto_Redacted

7. Exhibit D- Jeani Ferrari

8. Exhibit E- Jessica Hill, City of Modesto

Item 9.2. - CC / LRA – 10/13/2026

9. Exhibit F- Amal Choeb_Redacted

10. Exhibit G- Mary Layton_Redacted

11. Exhibit H- Jody Hallstrom_Redacted

12. Exhibit I- Tjiska Conrotto_Redacted

13. Exhibit J- Clare Conrotto_Redacted

14. Exhibit K- Sean Wirth, Sierra Club

15. Exhibit L- Tom Myers_Redacted

16. Exhibit M- Sudjai Itsara_Redacted

17. Exhibit P- Soluri Meserve_Clients Gammon

18. Exhibit N Cont. - Sandra Gaskell

19. Exhibit N Cont. 2- Sandra Gaskell

20. Exhibit N- Sandra Gaskell

21. Exhibit O- Chance Carrico_Redacted

22. Exhibit Q Cont- Friends of the Swainson Hawk

23. Exhibit Q- Friends of The Swainson Hawk

24. Exhibit R- Steve Bordona

25. Exhibit S- Gretchen Brown

CC / LRA Minutes – 9/22/2026

CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD CITY OF RIVERBANK
Special City Council and Local
Redevelopment Authority Board
Meetings
Mayor/Chair
Rachel Hernandez
Council/Authority Members
District 1 — Luis Uribe
District 2 — Cindy Fosi
Vice Mayor, District 3 — John Pimentel
District 4 — Stacy Call
Council Chambers
6707 Third Street, Suite B
Riverbank, CA 95367

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY,SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 — 5:00 PM
(THE AGENDA PACKET IS ONLINE AT HTTPS://RIVERBANKCA.PORTAL.CIVICCLERK.COM/) FAVOR DE REFERIRSE A LA ULTIMA PAGINA DE LA AGENDA PARA TRADUCCION EN ESPAÑOL

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor called the meeting to order at 5:00P.M.

2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Hernandez Conducted Roll Call
Members of the City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority Board present:

Council Member / Authority Member District 1 Luis Uribe Council Member / Authority Member District 2 Cindy Fosi Council Member / Authority Member District 4 Stacy Call Vice Mayor / Vice Chair District 3 John Pimentel- ABSENT Mayor / Chair Rachel Hernandez

3. CLOSED SESSION
Item 3.1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION (Pursuant to Gov. Code, § 54956.9)
Name of Case: Miller Arms Company, Inc. v. City of Riverbank et al., Stanislaus County Superior Court Case No. CV-23-002593
There being no public comment, Mayor Hernandez moved to Closed Session at 5:01P.M.

Reconvened from Closed Session at 5:12P.M.

4. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
Item 4.1. Report from Closed Session Item 3.1
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
(Pursuant to Gov. Code, § 54956.9)
Name of Case: Miller Arms Company, Inc. v. City of Riverbank et al., Stanislaus County Superior Court Case No. CV-23-002593
DIRECTION: Direction was provided to Staff.

CC / LRA Minutes – 9/22/2026

5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor / Chair Hernandez adjourned the Special Meeting at 5:13P.M. to the next regular scheduled City Council /LRA Meeting of Septemebr 22, 2026 at 6:00p.m. the Community Center.

ATTEST: (Adopted 00/00/0000) APPROVED:
____________________________________
Gabriela Hernandez, CMC
City Clerk / LRA Recorder
____________________________________
Rachel Hernandez
Mayor/Chair

CC / LRA Minutes – 9/22/2026

CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD CITY OF RIVERBANK
Regular City Council and Local
Redevelopment Authority Board
Meetings
Mayor/Chair
Rachel Hernandez
Council/Authority Members
District 1 — Luis Uribe
District 2 — Cindy Fosi
Vice Mayor, District 3 — John Pimentel
District 4 — Stacy Call

COMMUNITY CENTER
3600 Santa Fe Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
TUESDAY,SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 — 6:00 PM
(THE AGENDA PACKET IS ONLINE AT HTTPS://RIVERBANKCA.PORTAL.CIVICCLERK.COM/) PARA TRADUCCION EN ESPAÑOLFAVOR DE REFERIRSE A LA ULTIMA PAGINA DE LA AGENDA

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Hernandez called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.

2. FLAG SALUTE
Vice Mayor Pimentel led the pledge of allegiance.

3. INVOCATION
Reverend Randy Richardson provided the invocation.

4. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Hernandez conducted Roll Call:

Members of the City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority Board present:

Council Member / Authority Member District 1 Luis Uribe Council Member / Authority Member District 2 Cindy Fosi Council Member / Authority Member District 4 Stacy Call Vice Mayor / Vice Chair District 3 John Pimentel
Mayor / Chair Rachel Hernandez

5. AGENDA CHANGES
No Agenda Changes.

6. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None Declared.

7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Hernandez Opened Public Comments at 6:04 P.M.

Melissa Sandoval, Riverbank resident, spoke about her concerns with regard to her property at the corner of Roselle and Claribel Rd.

Leonora Gerber, Riverbank resident, seeking clarification on the location of tonight's meeting

CC / LRA Minutes – 9/22/2026
was possibly incorrect on the City website.

Diego Hernandez, Riverbank resident, spoke with regard to the Waste Water Treatment Plant project.

Darlene Barbaer-Martinez, Chamber of Commerce, extended an invitation for upcoming community events.

Della Craver, Riverbank resident, expressed her concern with regard to the rising utility cost.

Randy Richardson, Riverbank Assembly of God, to express his gratitude for the certificate presented to the congregation for their 100th year.

Karen Conrotto, Stanislaus County resident, reiterated a previous public comment regarding the location of the meeting.

Mayor Hernandez Closed Public Comment at 6:17 P.M.

8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Item 8.1. Waiver of Readings
Item 8.2. Approval of the City Council and Local Redevelopment Authority Board Meeting Minutes for September 8, 2026.

Item 8.3. Acceptance of the Pedestrian Access on Roselle Ave over the MID Canal Project and Authorization to File a Notice of Completion
Item 8.4. Resolution Accepting and Ratifying Current Adopted Salary Schedules Effective July 10, 2026 in Accordance with CalPERS Requirements
Resolution 2026-097 (*inadvertently skipped in the number sequence) Item 8.5. Second Reading by Title Only of a Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 72 BICYCLES of Title VII: TRAFFIC CODE, by Amending Sections 72.04 & 72.99, and by adding new Sections 72.08 and 72.09. It is recommended City Council hold the second reading of a proposed ordinance amending Section 72.04 (License Fee) and Section 72.99 (Penalty), and adding Sections 72.08 (Unsafe Operation of Bicycle and Motorized Devices in Public Parks and Trails, Sidewalks, and Streets), and 72.09 (Administrative Appeal) to Chapter 72, Bicycles, of Title VII, Traffic Code, of the Riverbank Code of Ordinances Related to Bicycle Regulations.

Ordinance 2026-005
ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Uribe / Call 5/0) to approve the consent calendar.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Fosi, Call, Pimentel and Mayor Hernandez
NAYS: None / ABSENT: None / ABSTAINED: None

CC / LRA Minutes – 9/22/2026

9. PUBLIC HEARING
Item 9.1. RIVER WALK SPECIFIC PLAN (DEPT. FILE NO. 20-0026) PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed River Walk Project is located in the unincorporated area of Stanislaus County adjacent to the City of Riverbank. The Project Area is generally located north of Patterson Road/State Route 108, east of McHenry Avenue, south of the Stanislaus River and approximately two miles northwest of downtown Riverbank. The overall Project Area includes approximately 1,522 acres. The River Walk Specific Plan Area includes approximately 997 acres within the overall Project Area.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed River Walk Project includes approval of the River Walk Specific Plan, an amendment to the City of Riverbank’s General Plan, Sphere of Influence amendment, annexation of the approximately 997-acre Specific Plan Area into the City of Riverbank, prezoning, approval of a Development Agreement between the City and the project applicant, and the extension of infrastructure and utilities necessary to serve future development within the Specific Plan Area. The remaining land within the approximately 1,522- acre Project Area would be included within the proposed Sphere of Influence Amendment and held as Reserve land for possible long-range planning at a future time.

A Development Agreement is proposed to address the applicant’s obligations and the City’s requirements related to the orderly development of the River Walk Specific Plan Area, including but not limited to infrastructure, utilities, public improvements, phasing, financing, fees, dedications and other terms necessary to implement the Specific Plan.

The Project Area includes 61 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers and additional nonparcelized areas, including rights-of-way. The Assessor’s Parcel Numbers within the Project Area are:
074-001-001, 074-001-015, 074-001-016, 074-001-003, 074-001-011, 074-001- 012, 074-001-013, 074-001-005, 074-001-008, 074-001-009, 074-001-017, 074- 001-018, 074-001-019, 074-001-020, 074-002-020, 074-002-019, 074-002-018, 074-002-017, 074-002-025, 074-002-024, 074-002-014, 074-002-013, 074-002- 011, 074-002-028, 074-002-026, 074-002-006, 074-002-010, 074-002-031, 074- 002-021, 074-002-030, 074-002-029, 074-002-034, 074-002-007, 074-002-033, 074-002-032, 074-002-001, 074-003-022, 074-003-021, 074-003-020, 074-003- 016, 074-003-013, 074-003-012, 074-003-023, 074-003-002, 074-003-015, 074- 003-014, 074-003-011, 074-003-010, 074-003-019, 074-003-018, 074-003-024, 074-003-008, 074-003-007, 074-003-006, 074-003-005, 074-003-004, 074-003- 003, 074-005-012, 074-005-013, 074-005-010 and 074-005-011.

The River Walk Specific Plan proposes a mixed-use development with a range of residential densities, neighborhood-serving mixed-use areas, parks, recreation, open space, greenways, trails, landscaping, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and supporting infrastructure. Proposed land use categories include Low Density

CC / LRA Minutes – 9/22/2026
Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, Mixed Use, Park, Dual Use Park/Ponding Basin, Buffer/Greenway/Open Space - Bluff, Buffer/Greenway/Open Space - Canal, Buffer/Greenway/Open Space - River Park and Reserve. The existing Project Area is predominantly used for agricultural operations, including almond, walnut and cherry orchards, fallow land, rural residential uses, agricultural accessory structures, private irrigation facilities, a horse ranch, a commercial nursery business, truck storage, an approximately 150- acre solar farm and the Modesto Rifle Club. Modesto Irrigation District canals, easements and irrigation facilities are also located within the Project Area.

The proposed Project is intended to provide for orderly long-term planning, expand the City’s Sphere of Influence, allow for future annexation and development of the Specific Plan Area and increase the supply and variety of housing within the City of Riverbank planning area.

The City has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (SCH: 2021060098) for the River Walk Specific Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Environmental Impact Report evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project and identifies mitigation measures where applicable. Significant and unavoidable impacts of development of the River Walk Specific Plan subject to mitigation measures include the following: Aesthetics; agricultural resources; greenhouse gases, climate change, and energy; noise; public services and recreation; transportation and circulation; utilities; and cumulative impacts.

Director of Community Development, Mann gave a comprehensive staff report and PowerPoint presentation on the River Walk Specific Plan.

Steve McMurtry, with DeNovo Planning Group, gave a comprehensive report and PowerPoint presentation on the Final Environmental Impact Report.

Dave Romano, Project Applicant, gave a 30-minute presentation on details of the proposed River Walk Project.

Mayor Hernandez opened the public hearing at 7:14 P.M.

Craig Stalians, Stanislaus County resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Cindy Higby, Stanislaus County resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Jeani Ferrari, Turlock Resident, Chairperson of the Farmland Working Group, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Armando Nunez, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Danielle Higby-LeBeouf, Stanislaus County resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

CC / LRA Minutes – 9/22/2026
Jill Magana, Riverbank resident, in support of Riverwalk.

Roger Higby, Stanislaus County resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Steve Bordona, Riverbank resident, in support of Riverwalk.

Richard Merciadis, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Fred Walton, Stanislaus County resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Karen Conrotto, Stanislaus County resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Kent Mitchell, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Sammi Martinez, Riverbank resident, expressed concern about Item 9.1.

Jammi Aggers, Stanislaus County resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Edwards Jones, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Diego Hernandez, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Lenora Gerber, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Milt Trieweiler, Turlock resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Mayor Hernandez moved to a brief recess at 8:03 P.M.

Mayor Hernandez Reconvened from recess at 8:19 P.M.

Garry Pearson, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Dan Whetstone, Stanislaus County resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Bill Berryhill, Ceres resident, Property Owner, in support of Riverwalk.

Rich Holmer, Stanislaus County resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Vivian Lopez, On behalf of League of Women Voters, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Vivian Lopez, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Rob Christensen, Riverbank resident, in support of Riverwalk.

Chris Schalck, Riverbak resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Brian Elliott, Stanislaus County resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Roosevelt Brown, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

CC / LRA Minutes – 9/22/2026
Chance Carrico, Stanislaus County resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Benjamin Espiritu, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Amal Choeb, Stanislaus County resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Sherry Fenn, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

John Herrick, Modesto resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Richard O'Brien, Riverbank resident, in support of Riverwalk.

Rosa Medrano, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Gavin Bruce, Modesto resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Gretchen Brown, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Carl Stoke, Stanislaus County resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Carissa Commons, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Veronica Wallen, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Jim Jones, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Tim Reed, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Mike Berg, Stanislaus County resident, in support of Riverwalk.

Olivia Arambula, Riverbank resident, expressed her concerns with Item 9.1.

Lori Wolf, Stanislaus County resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Colleen Preston, Stanislaus County resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Bob Leonard, Stanislaus County resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Annabel Gammon, Stanislaus County resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Maria Villa, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

JJ Medrano, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Emily Villa, Riverbank resident, in opposition to Riverwalk.

Submitted Written Public Comments
Annabel Gammon, Stanislaus County resident, submitted a written comment (Exhibit A)

CC / LRA Minutes – 9/22/2026
Colleen Preston, Modesto resident, submitted a written comment (Exhibit B) Karen Conrotto, Stanislaus County resident, submitted a written comment (Exhibit C) Jeani Ferrari, Chairperson of Farmland Working Group, submitted a written comment (Exhibit D) Jessica Hill, Director of Community and Economic Development with the City of Modesto, submitted a written (Exhibit E)
Amal Choeb, Riverbank resident, submitted a written (Exhibit F) Mary Layton, Riverbank resident, submitted a written (Exhibit G) Jody Hallstrom, Conservation Chair, Stanislaus Audubon Society, submitted a written (Exhibit H) Tjiska Conrotto, Phoenix, Arizona resident, submitted a written comment (Exhibit I) Clare Conrotto, Redwood City, CA resident, submitted a written comment (Exhibit J) Sean Wirth, Mother Lode Chapter Conservation Chair, submitted a written comment (Exhibit K) Tom Myers, Stanislaus County resident, submitted a written comment (Exhibit L) Sudjai Itsara, Stanis County resident, submitted a written comment (Exhibit M) Sandra Gaskell, RPA Tribal Archaeologist, submitted a written comment (Exhibit N) Chance Carrico, Stanislaus County resident, submitted a written comment (Exhibit O) Soluri Meserve, A Law Corporation on behalf of clients Annabel and Dr. J. Gammon, submitted a written comment (Exhibit P )
Judith Lamare, The Friends of the Swainson Hawk, submitted a written comment (Exhibit Q) Steven Bordona, Riverbank resident, submitted a written comment (Exhibit R) Gretchen Brown, Riverbank resident, submitted a written comment (Exhibit S) Mayor Hernandez closed the public hearing at 9:56 P.M.

Dave Romano, Project Applicant gave a 10 minute rebuttal to address public comments.

City Council discussed item with staff and the project applicant.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Call / Uribe 3/2) to Approve the Riverwalk Project.

Motion carried by City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Call, Pimentel
NAYS: Fosi, Hernandez / ABSENT: None / ABSTAINED: None

CC / LRA Minutes – 9/22/2026
Mayor Hernandez moved to a brief recess at 10:43 P.M.

Reconvened from recess at 10:50 P.M.

City Attorney, clarified that a re-vote should be done in order to clarify that the motion, second, and approval items are what the Council intended to approve.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Call / Uribe 3/2) to Approve Resolution 2026-093 Approving the Riverwalk Specific Plan General Plan Amendment
Resolution 2026-094 Certifying the Final EIR and CEQA Findings Resolution 2026-095 Adopting the River Walk Specific Plan.

Resolution 2026-096 Authorizing Submittal of an Application to LAFCO for an Amendment to the City's Sphere of Influence.

First Reading of an Ordinance approving the Development Agreement First Reading of an Ordinance pre-zoning a specific plan area Motion carried by City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Call, Pimentel
NAYS: Fosi, Hernandez / ABSENT: None / ABSTAINED: None

10. COMMENTS/REPORTS
Item 10.1. Staff
City Manager Garcia:
• Just to remind all of our residents that our floating pumpkin patch is going to be happening this Saturday. Our residents can pick up their tickets in the office or online via our Eventbrite.

Tickets for only $10. So I hope that you can join us all.

Item 10.2. Council / Authority Member
Vice Mayor Pimentel:
• No comments.

Councilmember Uribe:
• No comments.

Councilmember Fosi:
• No comments.

Councilmember Call:
• No Comments.

CC / LRA Minutes – 9/22/2026
Item 10.3. Mayor / Chair
Mayor Hernandez:
• I just want to say, and I'm imagining a full room here. I am asking residents to remain engaged with us. I am serious about infill development, and it sounds like many of the residents have spoken tonight and beyond are, and so I think it's important that we continue on that path to continue to build housing.

11. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor / Chair Hernandez adjourned the regular meeting at 10:53 P.M. to the next regular scheduled City Council / LRA Meeting of October 13, 2026 in the Council Chambers.

ATTEST: (Adopted 00/00/0000) APPROVED:
____________________________________
Gabriela Hernandez, CMC
City Clerk / LRA Recorder
____________________________________
Rachel Hernandez
Mayor/Chair

River Walk Specific Plan proposes 2,400 to 2,682 residential units ( including an age-restricted active adult community) alongside 375,000 to 875,000 square feet of mixed -use commercial, office, and retail space. It is the largest proposed development in Stanislaus County in over 20 years.

Finally, forcing this approval through tonight ignores the clear message of Measure M and the community's demand to curb reckless growth. The burden of proof is on the developer to prove this project is safe and sustainable. The EIR has utterly failed to prove that.

Mayor Hernandez and Council Member I repeat what I said at the Aug.4, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. " In terms of legacy, you have a vote tonight and the citizens whose only vote is through you. We must care for our children and our children's children and the generations after them. We owe them the chance to decide how to build for their future.

We are fortunate to live in a rich agricultural part of this planet earth. Our county has nature's gift of fertile soil, water and sun. Let us preserve it with all of our might.

Mayor and Council Members,
Please do NOT certify the FEIR.

Please OPPOSE the proposed Sphere of Influence Expansion of 1500 acres of farmland
Please DENY any approval before you for the River Walk Specific Plan Thank you.

UC Davis
Information Center for the Environment Publications
Title
Safe Passages and the City of Riverbank: Wildlife Connectivity in the San Joaquin Valley, California
Permalink
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7184s72w
Authors
Huber, Patrick R
Shilling, Fraser M
Thorne, James H
et al.

Publication Date
2010-06-01
Copyright Information
This work is made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution License, availalbe at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Peer reviewed
eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California

EXHIBIT A- CONTINUED

Safe Passages and the City of Riverbank
Wildlife Connectivity in the San Joaquin Valley, California Prepared by
Patrick R. Huber
Fraser M. Shilling
James H. Thorne
Steven E. Greco
and
Nathaniel E. Roth
June 2010

ii
Safe Passages and the City of Riverbank:

Wildlife Connectivity in the San Joaquin Valley, California Prepared by:

Patrick R. Huber¹
Fraser M. Shilling²
James H. Thorne¹
Steven E. Greco³
and
Nathaniel E. Roth¹
¹Information Center for the Environment
University of California, One Shields Ave.

Davis, CA 95616
²Road Ecology Center
University of California, One Shields Ave.

Davis, CA 95616
³Landscape Analysis and Systems Research Laboratory
Department of Environmental Design
University of California, One Shields Ave.

Davis, CA 95616
Prepared for:

Wildlife Conservation Society
2300 Southern Boulevard
Bronx, NY 10460
June 2010

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.    Acknowledgements                      1
II.   Executive Summary                     2
III.  Introduction                        3
Policy Framework                      3
Study Area                        4
What Is Connectivity?                      5
IV.  Linkage Design                        8
Focal Species                        8
Least Cost Modeling                      8
Human Impacts – Roads                    9
Human Impacts – Urban                   10
Human Impacts – Future Urban Growth               10
Connectivity Intactness                   10
Stanislaus NF – San Joaquin NWR                 11
Other Species of Concern                   11
V.    Results                        11
Connectivity                       11
Human Impacts                     12
Connectivity Intactness                   18
Ecological Network Nodes                   18
Ecological Network Chokepoints                 18
Regional Corridor                     18
Other Species                       18
VI.   Future Linkage Design                     26
Wildlife Connectivity                     26
Integration of Human and Wildlife Needs               30 VII.  Conclusion                       30
VIII. Literature Cited                       32

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1:  CNDDB Species                     27

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1:    Study area                        6
FIGURE 2:    Land cover                        7
FIGURE 3:    Connectivity at a 5 km radius                 13 FIGURE 4:    Connectivity at a 10 km radius                 14 FIGURE 5:    Connectivity at a 20 km radius                 15 FIGURE 6:    Potential urban impacts                   16 FIGURE 7:    Potential road impacts                   17 FIGURE 8:    Potential future urban impacts                 19 FIGURE 9:    Mule deer connectivity intactness                 20

iv
FIGURE 10:  Bobcat connectivity intactness                 21 FIGURE 11:  Pocket mouse and pond turtle connectivity intactness           22 FIGURE 12:  Node examples                     23
FIGURE 13:  Chokepoint examples                   24
FIGURE 14:  Regional mule deer corridor                 25 FIGURE 15:  Locations of three sensitive species               28

1 I.  Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Wildlife
Conservation Society and Defenders of Wildlife
for their generous financial support of this
project. Special thanks to the University of
California, Davis, Department of Environmental
Science and Policy and the Department of
Environmental Design for their administrative
support and facilities. This project evolved out
of helpful discussions among UC Davis
scientists/authors of the present study and
South Coast Wildlands; Adina Merenlender (UC
Berkeley); Sarah Reed (Colorado State
University); Conservation Biology Institute;
Defenders of Wildlife; California Department of
Transportation; and California Department of
Fish and Game.

2 II.  Executive Summary
The Safe Passages project is a collaboration
between scientists at UC Davis and non‐
governmental conservation organizations
(Defenders of Wildlife, Conservation Biology
Institute, and South Coast Wildlands), in
consultation with state agencies (California
Departments of Transportation and Fish and
Game), and is intended to encourage the
inclusion of habitat connectivity planning and
protection in local and regional planning in
support of the State Wildlife Action Plan. It was
designed to be a model effort, with relevance to
regions struggling with finding ways to conserve
wildlife and natural processes in the face of
development. One major ecological process at
risk is isolation of wildlife populations and
reduction of the permeability of the landscape
to wildlife movement. The project draws upon
contemporary scientific understanding of
wildlife movement, physical connections on
landscapes, and land‐use and transportation
planning in order to better fit development
patterns to the needs of natural processes,
especially wildlife movement.

As its name implies, the project
addresses the need for finding safe passage for
wildlife movement through the diverse regions
of California. Two philosophical choices were
made in designing this project: 1) wildlife
movement is not limited to managed reserves
and corridors, but may also occur in the non‐
natural landscape matrix, and 2) that local and
regional planners can become aware of and be
included in the process of conserving
connectivity. In the first case, the computer
modeling that was done in this project was
based on the idea that wildlife might originate
their movement from anywhere and move in
the least‐costly direction. This results in a
surface of possible wildlife movement based on
habitat preference and barriers to safe passage.

In the second case, planners in the San Joaquin
Valley Blueprint process learned of our overall
project goals and methods and a number of
cities or counties expressed interest in working
with us. We chose the city of Riverbank, in part
because the community development director
showed clear interest in using the products of
our work in the General Planning and Specific
Planning processes.

This project has evolved to include
more ideas and potential partners, including the
California Department of Fish and Game (DFG),
the Local Government Commission, and other
academic researchers. This evolution has
extended our project horizon indefinitely with a
combination of a DFG contract and
collaborative proposal development. However
the main project goal of setting the standard for
how connectivity can be included in local and
regional planning has stayed constant. Our
partners will help us develop a sea change in
the recognition and protection of safe passages
for wildlife movement throughout California’s
San Joaquin Valley and beyond.

3 III.  Introduction
The Safe Passages project, launched in 2008, is
a collaborative effort to advance the concepts,
planning, and implementation of wildlife
connectivity for the state of California. It is
comprised of both university researcher groups
and conservation NGOs working closely with
state agencies. Initial funding for the Safe
Passages project has been provided by the
Wildlife Conservation Society (with forthcoming
matching funds from the California Department
of Fish and Game – “DFG”) to support the
implementation of the State Wildlife Action
Plan (SWAP) as well as Caltrans’ compliance
with requirements of federal transportation
legislation. One of the SWAP recommendations
and priorities was for wildlife connectivity to be
incorporated into statewide, regional, and local
planning processes (Bunn et al. 2007).

Several actions were undertaken to
achieve the goals of the project. The first
project component was the hosting of a two‐
day statewide forum on habitat connectivity
planning in California. This forum brought
together scientists, managers, and policy
makers from all of the ecoregions of the state in
order to share information and chart some next
steps for connectivity planning and
implementation in California. A suite of
speakers presented on a variety of connectivity‐
centered topics. This was followed by several
breakout sessions focused on both ecoregion‐
specific and thematic wildlife connectivity
issues. The forum speakers were video‐taped
and compiled into a three DVD box set along
with a CD of PDF documents of each slide show.

The second major action associated
with Safe Passages is the design of a model
linkage to serve as a prototype for future
community planning efforts. The objective of
this portion of the project was to design an
implementable wildlife linkage in a location
highly impacted by human activity and subject
to many constraints due to the physical and
regulatory setting. We selected as our study
area a small incorporated city in the San
Joaquin Valley (SJV), an agricultural region in
California that is currently undergoing rapid
urbanization. We made the decision to select
the model linkage location from a group of
willing local government entities. This
interaction with local governments was deemed
important to achieve the incorporation of
connectivity planning results into city and
county general plans, the primary policy
vehicles implementing land use changes.

Policy Framework
The Safe Passages project took place at
two spatial scales. We first contacted and
presented to the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint
Steering Committee. The San Joaquin Valley
Blueprint (http://www.valleyblueprint.org/) is a
collaborative visioning and planning process
comprised of over 60 groups, assembled
through the Council of Governments in each of
the eight San Joaquin Valley counties. The
Blueprint is an on‐going effort to address the
potential conflicts between rapid human
population growth and the region’s agriculture,
natural resources, and local government
services. The University of California, Davis has
been providing technical and other support to
the Blueprint planning group. Safe Passages
team members who are also UC Davis
researchers requested time to present to the
Blueprint planning group, and two
presentations were scheduled.

We presented the concepts of the Safe
Passages project on two occasions (one a video
conference with the Blueprint Steering
Committee on March 17, 2009, and the other in
Fresno to the San Joaquin Valley Professional
Planners Group on May 9, 2009, attended by
about 50 people). We subsequently polled the
audience of the second meeting, and requested
that local government representatives
interested in the ideas identify themselves to
us. Eight city and county government groups
expressed interest in the initiative. We selected
one, the city of Riverbank, to work with for the
second phase of this project. This selection was
based on our perception of the feasibility for a
successful integration of the Safe Passages

4 project’s goals with the local land use planning
process. tour reasoning was informed by the
local regulatory and managerial context (e.g.
government personnel, enthusiasm, etc.) along
with the presence of high quality ecological
resources proximate to the city of Riverbank.

The Safe Passages team initiated a
series of meetings and analyses with the city of
Riverbank (Figure 1), coordinated by
Riverbank’s community development director,
James Hightower, who participated in the
Blueprint planning group meeting. The first
meeting between the Safe Passages group and
Riverbank’s planning department and parks
department personnel took place in Riverbank,
on October 9, 2009. The planning department
personnel expressed interest in the possibility
of using wildlife connectivity planning as a way
to help promote the sustainable development
and attractiveness of the city to tourists on their
way to and from Yosemite National Park. Mr.

Hightower subsequently invited the group to
return and present to the city Planning
Commission.

On November 18, 2009, the Safe
Passages group returned to Riverbank to
present to the evening meeting of the Planning
Commission. This group also expressed interest
in the ideas presented, and directed Mr.

Hightower to continue working with the Safe
Passages team. The Commission also agreed to
have a city council resolution put forward,
stating their interest in the initiative. This
resolution was subsequently passed by the city
council.

During the meetings with Riverbank
representatives, it emerged that they were very
interested in using the natural and undeveloped
area along the Stanislaus River as a way to
improve the quality of life for residents and to
attract environmentally‐minded tourists
traveling to and from Yosemite National Park. In
preliminary regional assessments, the Safe
Passages team had also identified the Stanislaus
River as a major geographic feature which could
be benefit wildlife movement if managed
appropriately. Several other ideas were
presented at the meeting, including the
development of a circum‐city greenbelt and the
development of designated bicycle lanes and
green spaces within the city.

To augment our relationship with the
city of Riverbank we recruited a representative
from the Local Government Commission (LGC)
to help us identify funding opportunities to
implement some ideas generated from the
project. The LGC member, Laura Podolsky,
attended the evening Planning Commission
meeting. She indicated that her group is also
looking for opportunities to collaborate on
wildlife connectivity issues. We all discussed the
possibility of focusing on the Stanislaus River
from its emergence from the Sierra Nevada and
Tulloch Reservoir to the east, to its confluence
with the San Joaquin River, some 50 miles to
the west. Implementation of conservation along
this stretch would require the joint planning of
multiple municipal jurisdictions, including
Ripon, Riverbank, and Oakdale, as well as
Stanislaus County and potentially San Joaquin
County.

A subsequent presentation in Riverbank
took place on the evening of February 8, 2010,
when several team members outlined the goals
and analyses‐to‐date of the Safe Passages
project to the city council. The Council also
expressed interest in collaboration with the
team, and directed Mr. Hightower to continue
his efforts to integrate wildlife connectivity and
open space planning for the city.

The remainder of this report details
material presented to the Riverbank Planning
Commission and city council in conjunction with
associated modeling outputs.

Study Area
The study area is located in the
southern portion of California’s Great Central
Valley, in the San Joaquin Valley. The San
Joaquin Valley (SJV) includes eight counties and
measures approximately 7 million hectares
(70,000 km2
) in extent, spanning 450 km from
north to south, and 150 km from east to west.

The human population of this geographically
and biologically diverse region is growing faster
than Mexico’s (CIA 2002) and has a poverty rate

5 higher than that of the Appalachia region of the
United States (Rural Migration News 2006).

Previous to European settlement, the valley
floor was well connected to the foothills and
Sierra Nevada mountains through natural
community linkages, and thus constituted a
healthy, functioning ecosystem. During the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
however, the SJV became one of the most
productive agricultural centers in the USA. This
region now generates half the gross value of
California’s agricultural production, and ranks
fourth in the country with respect to the
number of people involved in farming, forestry,
and fishing. Historically it has been known
strictly as an agricultural center, but as housing
and population pressure in California’s coastal
regions has increased, the human population of
the SJV region has increased and pressure on its
resources has intensified. In the next 35–40
years, population in the Valley is projected to
more than double, increasing from 3.3 million
today to more than 7 million by 2040 (PPIC
2006). By 2050 there will be close to 8 million
SJV residents.

Riverbank is an incorporated city with a
population of approximately 20,000 residents. It
is located in northern Stanislaus County,
adjacent to the south bank of the Stanislaus
River (Figure 1). The river forms the border
between Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties.

The city lies on a high bluff (tens of meters in
height) overlooking the river. It is primarily an
agricultural center, founded as a railroad stop
from which to ship locally produced crops. The
natural vegetation in the area surrounding the
city has been highly fragmented since post‐Gold
Rush agricultural production commenced.

Currently approximately 4% of the area within a
10 km radius of the city can be considered
natural vegetation (primarily riparian vegetation
and annual grassland), with roughly 70% of the
area used for agriculture and 25% converted to
urban uses (Figure 2). The Stanislaus River is a
major ecological feature of the area and one of
the major components of the Riverbank open
space and recreational system – Jacob Myers
Park – is located within the riparian zone (Figure
1). The river’s headwaters begin in the Sierra
Nevada mountains (east of the San Joaquin
Valley) and ends at the confluence with the San
Joaquin River approximately 25 km west of the
city.

What is Connectivity?
The ability of wildlife to move through a
landscape in order to acquire or complement
necessary resources for feeding, cover, and
reproduction has been recognized as critical for
the survival of animal populations (Taylor et al.
1993). One definition of “connectivity” is the
ability of an individual or population to move
between habitat patches that provide these
resources (Hilty et al. 2006). Habitat patches
and landscape connectivity are species‐specific,
determined by an animal’s perception, vagility,
and life history requirements. Connectivity can
also be seen as the opportunistic movement of
wildlife in response to environmental cues over
various time frames. A species can undertake
several types of movement events, which
generally take place at different spatial and
temporal scales at various life history stages.

Daily movement can occur in the procurement
of food and water, shelter, or other resource
requirements. Seasonal movement, or
“migration”, might occur, generally at a much
larger spatial scale. Long distance juvenile
dispersal or other colonization events might
take place once in an individual’s life or even
once every several generations. These various
types of movement, coupled with inter‐species
biological differences, result in numerous ways
to measure a landscape’s connectivity.

Management for landscape connectivity
often focuses on planning and implementation
of wildlife “corridors” or “linkages” (Dobson et
al. 1999, Bennett 2003). These linear features
are designed to enable animal (and plant
propagule) movement between larger “core”
habitats. While these ecological network
components often fulfill important conservation
management roles, they do not describe the
entirety of animal movement across a
landscape. While a designated corridor might
delineate an area with a greater number of

6 Figure 1. Location of the city of Riverbank study area. Jacob Myers Park is indicated on the lower map.

7 Figure 2. Land cover within a 10 km radius of the city of Riverbank.

8 movement events, its binary nature will not
account for potential movement outside its
borders.

A full two‐dimensional landscape view
of connectivity rather than a constrained
corridor‐focused approach might be more
effective and especially applicable in regions
where there are few large core habitat areas
(ecological nodes), for example as in the San
Joaquin Valley and the Riverbank study area.

Such an approach would seek to “soften” some
portion of the agricultural landscape matrix to
make wildlife passage through a larger
proportion of the landscape possible rather
than relying entirely on a designated corridor.

Examples of softening the agricultural
landscape matrix include augmenting farm
edges with hedgerows, constructing tail water
ponds in low elevation areas, and vegetating
canal edges. Urban edges can also be softened
to facilitate animal movement. Some examples
in the city of Riverbank would be storm water
detention basins that also provide habitat
resources near the Stanislaus River and adding
tertiary water treatment wetlands adjacent to
the existing sewage treatment plant next to the
river. City parks can also contribute to softening
the urban edge and, to some degree, provide
wildlife connectivity resources.

This approach to planning for wildlife
connectivity views the landscape holistically and
strives to create an “ecological network”
(Jongman and Pungetti 2004) consisting of
traditional natural reserve cores and corridors
along with cultural landscape features that
function to contribute to animal habitat and
movement. Ecological networks can integrate
open space, urban areas, agricultural areas, and
natural reserves into a single coherent system.

IV.  Linkage Modeling
Focal species
Linkages should serve to facilitate the
movement of multiple species and ecological
processes across the landscape. However, in
most ecosystems there are far too many species
for which to model movement needs in the
planning process. Thus many planners employ a
focal species approach to analysis and design of
linkages (Beier et al. 2008). This approach
assumes that the careful selection of a handful
of key (“focal”) species can serve as proxies (or
“umbrellas”) for the many other non‐focal
species in terms of ecological needs (Lambeck
1997). Linkage plans that adequately confer
protection on the focal species should then also
serve to address the movement needs of the
other ecosystem components.

We selected four focal species for
connectivity analysis: mule deer (Odocoileus
hemionus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), San Joaquin
pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus), and
western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata).

The mule deer and bobcat were selected
because of their long distance terrestrial
movement needs as well as for their generalist
nature in habitat selection. These
characteristics can potentially lead to wide
ranging connectivity between the many small
remaining fragments of natural vegetation
within the study area. The San Joaquin pocket
mouse was selected for its grassland
dependence and sensitivity to even small gaps
in natural cover due to its short dispersal
capabilities. Finally, the western pond turtle
was selected because of its need for aquatic
habitat and adjacent riparian forest. The needs
of these species address both of the major
natural land cover components of the study
area (riparian forest and grassland) and habitat
diversity at a larger spatial scale.

Least cost modeling
One popular modeling technique used
to analyze landscape connectivity is least cost
modeling. This GIS‐based approach measures
the likelihood of any particular point on the
landscape being used by an animal moving
between two designated endpoints. This
likelihood is determined through a combination
of the ecological “cost” to move across that
particular point (with a lower cost being

9 equivalent to a greater ease of movement) and
the point’s spatial relation to both the
endpoints and the other intervening points of
potential travel on the landscape. This
combination is known as “effective distance”
(Theobald 2006). The least cost path, as
determined through this sort of analysis, is the
path of movement traversing a series of low
cost points (i.e. high quality habitat for that
individual as defined by an inputted “cost
surface”) while minimizing the overall Euclidean
distance travelled. A least cost corridor is similar
but generates a connectivity surface between
endpoints rather than a single least cost line.

A key to least cost modeling is
designation of the endpoints that are to be
linked by a path or corridor. Usually in
conservation planning these are large reserves
areas that could serve as “cores” (Noss et al.
1999), i.e. source populations for dispersing
individuals. However, this presupposes a known
origin and destination for animals moving
across a landscape and establishes a binary
corridor/matrix that could potentially relegate
land outside the “corridor” as unimportant for
conservation management. We instead chose
to analyze the full study area for the potential
for movement across the landscape regardless
of pre‐conceived notions of where an individual
might disperse from or to as well as to assign a
relative connectivity value for all locations in
the study area.

To accomplish this, we used a
technique (which we are calling “least cost
surface” modeling) where we overlaid in an
additive fashion a number of connectivity
surfaces generated for each focal species. The
cost surface used in the analysis was simply the
inverse of the habitat value by land cover type
(as provided by the California Wildlife Habitat
Relationship (CWHR) System’s land cover
classification system (Mayer and Laudenslayer
[1988] developed and maintained by the
California Department of Fish and Game) for
each focal species. We divided the perimeter of
the circular study area into 12 equal length
segments and then conducted least cost
analyses for each focal species between all pairs
of segments (except for adjacent pairs). This led
to a total of 54 least cost corridors that were
then overlaid and summed. Because the
summed connectivity value of any given point is
influenced by its location within the circular
study area (i.e. centrally‐positioned points will
be located within more least cost corridors than
will peripheral points), we also ran a parallel
analysis that used a uniform cost surface to
mathematically correct resultant analyses by
removing the effects of spatial location from
the result.

In order to test the effects of spatial
scale (both grain and extent) we conducted nine
separate connectivity analyses for each focal
species. We used three different radii (5, 10,
and 20 kilometers) from a point in central
Riverbank to create circular study areas of
various sizes. Using each of these extents we
conducted analyses using three different data
raster cell sizes (10, 30, and 100 meters square)
for both inputs and outputs.

We also examined both the potential
effects of human impacts on wildlife
connectivity and intactness of habitat in areas
of high modeled connectivity (see below for
those respective methods). While intactness
analyses were performed for all focal species,
the human impacts analyses were conducted
only for the mule deer and bobcat. The San
Joaquin pocket mouse and western pond turtle
were not analyzed for human impacts because
their much smaller home ranges mean that
potential human impacts are more localized
and not as applicable to the spatial scales that
we were investigating. For the mule deer and
bobcat we only modeled human impact effects
using 30 m raster cells after determining
through test analyses that 10 m and 30 m raster
cells produced equivalent results while 100 m
raster cells missed important remnant patches
of natural vegetation.

Human impacts ‐ roads
Human impacts can have direct
negative effects on the ability of animals to
move across a landscape. Roads are one
important source of these impacts (Trombulak

10 and Frissell 2000, Underhill and Angold 2000,
Forman et al. 2002). We calculated road effects
on potential animal movement by comparing
connectivity scores from the least cost surface
modeling with road density.  Road density was
calculated within a moving window equal to the
average home range size of each focal species.

Both connectivity and road density scores were
then normalized on a 0.0 – 1.0 scale and
multiplied by each other. The higher resulting
road impact scores (closer to 1.0) then showed
those areas that had both high connectivity and
high road density scores.

Human impacts ‐ urban
Urban areas are another source of
direct human impact on landscape connectivity.

Not only does the actual development footprint
prevent most dispersal for many species, but
there are ancillary negative urban edge effects
as well (Murcia 1995, Crooks 2002). We
calculated urban effects on potential animal
movement by comparing connectivity scores
with urban area density.   We considered
“urban” areas to be those raster cells defined as
such in the land cover dataset. Urban area
density was calculated within a moving window
equal to the average home range size of the
focal species in question. Both connectivity and
urban area density scores were then normalized
on a 0.0 – 1.0 scale and multiplied. The higher
resulting urban impact scores (closer to 1.0)
then showed those areas that had both high
connectivity and high urban area density scores.

Human impacts – future urban growth
The previous urban impacts analyses
are important to show areas that might
currently be affected by human settlement.

However, the San Joaquin Valley is expected to
see greater than 100% population growth by
the year 2050. This future population growth
and associated new urban development will
potentially have effects on wildlife connectivity
across the larger region and within the
Riverbank study area.

To assess anticipated future urban
impacts on modeled connectivity, we assumed
that urban expansion within the study area
would adhere to the scenario selected by the
SJV Blueprint planning process, the B+ scenario.

As part of the SJV Blueprint process (of which
the city of Riverbank is a participating member),
the spatial footprint of future urban growth was
calculated using UPlan, an urban growth model
(Johnston et al. 2003). We calculated the
density of the UPlan raster output within a
moving window equal to the average home
range size of the focal species in question and
compared this with the connectivity scores.

Both connectivity and future urban area density
scores were then normalized on a 0.0 – 1.0
scale and multiplied. The higher resulting urban
impact scores (closer to 1.0) then showed those
areas that had both high connectivity and high
future urban area density scores. These areas
highlighted places that are more likely to see
conflict between competing land use values in
the future.

Connectivity intactness
The connectivity analyses conducted
here represent potential species’ movement
rather than actual movement. An area with high
potential connectivity is merely the “path of
least resistance”, which may actually be quite
high (although still lower than in surrounding
areas). Areas of high potential connectivity may
include gaps in natural landcover that an animal
might not be willing to traverse. These places
where usable land cover is constricted to a
narrow band or missing altogether can
constitute a linkage “chokepoint”, or
“bottleneck” (Beier et al. 2008).   These are
areas where land uses not compatible with
animal movement reduce (or eliminate
altogether) the ability of individuals to traverse
that portion of the linkage. Effective linkage
design calls for management actions to address
chokepoints that could render the linkage
degraded or even non‐functional.

The inverse of a chokepoint, i.e. an area
displaying high potential connectivity as well as
large amounts of natural landcover, can be
considered a node, or refugium. These locations
could serve as resting points for animals in the

11 process of lengthy dispersals or seasonal
movements. In some cases, they may even
serve as home ranges for several individuals
(given the extent of the node is large enough to
support them).

In order to assess potential connectivity
intactness, we identified those areas that
displayed high potential connectivity scores and
were embedded in areas with highly suitable
land cover scores. To do this, we calculated the
mean land cover score for each focal species
within several moving windows (mule deer and
bobcat: 100 m, 250 m, 500 m; San Joaquin
pocket mouse and western pond turtle: 50 m
and 100 m). These windows were smaller than
mean home range sizes and were chosen to
approximate the general width of natural
vegetation necessary to provide enough cover
for species’ movement. Because there is
inadequate observational data on what these
widths should minimally be for our focal species
to allow movement, we chose several to
account for a range of potential widths. Both
the connectivity and land cover scores were
then normalized on a 0.0 – 1.0 scale and
multiplied. The higher scores from this
calculation then were used to identify areas of
more intact connectivity. Lower scores indicate
areas either of low connectivity value,
undesirable land cover types, or both.

Stanislaus NF – San Joaquin NWR
In order to compare our connectivity
surface analysis technique against traditional
connectivity techniques (corridor modeling
between endpoint “cores”), as well as to situate
the project area within a larger regional
context, we conducted a corridor analysis
between the Stanislaus National Forest (east of
the study extents) and San Joaquin National
Wildlife Refuge (west of the study extents). This
linkage between the Sierra Nevada (with its
large amount of public lands) and the San
Joaquin River on the floor of the San Joaquin
Valley represents a typical approach to
modeling connectivity in this region. We used
the mule deer as the focal species for this
analysis. An intact corridor in this area could
allow for potential seasonal movement patterns
between the San Joaquin Valley floor and
higher elevation natural areas as well as provide
a means of adaptation by mule deer to future
climate change. The ultimate goal for this
portion of the project will be the identification
of opportunities for enhancement of animal
movement across this large area while
incorporating local patterns and processes as
well as planning needs into a conservation
network, or “greenprint”.

Other species of concern
While most of the analysis we
conducted focused on the potential for animal
movement through the study area, we also
wanted to ensure that species of regulatory
concern were accounted for in our ongoing
planning process. Using the California Natural
Diversity Database (CNDDB; California DFG
2009), we identified occurrence records of
sensitive species within the study area. We also
conducted a landscape‐scale habitat analysis for
the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; one of
the CNDDB species) where we calculated the
mean CWHR land cover scores within an
average owl home range (144 ha; Gervais et al.
2003). In addition, we used a dataset provided
by the DFG (M. Hoshovsky, pers. comm.) to
identify potential Swainson’s hawk (Buteo
swainsoni) habitat within the study area (in
addition to locating CNDDB occurrence
records).

V.  Results
Connectivity
The Stanislaus River is the major natural
ecological feature of the study area and much
of modeled connectivity followed this east‐west
conduit (Figures 3‐5). Not surprisingly, the focal
species whose connectivity surface most
adhered to the river corridor was the western
pond turtle. The mule deer and bobcat analyses
also highlighted this riparian corridor. The San
Joaquin pocket mouse connectivity surface
paralleled the river to a certain degree,

12 however the areas showing the greatest
connectivity for this species were the grassland
and pasture areas beyond the outer edge of the
riparian zone. One high connectivity area (at
least at the smaller spatial extents) for all focal
species except pond turtle was the agricultural
area east of Riverbank.

We found that the spatial extent and
grain used in the connectivity analyses
impacted the resulting connectivity surfaces
(Figures 3‐5). One major impact of spatial
extent that we noted was the reduction in
modeled connectivity in the vicinity of
Riverbank when the analysis was conducted at
the 20 km radius (Figure 5). The northeastern
portion of the study area contained within this
radius is largely rangeland rather than the mix
of intensive agriculture and urban areas that
comprise most of the remainder of the area.

These rangelands then displayed much higher
potential for movement of individuals than did
the areas of greater human impact on the valley
floor. The major exception to this was the
modeled western pond turtle connectivity. Even
at the larger spatial extent, the Stanislaus River
(and to a lesser extent the Tuolumne River)
comprised a major potential movement
corridor across the study area. These results
indicate that habitat enhancements for
increased connectivity should be undertaken in
the Riverbank area rather than merely
preservation of existing habitat. These
enhancements could increase the potential for
a variety of species to be better able to move
within and through the central portions of the
study area.

There was also a noticeable effect on
connectivity analysis results when different
grain sizes (i.e. raster cell sizes) were used
(Figures 3‐5). The most notable effect occurred
when we used 100 m raster cells in our
analyses. It was evident that at this spatial
scale, much of the remnant valley floor
vegetation was of too fine a resolution to be
rendered by 100 m raster cells. At the 5 km
radius extent (Figure 3), the non‐identification
of small riparian forest remnants led to a
reduced modeled connectivity for the Stanislaus
River corridor from just east of Riverbank to the
eastern edge of the study area. This was the
case for all four focal species.

At the 10 km extent, the same pattern
held for the pond turtle (Figure 4). Mule deer
connectivity was much reduced along the entire
Stanislaus River when modeled with 100 m
raster cells. Modeled pocket mouse
connectivity around the northern and western
edges of Riverbank was similarly reduced
because of the small and fragmented nature of
grassland remnants in the area (large enough
for potential use by the mouse but too small to
be acknowledged by the 100 m raster cells). At
the 20 km extent, the connectivity potential of
the entire Stanislaus (and Tuolumne) River went
unnoted for all of the focal species when using
100 m raster cells (Figure 5).

Human impacts
Anticipated human impacts to
movement by mule deer and bobcat in the
vicinity of Riverbank were relatively constant
regardless of spatial extent used for modeling.

Urban impacts to connectivity were found
throughout the entire perimeter of Riverbank
(Figure 6), with a slightly larger impact to
bobcat on the eastern edge. The major road
impacts to connectivity in the Riverbank vicinity
were concentrated in the area between
Riverbank and Oakdale along Highway 108
(Figure 7). Although there is not much natural
vegetation remaining in this area, it still
represents the most feasible route of north‐
south movement within the study area because
this is the only substantial break in urban
development along Highway 108 and the
Stanislaus River. There were also areas of lower
human impact to the west of Riverbank, along
the Stanislaus River corridor on the north edge
of Riverbank, and to the southeast of Riverbank.

According to the UPlan growth
projection model, the major locations where
probable future urban development could
impact connectivity are the agricultural areas to
the immediate east of Riverbank and the area
separating the cities of Riverbank and Modesto
(Figure 8). Much of the area surrounding

13 Figure 3. Focal species connectivity as measured at a 5 km radius from the north edge of the City of Riverbank. White represents high potential connectivity while brown represents low connectivity.

Analyses were conducted using three raster cell sizes: 10 m, 30 m, and 100 m. The Stanislaus River is the blue line, highways are thick gray lines, and other roads are thin gray lines.

14 Figure 4. Focal species connectivity as measured at a 10 km radius from the north edge of the City of Riverbank. White represents high potential connectivity while brown represents low connectivity.

Analyses were conducted using three raster cell sizes: 10 m, 30 m, and 100 m. The Stanislaus River is the blue line, highways are thick gray lines, and other roads are thin gray lines.

15 Figure 5. Focal species connectivity as measured at a 20 km radius from the north edge of the City of Riverbank. White represents high potential connectivity while brown represents low connectivity.

Analyses were conducted using three raster cell sizes: 10 m, 30 m, and 100 m. Highways are thick gray lines. Other roads have been removed for visual clarity.

16 Figure 6. Potential urban impacts on mule deer and bobcat connectivity. Red indicates areas of high urban area density and high potential connectivity. Black is existing urban landcover. Underlying these are the 30 m raster cell connectivity surfaces put on a green (high) to white (low) color scale.

17 Figure 7. Potential road impacts on mule deer and bobcat connectivity. Red indicates areas of high road density and high potential connectivity. Black is existing urban landcover. Underlying these are the 30 m raster cell connectivity surfaces put on a green (high) to white (low) color scale.

18 Oakdale is also at risk of losing connectivity
potential due to likely new urban development
over the next several decades.

Connectivity intactness
The results of connectivity intactness
modeling also displayed grain‐  and extent‐
related spatial scale effects (Figures 9‐11). The
relative intactness of the Stanislaus River
corridor and other areas in the vicinity of
Riverbank were reduced as both grain size (cell
size) and spatial extent increased. However,
there were some locations, such as the along
the river corridor just west of Riverbank that
displayed higher levels of intactness than the
surrounding landscape regardless of scale
change.

Ecological network nodes
Several areas displaying relatively high
connectivity intactness could potentially serve
as habitat nodes in a Riverbank ecological
network. Mule deer, bobcat, and western pond
turtle all showed high connectivity in the bend
in the Stanislaus River just west of McHenry Ave
(Figure 12). Another area of high multi‐species
connectivity intactness was found in the vicinity
of the sewage disposal ponds across the
Stanislaus River from western Riverbank. High
western pond turtle connectivity intactness was
seen along a bend in the Stanislaus River
between Riverbank and Oakdale. High San
Joaquin pocket mouse connectivity intactness
was seen in pastureland between Highway 108
and the Stanislaus River west of Riverbank.

Other areas of higher connectivity intactness
included the agricultural land east of Riverbank.

Ecological network chokepoints
A number of chokepoints (i.e. areas of
high potential connectivity but low probability
of actual use for movement due to non‐
compatible land cover types) were found for all
four focal species (Figure 13). One important
potential chokepoint – Jacob Myers Park –
presents an interesting challenge because it
figures to be a critical component of the
greenbelt system which is to be integrated in
the linkage design. The open turf areas and
associated park infrastructure, while desired
open space features, do not lend themselves to
movement of the focal (and other) species. Of
the focal species, only the San Joaquin pocket
mouse is not expected to be negatively
impacted by this park. Another potential
chokepoint for the non‐mouse focal species is a
segment of the riparian area in between
Riverbank and Oakdale in the vicinity of the
River Road and Sawyer Avenue intersection.

The riparian forest thins considerably at this
location, possibly hindering or eliminating
movement along the river corridor. Another
riparian area just northeast of Riverbank is also
narrow, potentially impacting especially the
western pond turtle. Finally there are potential
chokepoints for the San Joaquin pocket mouse
in the areas lying between the Stanislaus River
and Highway 108 to the west of Oakdale Road.

Regional corridor
The regional‐scale mule deer corridor that we
identified shared some overlap with the other
connectivity models we developed. Riverbank
and the adjacent Stanislaus River are located on
the corridor identified, linking the Sierra Nevada
and San Joaquin River (Figure 14). The regional
corridor skirts the northern edge of New
Melones Lake in the Sierra Nevada foothills,
crosses annual grassland and pastures in
eastern Stanislaus County, meets the Stanislaus
River in the vicinity of the City of Oakdale (east
of Riverbank), and then follows the river to the
confluence with the San Joaquin River (where
mule deer are present in the San Joaquin
National Wildlife Refuge). While this corridor is
coincident with the river‐centric high
connectivity areas, other areas away from the
river (e.g. pastures east of Riverbank) were not
identified by the regional mule deer corridor.

Other species
There were 13 sensitive (special status)
species identified within the study area (Table
1). The burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, and

19 Figure 8. Potential future urban impacts on mule deer and bobcat connectivity. Red indicates areas of high predicted future urban area density and high potential connectivity. Black is existing urban landcover. Underlying these are the 30 m raster cell connectivity surfaces put on a green (high) to white (low) color scale.

20 Figure 9. Mule deer connectivity intactness. White indicates areas where there is both high modeled connectivity and high mean habitat ratings for mule deer. Radii used for calculating habitat ratings are:
100 m, 250 m, and 500 m. Analyses were conducted at 5 km, 10 km, and 20 km radii from the City of Riverbank (shown here in black outline).

21 Figure 10. Bobcat connectivity intactness. White indicates areas where there is both high modeled connectivity and high mean habitat ratings for bobcat. Radii used for calculating habitat ratings are: 100 m, 250 m, and 500 m. Analyses were conducted at 5 km, 10 km, and 20 km radii from the City of Riverbank (shown here in black outline).

22 Figure 11. San Joaquin pocket mouse and western pond turtle connectivity intactness. The color scale has been inverted for visual clarity. Brown now indicates areas where there is both high modeled connectivity and high mean habitat ratings for mule deer. Radii used for calculating habitat ratings are:
50 m and 100 m. Analyses were conducted at 5 km and 10 km from the City of Riverbank (shown here in black outline).

23 Figure 12. Four examples of potential habitat “nodes” for a Riverbank ecological network. These are areas of both high potential connectivity and habitat value for modeled focal species.

24 Figure 13. Four examples of potential “chokepoints” (or “bottlenecks”) for a Riverbank ecological network. These are areas of both high potential connectivity and low habitat value for modeled focal species.

25 Figure 14. Mule deer corridor between Stanislaus National Forest in the northeast (green) and San Joaquin National Wildlife Refuge in the southwest (yellow). Purple indicates areas of higher connectivity between these core areas. The large blue areas are reservoirs. The City of Riverbank is the black urban area at the center of the red circle.

26 valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB;
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) are three
species of regulatory concern that occur in the
immediate vicinity of Riverbank. Likely habitat
and/or occurrence locations for these species
are shown in Figure 15. A robust linkage design
will include habitat for these species in addition
to focal species’ connectivity needs.

VI.  Future Linkage Design
The analyses described in this report are an
interim step in the production of a final design
for a wildlife linkage in the city of Riverbank
area. The results will need to be assembled and
integrated into an overall vision for protection
and enhancement of connectivity in the region
that also includes human open space,
recreational, and quality of life needs. This
integration will be the next step, moving
beyond the conclusions found in this report.

The next step in the connectivity
analysis will be to combine the focal species’
results to produce an overall connectivity
framework for the study area. This result will
represent connectivity needs for a wide variety
of species rather than any one individual
species. Next, the intactness and chokepoint
analyses can be combined to show those
locations that could serve as nodes or be seen
as bottlenecks for the entire network. This will
also be done for the human impact analyses in
order to show areas that are likely to impact
multiple species both presently and in the
future because of urban growth in the area.

Wildlife connectivity
The analyses conducted to‐date
indicate that the Stanislaus River riparian
corridor is an important local natural feature for
wildlife connectivity in the greater Riverbank
area. It contains the most intact natural land
cover in a region dominated by agriculture and
urban development. An effective conservation
plan should protect as much of the remaining
riparian vegetation as possible. This riparian
cover will enable the movement both of larger
generalist species (e.g. mule deer and bobcat)
and smaller, less mobile riparian/aquatic
obligate species (e.g. western pond turtle).

These focal species can serve as umbrellas for
many other species (e.g. migratory songbirds)
that could benefit for preservation of this high
quality ecological resource.

There are currently several areas of
natural land cover located on the river corridor
that are large and could potentially serve as
habitat nodes for a variety of species. Especially
important might be several to the west of
Riverbank which not only display high
connectivity intactness for several focal species
but also include several VELB occurrence
records. This indicates that larger mobile
species could use these areas as resting habitat
while moving along the corridor at the same
time smaller sensitive species could establish
home ranges there. These nodes are currently
not in public ownership (however conservation
easement data will need to be obtained to fully
answer the question of protection of these
areas).

However, the Stanislaus River corridor
should not be considered a fully intact
ecological feature. There are chokepoint areas
that impede or block passage of individuals
(especially of larger taxa such as mule deer)
attempting to move along the corridor. For
instance, mule deer are currently present in the
San Joaquin National Wildlife Refuge, yet 3
miles upstream the Stanislaus River in Caswell
Memorial State Park no mule deer have been
observed moving through the park for at least
three years (pers. comm., M. Whelan). There
are several locations both upstream and
downstream from Riverbank where riparian
forest restoration activities should be
undertaken to enhance the habitat and
connectivity qualities of the corridor. One area
of emphasis should be Jacob Myers Park where
efforts should be made to integrate an
expansion of natural land cover with existing
recreational amenities. Currently these
amenities may serve to prohibit movement of

27 CNDDB Species
Beaked clarkia Clarkia rostrata
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia
California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense
Greene’s tuctoria Tuctoria greenei
Hardhead Mylopharodon conocephalus
Legenere Legenere limosa
Moestan blister beetle Lytta moesta
Suisun song sparrow Melospiza melodia maxillaris
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Lepidurus packardi
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus
Table 1. Sensitive species in the study area, as found in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (California DFG 2006).

28 Figure 15. Locations of three sensitive species within the study area. At top left is burrowing owl habitat and occurrence records (red stars). At top right is Swainson’s hawk. Purple indicates areas of high habitat density for these species. At bottom are valley elderberry longhorn beetle occurrence records and aerial photos (2005 NAIP imagery) of these locations. The City of Riverbank is represented as the shaded gray area.

29 many species along the length of the corridor.

Structurally‐favorable features like this riparian
corridor are only important for wildlife
movement if animals perceive that there is
somewhere to move to, leading to functional
connectivity.

When connectivity analysis is extended
to greater spatial extents, the importance of the
Stanislaus River corridor diminishes somewhat.

These analyses tell us that the constricted
nature of the existing riparian corridor make it
less likely that many species will find their way
into and along the corridor from endpoints to
the east and west. Both wide‐ranging generalist
species and grassland‐obligate species will be
more likely to move through the non‐farmed
areas above the San Joaquin Valley floor in the
eastern portion of the study area where
movement is much less constrained. General
widening of the riparian corridor combined with
grassland components along the length would
probably enhance the usability of the corridor
from a regional standpoint. However, it could
be argued that the Stanislaus River corridor
offers the best chance of establishing a conduit
for allowing long distance movement between
the Stanislaus National Forest to the east and
the San Joaquin National Wildlife Refuge at the
confluence with the San Joaquin River to the
west, especially below the city of Oakdale. This
potential movement corridor could benefit both
long distance migratory patterns and future
required movement to help offset the
anticipated effects of climate change.

Connectivity not associated with the
Stanislaus River corridor is more problematic.

Grasslands in the study area have been greatly
reduced in extent and highly fragmented. Large
native grassland species (e.g. pronghorn) have
been extirpated. Smaller species, such as the
San Joaquin pocket mouse may be present but
populations most likely are small and isolated.

The connectivity analyses for this species shows
potential linkage from usable habitat west of
Riverbank, through the area north of Riverbank,
and across the area east of Riverbank. While
there may be some potential pathways in the
indicated areas, movement across this area of
higher connectivity would necessarily cross the
Stanislaus River which is most likely a
formidable barrier to small non‐riparian species.

Movement between the western and eastern
sections of higher connectivity could
conceivably be achieved via the agricultural
land remaining between Riverbank and
Modesto (south of Riverbank). However, this
area is highly impacted by human disturbance
and further is slated to be subject to a new
highway alignment as well as future urban
growth. It is unclear how connectivity across the
full study area for the San Joaquin pocket
mouse and other grassland species will be
maintained into the future.

One area that is potentially important
for focal species connectivity in the study area is
the agricultural land between the cities of
Riverbank and Oakdale. While the Stanislaus
River provides for possible east‐west movement
by a number of species, relatively few
opportunities exist for north‐south movement,
at least within the 10 km radius of Riverbank.

This area is the one place where urbanization
has not precluded north‐south movement
entirely. While there are numerous current risks
to individuals moving through this area
(primarily roads, but also developed areas and
non‐natural land cover), it is still likely that
some movement is still possible here. However,
this area faces urbanization pressures over the
coming decades and could be rendered
unusable for animal movement as well,
effectively creating an impassable barrier
between Modesto and Oakdale. Maintaining
some non‐urban land in this area is necessary to
enable north‐south movement through the
study area. To mitigate for potential losses in
connectivity due to new highway construction
the placement of under‐crossing structures in
strategic locations could allow limited
movement for some species and be
incorporated into an open space system. This
open space could also function as a “community
separator” to maintain identity between the
cities of Riverbank and Oakdale.

30 Integration of human and wildlife needs
One means by which to integrate both
wildlife connectivity needs and the needs of
local human residents is through the
implementation of a local and regional
“greenway” network. This approach couples
linear wildlife habitat features with trails and
other open space amenities, potentially
enabling both people and less‐sensitive animals
to move relatively freely throughout a city or
region (Flink and Searns 1993, Erickson 2004).

These linear features can link parks, reserves,
and other larger areas within the framework of
a larger ecological network. One example of this
type of landscape planning is the Florida
Ecological Network (Hoctor et al. 2000), a
statewide greenway system designed to enable
Florida panther (a critically endangered species)
and black bear to move between core habitats
while at the same time providing recreational
amenities for Florida residents. Although this
approach has not been shown to provide
habitat for wildlife sensitive to human presence,
it may provide movement opportunities for
less‐sensitive species. An important caveat to
this theoretical combination is that certain
recreational activities, in particular walking
dogs, are incompatible with many wildlife
needs.

Within the Riverbank area, some
components of a potential greenway network
are already in place. The Stanislaus River
riparian corridor, while impacted and in need of
restoration activities in numerous places, is one
such component. It is readily identifiable by
Riverbank citizens and currently provides
habitat for a number of species, including some
that are currently imperiled. Jacob Myers Park,
within the riparian corridor, is an important
recreational feature for the Riverbank
community. There are currently a number of
potential habitat nodes along the length of the
Stanislaus River (Figure 12) that could be linked
both by riparian forest and by trails for hiking or
biking. These trails could be extended to the
cities of Oakdale (upstream) and Ripon
(downstream) and beyond. The Highway 99
bridge over the Stanislaus River at Ripon is
conducive to both trail under‐crossings and
wildlife movement.

Other network components could
benefit wildlife connectivity while serving non‐
recreational human needs. For example, the
agricultural lands to the south and east of
Riverbank that model results point to as
currently displaying high connectivity could be
the focus of efforts to establish wildlife‐friendly
agricultural practices (such as hedgerow
plantings, tail water ponds, etc.) for the benefit
of species moving through the areas between
the cities of Riverbank and Oakdale and
Riverbank and Modesto. Similarly, wetlands
could be created at the sewage treatment plant
on the north side of the Stanislaus River for
both use by wildlife and to reduce water
purification costs. Another opportunity for
ecological enhancement of the urban edge is
the creation of storm water detention basins
with ecological features that provide wildlife
habitat. At least two places in the city of
Riverbank are suitable for this type of
enhancement: the Northwest Specific Plan area
on the west edge of the city and the former
industrial ponds on the recently transferred
Army Corps of Engineers property on the east
side of the city.

One important need for successful
implementation of a greenway network is the
integration of local residents into the planning
process. This both provides community “buy‐in”
to and “ownership” of the process and results
and ensures that network components will
actually be of use to the residents. Both adults
and youth have important perspectives as to
community open space needs and should be
included in the ongoing planning and
implementation process.

VII.  Conclusion
A successful wildlife linkage in this or other
portions of the San Joaquin Valley will not be
implemented through any one action.

Numerous local government entities, NGOs,

31 state and federal agencies, and researchers will
need to work together to identify regional and
local wildlife and community needs acquire
funding for implementation piece by piece.  This
project will hopefully provide a framework for
moving forward on planning and
implementation of a linkage here that will
provide both ecological benefit and recreational
and other benefits for people. The approaches
taken here can potentially serve as one means
of addressing planning and implementation of
wildlife connectivity in the San Joaquin Valley
(and elsewhere). Of course, every setting is
unique and requires a specially‐tailored
approach, but we present what we believe to
be an assortment of useful methods and
approaches in this report. Next steps will
include moving from the analyses here to
development of a “greenprint”, integration with
infrastructure blueprints, local implementation,
and expansion of planning efforts to other
willing neighbors.

32 VIII.  Literature Cited
Beier, P., D.R. Majka, and W.D. Spencer. 2008.

Forks in the road: choices in procedures for
designing wildland linkages. Conservation
Biology, 22(4):836‐851.

Bennett, A.F. 2003. Linkages in the Landscape:
the Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife
Conservation. IUCN, Cambridge, UK.

Bunn, D., A. Mummert, M. Hoshovsky, K.

Gilardi, and S. Shanks. 2007. California Wildlife:

Conservation Challenges. California Department
of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

California DFG (Department of Fish and Game).
2006. California Natural Diversity Data Base.

California Department of Fish and Game,
Sacramento, CA.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 2002. The
world factbook: field listing – population growth
rate. From
http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/thewo
rldfactbook/index.html (retrieved March, 2007).

Crooks, K.R. 2002. Relative sensitivities of
mammalian carnivores to habitat
fragmentation. Conservation Biology, 16(2):488‐
502.

Dobson, A., K. Ralls, M. Foster, M.E. Soulé, D.

Simberloff, D. Doak, J.A. Estes, L.S. Mills, D.

Mattson, R. Dirzo, H. Arita, S. Ryan, E.A. Norse,
R.F. Noss, and D. Johns. 1999. Connectivity:
maintaining flows in fragmented landscapes.

Pages 129‐170 in: Soulé, M.E., and J. Terborgh,
eds. Continental Conservation: Scientific
Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks.

Island Press, Washington, DC.

Erickson, D.L. 2004. Connecting corridors:
implementing metropolitan greenway networks
in North America. Pages 200‐221 in: Jongman,
R., and G. Pungetti, eds. Ecological Networks
and Greenways: Concept, Design,
Implementation. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.

Flink, C.A., and R.M. Searns. 1993. Greenways: A
Guide to Planning, Design, and Development.

Island Press, Covelo, CA
Forman, R.T.T., et al. 2002. Road Ecology:

Science and Solutions. Island Press, Covelo, CA
Gervais, J.A., D.K. Rosenberg, and R.G. Anthony.
2003. Space use and pesticide exposure risk of
male burrowing owls in an agricultural
landscape. The Journal of Wildlife Management,
67(1):155‐164.

Hilty, J.A., W.Z. Lidicker Jr., and A.M.

Merenlender. 2006. Corridor Ecology: the
Science and Practice of Linking Landscapes for
Biodiversity Conservation. Island Press,
Washington, DC.

Hoctor, T.S., M.H. Carr, and P.D. Zwick. 2000.

Identifying a linked reserve system using a
regional landscape approach. Conservation
Biology, 14(4):984‐1000.

Johnston, R.A., D.R. Shabazian, and S. Gao.
2003. UPlan: a versatile urban growth model for
transportation planning. Transportation
Research Record, 1831:202–209.

Jongman, R., and G. Pungetti. 2004.

Introduction: Ecological Networks and
Greenways. Pp. 1‐6 in: Jongman, R., and G.

Pungetti (eds.). Ecological Networks and
Greenways: Concept, Design, and
Implementation. Cambridge University Press,
New York, NY.

Lambeck, R.J. 1997. Focal species: a multi‐
species umbrella for nature conservation.

Conservation Biology, 11(4):849‐856.

33 Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr. (eds).
1988. A Guide to the Wildlife Habitats of
California. California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA.

Morrison, M.L. 2009. Restoring Wildlife:

Ecological Concepts and Practical Applications.

Island Press, Washington, DC.

Murcia, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented
forests: implications for conservation. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution, 10(2):58–62.

Noss, R.F., E. Dinerstein, B. Gilbert, M. Gilpin,
B.J. Miller, J. Terborgh, and S. Trombulak. 1999.

Core areas: where nature reigns. Pages 99‐128
in: Soulé, M.E., and J. Terborgh, eds.

Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations
of Regional Reserve Networks. Island Press,
Washington, DC.

PPIC (Public Policy Institute of California). 2006.

California’s Central Valley. Public Policy Institute
of California, SanFrancisco, CA
Reese D.A., and H.H. Welsh Jr. 1998. Habitat use
by western pond turtles in the Trinity River,
California. Journal of Wildlife Management,
62(3):842‐853.

Rural Migration News. 2006. San Joaquin Valley:
new Appalachia? Rural Migration News, 12(1).

Taylor, P.D., L. Fahrig, K. Henein, and G.

Merriam. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element
of landscape structure. Oikos, 68(3):571‐573.

Theobald, D.M. 2006. Exploring the functional
connectivity of landscapes using landscape
networks. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds)
Connectivity conservation. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge pp 416‐443.

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review
of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and
aquatic communities. Conservation Biology,
14(1):18–30.

Underhill, J.E., and P.G. Angold. 2000. Effects of
roads on wildlife in an intensively modified
landscape. Environmental Reviews, 8(1):21–39.

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C

Community Engagement
Many residents who live near the project area have expressed frustration regarding the public outreach process. Some have indicated that they first learned about the project through newspaper articles or discussions with neighbors rather than through direct notification.

Major developments that will permanently alter the landscape of our community benefit from broad and transparent public engagement. I encourage the City to continue creating opportunities for meaningful participation and dialogue with all affected residents.

Economic and Infrastructure Considerations
The project's supporters have emphasized potential economic benefits, including future tax revenue. While new development may generate revenue, it is also important to fully consider the associated costs, including impacts on roads, schools, public safety services, utilities, water resources, and long-term infrastructure maintenance.

As residents, we look to the City Council to carefully evaluate whether the projected benefits outweigh the long-term costs and obligations the community may assume.

Agricultural Land and Open Space
The project area includes productive agricultural land and serves as part of the remaining open-space buffer between Riverbank and surrounding communities.

Preserving farmland is about more than protecting scenery; it is also about protecting local food production, groundwater recharge, wildlife habitat, and the unique character of our region.

Once this land is converted to urban development, that agricultural resource is permanently lost.

Cultural and Environmental Resources
I also encourage the City Council to ensure that all cultural, archaeological, and tribal resource concerns have been thoroughly addressed. Given the significance of these resources, it is essential that consultation and evaluation processes are complete, transparent, and fully compliant with applicable requirements.

My understanding is the proper tribes were not initially contacted, the contact that did occur was not within a reasonable timeline, nor was the research itself adequate, and the research was not monitored or observed by a tribal member.

Schools, Housing, and Public Services
Future residents will depend on schools, parks, transportation systems, emergency

services, and other public infrastructure. Before approving a project of this scale, I hope the Council will carefully evaluate how these services will be funded and expanded to meet future demand without creating additional burdens for existing residents.

Measure M and Community Voice
Many residents have become involved in public discussions surrounding growth and development, including efforts related to Measure M. Regardless of individual positions, the level of public participation reflects the importance of this issue to the community.

I respectfully ask the Council to consider the strong interest residents have expressed in shaping the future growth of Riverbank and to ensure their voices remain an important part of the decision-making process.

Closing
I understand that development decisions are complex and require balancing many competing interests. However, I urge you to continue examining the unresolved questions related to flooding, infrastructure, public services, farmland preservation, environmental resources, and community character before making a final decision.

Thank you for your consideration and for your service to the community.

Respectfully,
Karen Conrotto

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I’m Jeani Ferrari, chairperson of Farmland Working Group.

For 25 years, Farmland Working Group has been pointing to the opportunity for Stanislaus County to house people and produce food.

The need to build housing is important. Where to place the housing is equally important in a county that has superior soils, water for irrigation and is the nation’s 8th food producing hub.

The concept is straightforward, direct housing and other urban development away from the productive soils, including important water recharge lands.

For Riverbank, it’s obvious — the soils east of town are inferior. The soils west of town are superior and provide a dependable water source for recharging our aquifers.

In order to preserve the productive agricultural lands for the long-term, which should be forever, cities must repurpose blighted areas and, importantly, infill. It makes no sense for you, Riverbank’s elected officials, to ignore available open land within the city limits. According to the city’s 2026 Housing Element, the city can accommodate 3,591 new residential units within its borders. And, to the east, within its sphere of influence, are over 1,700 acres with inferior soils.

Instead, you are considering paving over land that can grow food. Once this is done, it will never be undone. Period. No one will remove tons of asphalt and concrete to expose the Central Valley’s world-famous prime agricultural soils, a process that took millions of years to evolve.

Adding to the absurdity is that the open space separating Riverbank from Modesto will be eliminated with the River Walk annexation. Stanislaus County and Stanislaus LAFCO, each, define the importance of keeping towns separated and distinct from one another.

This proposed land expansion request ignores the land on which houses can and should be built, while paving over productive agricultural land and water recharge soils.

This proposal is absurd. That is, the proposal is unreasonable, illogical, and contrary to common sense.

If every town in Stanislaus County chooses to pave over farms, ranches and the best soils, they will be ignoring the fate of Los Angeles – they will be repeating it.

Who, then, will grow the food to feed our families?
Thank you.

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT E

From:

To:

Marisela Garcia
Gaby Hernandez
Subject: FW: River Walk Specific plan, public comments
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 4:18:06 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
inky-injection-inliner-55358e5a96b354035a50fb22f6dc7ec7.png inky-injection-inliner-e0c5e04ec3692c9149434d4 74b0acb15.png Internal ([email protected]) �
Gaby,
Public Comment for our records.
�c!#:{ia/tcia
City Manager
Email: [email protected]
Phone:209-863-7110
6707 Third Street, Ste. A
www
Riverbank, CA 95367
.riverbank.ore
Office Hours
Monday-Thursday: 7:30 am - 5:30 pm
Fridays: Closed
From: amal choe
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2026 4:16 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Safe Spam Phish More ... Quarantine Allow & Block
Cc: Marisela Garcia <[email protected]>
Subject: River Walk Specific plan, public comments

EXHIBIT F

Hello,
My name is Amal Choeb, and I am a Riverbank resident.

I believe the discussion surrounding River Walk presents an opportunity for our community to think creatively about growth. Rather than viewing the issue as a choice between protecting Riverbank’s agricultural heritage and providing needed housing, I believe there may be a balanced approach that addresses both priorities.

Riverbank can continue to grow while protecting productive farmland, being fiscally responsible with infrastructure investments, and creating neighborhoods that support healthier, more connected lives.

With that in mind, I would like to offer three ideas for consideration:

1. Build Inward First
Before expanding the city’s boundaries and annexing approximately 1,000 acres of agricultural land for a large master-planned community, I believe the City should first take a comprehensive look at the vacant and underutilized land already identified within the existing city limits. The City’s Housing Element identifies approximately 23.65 acres of vacant residential land and another 21.08 acres of underutilized land with potential for higher-density residential development. I believe we should fully evaluate these opportunities before converting additional productive agricultural land.

This could place new housing closer to existing roads, utilities, schools, and public services while reducing the need for costly infrastructure expansion and helping preserve productive agricultural land.

2. Protect Prime Agricultural Land
If future housing demand ultimately requires development beyond the existing city limits, the City could consider identifying alternative growth areas where development would have less impact on productive agriculture.

Areas with lower-quality soils, previously disturbed land, or other locations less valuable for agriculture could potentially provide opportunities for growth without permanently converting some of our community’s most productive farmland.

Riverbank’s agricultural land is more than open space. It is part of our community’s identity, economy, and generational heritage. Once productive farmland is converted to residential development, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to restore.

3. Design Future Neighborhoods Around Active Living
Looking at the proposed River Walk villages, I believe it is worth asking whether the current layout takes full advantage of the opportunity to create a truly connected, walkable community.

The plan provides housing, parks, trails, commercial areas, and other amenities, but the overall design appears to follow many of the patterns of traditional suburban development: separated uses, automobile-oriented streets, longer blocks, and neighborhoods that can feel internally contained rather than naturally connected to one another and to the existing Riverbank community.

I also question the concept of separating residents into distinct villages, particularly the proposed 55+ communities. Providing housing specifically designed for older adults is valuable, but I believe there is an opportunity to think beyond simply creating a separate place for seniors to live.

A healthier community could bring generations together through shared parks, trails, community gardens, gathering spaces, and neighborhood amenities.

The goal should not simply be to build more houses. It should be to build a community where people can walk, interact, access nature, and participate in everyday community life.

Whether future growth occurs through infill or through a new master-planned community, I believe Riverbank has an opportunity to think differently about neighborhood design.

Future neighborhoods could incorporate:

Shorter, more connected street blocks that encourage walking and naturally slow traffic.

Parks, pocket parks, community gardens, and gathering spaces within a comfortable walking distance of residents.

Better connections between housing, parks, trails, and everyday services.

More integrated senior housing rather than isolating older residents in separate communities.

Walking and cycling infrastructure designed as practical transportation options, not simply recreational amenities.

These ideas could help Riverbank create neighborhoods that are healthier, more

connected, and less dependent on automobiles.

A Broader Vision for Riverbank
I believe we should continue to welcome new residents and provide quality housing, but also be thoughtful about where and how that growth occurs.

The River Walk discussion gives us an opportunity to look beyond one development proposal and consider a broader growth strategy for Riverbank; one that balances housing needs, agricultural preservation, infrastructure costs, and quality of life.

Considering these ideas could give Riverbank an opportunity to lead in creating a healthier and more connected community, while hopefully inspiring other communities to think about growth in the same way.

Thank you for your service to our community.

Sincerely,
Amal Choeb
Riverbank Resident

EXHIBIT G

From:

To:

Cc:

Jody Hallstrom
Gaby Hernandez
City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Agenda item 9.1 - River Walk Specific Plan Date:

Attachments:

Monday, September 21, 2026 4:45:52 PM
inky-injection-inliner-6f42d488d348cfcd86bff9497caf9f6a.png inky-injection-inliner-e0c5e04ec3692c9149434d4 74b0acb15.png External
I
You don't often get email fro
--- Forwarded Message ---
Graymail Spam Phish More ... Quarantine Allow & Block
To:

From:
cityclerk@riverban
Jody Hallstrom-.org <CJCerQVeLank.org>
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2026 at 09:58:03 AM PDT
Subject: Agenda item 9.1 - River Walk Specific Plan
To the Riverbank City Council and other interested parties, In spite of revised language in the FEIR, Stanislaus Audubon Society still has serious concerns about the proposed River Walk Project. While it is stated that the riparian habitat will be conserved, the adjacent agricultural land is potential foraging habitat for birds of special concern.

Continued fragmentation of bird habitat is a serious problem in this county. Mitigation is not keeping up with development. The Notice of Preparation and EIR for the River Walk Project fails to mention the recently approved Crossroads West Plan that is already under construction. The Reserve area in the proposed new Sphere of Influence was not included in the environmental analysis. "CEQA forbids 'piecemeal' review of the significant environmental impacts of a project. Agencies cannot allow 'environmental considerations [to] become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones - each with a minimal potential impact on the environment - which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences"'. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR prepared for the Crossroads West Project makes no mention of the River Walk Project. By the same token, the EIR for the River Walk Project has no mention of the Crossroads West Project and the cumulative effects of the projects taken together. Nests of Swainson's Hawks - designated as a state threatened species - Have been found in and near the River Walk Project area. The EIR also specifically lists this area as suitable nesting and foraging habitat for Burrowing Owls, another species in decline due to loss of habitat. Continued urban sprawl, causing fragmentation of nesting and foraging habitat for these special birds, is a significant concern for our local chapter. While mitigation measures are proposed, the range of mitigation land is not defined in any documents.

LAFCO states in their comment letter that the Reserve area contradicts their Sphere of Influence policies. The city must clearly demonstrate a need for more acreage rather than infilling current vacant areas. In the FEIRs Master Statement about the Sphere of Influence, it states there are "numerous approved projects and proposed projects that are currently under review in Riverbank". If that is the case, then why is this project needed? Particularly when the SOI was just increased in 2016 and was intended to last for 20 years.

For all of these reasons, Stanislaus Audubon Society objects to the River Walk Project. We feel that the FEI R does not adequately address the problems, and we urge you to reject this plan and preserve this prime agricultural land that provides food and sustenance to people and birds alike.

EXHIBIT H

Regards,
Jody Hallstrom – Conservation Chair, Stanislaus Audubon Society

EXHIBIT I

21 September 2026
The Honorable Rachel Hernandez
Mayor of Riverbank
6707 Third Street, Suite A
Riverbank, California 95367
Dear Mayor Hernandez:

I no longer live in the Valley, but I grew up there and my family still farms there, and I am asking you to vote no on the proposed River Walk Development Project.

Your own Planning Commission already told you what it thinks. On August 4, after nearly four hours and some 200 people, it voted 4–1 to recommend rejection.

The applicant assures you that levees protect this site and that no one will need flood insurance.

Assurance is not evidence. Is the levee FEMA-accredited, and through what date? Can the City make the findings the Central Valley Flood Protection Act requires before approving urban development here? Flooding here is not a risk to be managed. It is a certainty waiting on a date.

And this is not ordinary ground. It includes highly productive working orchards and row crops on some of the finest soil in the world, permeable land that recharges the aquifer this whole area drinks from, and the last open buffer between Riverbank and north Modesto. Once it is paved, it is paved.

If the Final EIR finds this loss significant and unavoidable, you cannot approve the project without adopting a statement of overriding considerations. Say it out loud before the vote, not afterward in the findings: what benefit outweighs the permanent loss of this land? Vote no on the River Walk Development Project.

Respectfully,
Clare Conrotto
Redwood City, CA 94061
cc: Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk, City of Riverbank; Jennifer Vieira, Secretary of LAFCO, Stanislaus County

EXHIBIT J

September 21, 2026
Mayor and City Council, Riverbank, California
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:

The Sierra Club advocates to protect agricultural land and biological resources in California as part of its mission to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; and to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives.

We have reviewed the FEIR for the proposed Riverwalk Specific Plan and the concerns of other environmental nonprofits about the EIR and the Project.

This letter addresses the public hearing on the Riverwalk Specific Plan and certification of the Final EIR scheduled for September 22, 2026. We urge you • to deny certification of the FEIR for Riverwalk;
• to oppose the proposed Sphere of Influence Expansion to 1500 acres of farmland; and

EXHIBIT K

• to deny any other approvals before you for the Riverwalk Specific Plan.

We support and incorporate by reference the comments submitted during the EIR review process and for this public hearing by
Friends of the Swainson's Hawk
Osha Meserve representing neighbors
Don Mooney representing neighbors
John Herrick, Jann Dorman and Keiko Mertz, California Native Plant Society and Friends of the River
Jeani Ferrari, Farmland Working Group
Kevin Wolf, Restore the Stanislaus River
Sincerely,
Sean Wirth
Mother Lode Chapter Conservation Chair

From:

To:

Subject:

Tom Myers
City Clerk
Agenda Item 9.1 River Walk Specific Plan
Date:

Attachments:

Sunday, September 20, 2026 10:51:33 AM
inky-injection-inliner-03755809cc10337ec5nblf12a6beedf.png inky-injection-inliner-e0c5e04ec3692c9149434d4 74b0acb15.png \
Caution: External
First-Time Sender Details
Safe � .Ehis.h More..... Quarantine Allow & Block
[You don't often get email from
https-//aka ms/LeamAbontSenderidentjficatjon ]
Dear City Council Members,
. Learn why this is important at
I am writing to urge you to deny the River Walk Specific Plan and follow the recommendations of the Riverbank Planning Commission who voted 4 to 1 against it. This big initiative is too big, its sphere of influence too broad. If you choose not to outright deny it, you should quit pushing so hard to rnsh project approval before the Voter Initiative Measure Mis on the November ballot.

The loss of 1000-1500 acres of prime fannland is not wananted. This land is high quality soil
planted with a variety of commercial orchards and a nurse1y. This land could never again be agricultural once houses and roads replace the soil. Why does the project need 2400 homes?
Instead of mining prime agricultural land, why not think smaller and use existing vacant lots and other areas within the city of Riverbank for houses.

Placing this intensive development in a floodplain and a groundwater recharge area is questionable and caiTies long te1m risks. Let it remain a buff er between Modesto and Riverbank and function as a floodplain. 2400 hundred homes and new businesses will place a substantial strain on the cunent water system at a time when CA is still experiencing drought conditions. How much water will be needed and how much will sewer rates increase?
One of the biggest drawbacks to River Walk is the issue of traffic congestion. The increased traffic on HWY 108, McHemy, Patterson and other adjoining streets will increase noise, air pollution and affect the cunent residents quality of life. Driving ai·ound crowded Modesto lS
aggravating so why wish that for residents in the McHemy/Riverbank ai·ea! For the above reasons, the River Walk Plan should be voted down and smaller, more reasonable plans within the city of Riverbank, should be

EXHIBIT L

considered.

Thank you for your attention on this matter.

Yours truly,
Tom Myers

EXHIBIT M

September 22, 2026

SENT VIA EMAIL
[email protected]
City of Riverbank
Attention: City Council
6707 3rd Street, Suite A
Riverbank, California 95367
Re: Comments on September 22, 2026 City Council
Meeting, Agenda Item No. 9.1
River Walk Specific Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report and Associated Approvals
Dear Honorable Mayor Hernandez and Members of City Council:

These comments are submitted on behalf of Riverbank residents Annabel Gammon and Dr. J. Allen Gammon, pertaining to the City Council’s decisions on the River Walk Specific Plan (“RWSP” or “Project”), Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”), and related Project approvals being considered at today’s meeting. In addition to these comments, attached as Exhibit 1, is the August 3, 2026 comment letter previously submitted to the Planning Commission, which addresses the inadequacy of responses to comments on the Project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”), in contravention to the basic requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. [“CEQA”]), among other topics.

This letter summarizes the legal deficiencies that preclude certification of the FEIR and approval of the Project, and expands upon the prior FEIR comments included in Exhibit 1 to explain why, independent of these legal deficiencies, approval of the Project as currently proposed would not be in the best interest of the City and its residents.

As the City Council is well aware, substantial opposition within the Riverbank community continues to grow regarding the Project. The Planning Commission heard these concerns and voted not to recommend Project approval. The City Council should similarly listen to its constituents, who are 100 percent correct about this Project. Due to the legal inadequacies of the City’s review documents and the incompatibility of the Project with the interests of City residents, we urge the City Council to: (1) not certify the

EXHIBIT P

City of Riverbank
September 22, 2026

FEIR; (2) to oppose the proposed Sphere of Influence Expansion of 1500 acres of farmland; and (3) to deny all other approvals necessary for the RWSP to proceed.

I. SUMMARY OF LEGAL DEFICIENCIES PRECLUDING

CERTIFICATION OF EIR AND APPROVAL OF PROJECT
A. Failure to Adequately Respond to Comments on DEIR
As the CEQA lead agency for the Project, the City must prepare a “detailed” written response to all significant environmental issues raised on the DEIR reflecting a reasoned, good faith analysis. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq. [“CEQA Guidelines”], § 15088, subd. (c); Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d).) “Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information” are inadequate, and a failure to substantively respond renders the EIR legally deficient. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15088, subds. (b), (c); Rural Landowners Assn. v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020; Cleary v. County of Stanislaus (1981) 118 Cal.App.3rd 348; Environmental Protection Information Center v. Johnson (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 604, 628; People v.

County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 830, 841.) This standard applies with particular force to comments from experts and responsible agencies. (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1367 [citing Cleary v. County of Stanislaus (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 348, 357].) A California Court of Appeal recently applied this exact standard to strike down an agency’s response to a responsible agency’s technical comments. (Comite Civico del Valle v. County of Imperial (Aug. 11, 2026, D085747) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2026 LX 434082] [Comite Civico del Valle].) The court held the response was an “unsupported conclusory statement” that “does not suffice.” (Id. at *40.) It further held that a bare commitment to “work with” the commenting agency “is not sufficient mitigation. (Id. at *26.) As detailed in Exhibit 1, the FEIR is riddled with conclusory and unsupported responses to comments. The FEIR repeatedly piecemeals public comments and their associated responses to avoid addressing the substance of each comment. As a result of these inadequate responses, the FEIR is inadequate.

B. Failure to Analyze Water Supplies Needed for Project An agency cannot rely on “paper water” whose future availability has not been demonstrated. (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 432 [Vineyard].) The EIR “must address the impacts of likely future water sources” with “a reasoned analysis of the circumstances affecting the likelihood of the water’s availability.” (Ibid.) A water-supply finding must rest on “some

City of Riverbank
September 22, 2026

credible evidence in the record,” even where the agency departs from a responsible water agency’s own conclusion. (Comite Civico del Valle, supra, at *22.) Here, the Project would rely on new groundwater wells for its water supply. The Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) found the Modesto Subbasin’s Groundwater Sustainability Plan understated actual overdraft by a factor of ten. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-10, pp. 4.0-23 to 4.0-28.) The FEIR’s response addresses only the Project’s own marginal demand and local well conditions, not the Subbasin-wide finding DWR actually made regarding the state of overdraft. (FEIR, Vol. II, Response R-10, p. 4.0-205; see FEIR, Vol. 1, Master Response 9, pp. 2.0-26 to 2.0-32; see id., Master Response 10, pp. 2.0-32 to 2.0-35.) Answering a different, narrower question does not fill this evidentiary gap. (See Comite Civico del Valle, supra, at *23-24.) As explained in our comments on the FEIR, adding new wells to an overdrafted subbasin would logically worsen groundwater conditions in the region. In addition, the Water Supply Assessment (“WSA”) only analyzed available supplies during a 20-year projection. While Water Code section 10910, subdivision (c) references a 20 year term, “[b]eyond the Water Code’s demands, CEQA imposes additional requirements. (Comite Civico del Valle, supra, at 18-19, citing Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th 412.) First, CEQA’s informational purposes are not satisfied by an EIR that simply ignores or assumes a solution to the problem of supplying water to a proposed land use project. Decision makers must, under the law, be presented with sufficient facts to “evaluate the pros and cons of supplying the amount of water that the [project] will need.” [Citations] Second, the analysis of water sources for a large land use project and the impacts of exploiting those sources cannot be limited to the water supply for the first few years. [Citation.] “Third, the future water supplies identified and analyzed must bear a likelihood of actually proving available; speculative sources and unrealistic allocations (‘paper water’) are insufficient bases for decisionmaking under CEQA.” (Id. at p. 432.) “Finally, where, despite a full discussion, it is impossible to confidently determine that anticipated future water sources will be available, CEQA requires some discussion of possible replacement sources or alternatives to use of the anticipated water, and of the environmental consequences of those contingencies.” “The ultimate question under CEQA, moreover, is not whether an EIR establishes a likely source of water, but whether it adequately addresses the reasonably foreseeable impacts of supplying water to the project.” [Citation.]

City of Riverbank
September 22, 2026

Here, the Project life will certainly exceed 20 years, yet the WSA does not attempt to address the sources of water nor the reasonably foreseeable impacts of supplying water to the Project in those later time periods. With overdrafted groundwater, as well as stresses on surface water supplies, the City must fully disclose and analyze the impacts of supplying the Project with water throughout its lifetime, not just the first 20 years. The City has failed to do so in both the WSA as well as in the FEIR.

Water supply is too important to overlook in this context. If homes are built in the Project area, they will create a permanent demand for water. While the FEIR attempts to argue that residential water demand may be less than current agricultural uses on a per acre basis, that discussion fails to acknowledge that unlike agricultural fields, the City cannot fallow housing. Moreover, the FEIR fails to acknowledge that changes to impervious surface would reduce groundwater infiltration and recharge at the same time as water demands are hardened. To the extent the City wishes to make this shift in land uses, the environmental effects associated with it must be fully disclosed, which the City has failed to do, especially in light of the holding of the new Comite Civico del Valle case.

C. Failure to Analyze Wastewater Infrastructure Needed for Project An EIR must be based on an accurate, stable, and finite project description and may not defer environmental assessment of a project feature to a future study or agreement. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21100, subd. (b)(1); County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.) The FEIR discloses that sanitary sewer force mains crossing the Stanislaus River will require Horizontal Direction Drilling and multi-agency permitting, including the California State Lands Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. (FEIR, Vol II, pp. 5.0-26 to 5.0-

27.) Yet, the FEIR provides no description of the permitted activities or design details supporting its less-than-significant finding. (Id. at pp. 5.0-61 to 5.0-64.) The FEIR also discloses, for the first time, an additional 0.2 million-gallon-per-day increase in Wastewater Treatment Plant capacity beyond what the circulated DEIR disclosed, based on a technical memorandum and consultant presentation never made available for public review. (FEIR, Vol. I, p. 3.0-36; FEIR, Vol. II, p. 5.0-102.) The Project’s description of, and impact analysis for, necessary wastewater infrastructure remains unstable and unsubstantiated.

As explained by members of the community at the Planning Commission meeting in August, City residents are very concerned about increasing costs of wastewater service. To the extent the Project ultimately requires major infrastructure upgrades, there is a very real concern that the costs of those upgrades will not be fully born by residents

City of Riverbank
September 22, 2026

of the Project and would instead be levied on existing residents. With affordability of housing and utilities already a major stressor, the addition of more costs on existing residents to prop up this unpopular and unnecessary Project is not in the public interest.

D. Failure to Analyze Impacts on Biological Resources
An EIR’s description of the existing environmental setting must be sufficiently detailed to permit informed decision making and public participation, and a lead agency’s biological conclusions must be supported by substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (a); Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1393-1397 [Association of Irritated Residents].) The FEIR does not disclose the survey methodology underlying the DEIR’s baseline biological analysis, such as dates, times, duration, or checklist protocols. The Errata further reveals that the entire Reserve Area was never field surveyed. (FEIR, Vol. II, pp. 5.0-44 to 5.0-45.) Table

3.4-7’s species presence determinations nonetheless apply across that unsurveyed area with no disclosed methodology. (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 5.0-46.) The FEIR also mischaracterizes the record regarding the 77 special-status species Dr. Shawn Smallwood’s technical report identified as omitted from the DEIR’s analysis. (FEIR, Vol II, Comment R-Attachment 1, Table 2, pp. 4.0-75 to 4.0-79].) The Project area, and especially the riparian corridor along the Stanislaus River, is rich with biological resources. The ongoing agricultural activities are compatible with, and support, the continued protection of these resources, all of which the Project would destroy. Developing the areas set back from the river would degrade the habitat values of the riparian habitat, even if the riparian habitat itself is not directly disturbed. As documented by Dr. Smallwood, for instance, many bird species forage in the Project area.

Thus, as explained in the comments submitted by Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk, mitigation for removal of foraging habitat must be at a 1:1 ratio. The FEIR fails to assess the full extent of the existing biological resources on the site, and moreover provides inadequate mitigation for Project impacts to these biological resources.

E. Failure to Analyze Impacts on Agriculture
Eliminating or substantially altering an existing general plan land use designation is part of the “whole action” subject to CEQA review. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378, subd. (a); Gov. Code, § 65300.5.) The FEIR fails to disclose or justify removal of the General Plan’s Agricultural Resource Conservation Area designation as the significant policy shift Stanislaus LAFCO itself identified. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-15, p. 4.0-34 [citing, Stanislaus LAFCO NOP comments, p. 3].) Moreover, Williamson Act contracts are not automatically terminated upon annexation, as termination requires an affirmative election and specific recorded document. (Gov. Code, §§ 56738, 51243.5, subd. (h).) The FEIR

City of Riverbank
September 22, 2026

fails to resolve the Williamson Act conflict as to seven of nine affected parcels, misstating the applicable parcel count in the process. (FEIR, Vol. I, Master Response 6, pp. 2.0-14 to 2.0-15, see DEIR, Vol. I, Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, Table 3.2-7, p. 3.2-12.)
Maintaining working agricultural lands is important to the future of the Riverbank community as well as the region as whole. The land use decisions included in Project approval, even if they do not lead to immediate urbanization, will virtually guarantee eventual conversion of the Project area out of agricultural use. The fact that the City is able to meet its housing needs with infill development that would not convert farmland and disrupt farming makes approval of the Project both unnecessary and unwise.

F. Failure to Address Fire Risks
Public comments have identified concerns with the fact that there is only one route out of the area in the event of a fire, Highway 108. As recently explained by the First District Court of Appeal, an “FEIR must sufficiently discuss the project’s potential adverse effect of human cause ignitions and analyze in some detail how the project’s design (or mitigation measures) alleviates such risks.” (People ex rel. Bonta v. County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222, 1235.) Similar to People ex rel. Bonta, the FEIR “fails to reasonably describe the ‘additional wildfire risk factors as compared to existing conditions’” that the project would “introduce” to the area. (105 Cal.App.5th at 1233.) The FEIR and responses to comments dismiss these concerns by referencing entrance and egress from the Project area. (FEIR, Vol. 1, Response A-3, pp. 3.0-8 to 3.0-9 and Response X-5, p. 3.0-180.) These responses discuss three points of access to the Project but fail to address road conditions outside of the Project area if evacuation is necessary, and are thus inadequate. (See Comite Civico del Valle, supra, at *23-24.) Like in the case of People ex rel. Bonta, the FEIR must be revised to provide critical information about the increased risk of wildfire ignitions and how people would escape in the event of a wildfire.

G. Failure to Address Land Use Inconsistencies

1. Stanislaus LAFCO’s Own Findings Contradict the FEIR’s Alternative-Site Analysis
An EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives” of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening its significant effects, with “sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed project.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6, subds. (a), (d); Association of Irritated Residents, supra, at

City of Riverbank
September 22, 2026

1400.) Stanislaus LAFCO, the responsible agency whose policies and data the EIR relies upon, disagrees with the DEIR’s conclusion that no feasible alternative site exists within the City’s current boundaries or sphere of influence. (FEIR, Vol. I, Comment J-8, pp. 2.0- 229 to 2.0-230.) LAFCO notes the City’s own 2016 sphere of influence expansion was justified using the identical site criteria the DEIR now claims cannot be met. (Ibid.) The FEIR does not reconcile this inconsistency in the City’s own position.

2. Annexation Would Create an Unincorporated Island in Violation of LAFCO Policy
LAFCO policy and state laws discourage annexations that create an unincorporated “island” surrounded by a city’s boundaries. (Gov. Code, § 56375, subd. (a)(7); Stanislaus LAFCO Policy 20 [Logical Boundaries].) Stanislaus LAFCO’s comments state that annexation of the Specific Plan Area will leave the unincorporated Park Ridge/River Heights neighborhood “entirely surrounded,” creating such an island, and that LAFCO policy requires an applicant to first attempt to include such an area in its proposal before creating one. (FEIR, Vol. I, Comment J-9, p. 2.0-230.) The FEIR’s response does not resolve this conflict, instead deferring the determination to LAFCO’s future discretionary application of a statutory exception requiring findings that enforcement of the island prohibition “would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community” and that the area “cannot reasonably be annexed to another city or incorporated as a new city.” (Gov. Code, §§ 56744, 56375, subd. (m); FEIR, Vol. I, Master Response 3, pp. 2.0-9 to 2.0-10.) The FEIR does not establish that this exception applies, thus, the City Council lacks a basis to proceed with Project approval.

3. The Size of the Annexed Area Is Too Large and Prior Growth Areas Have Not Substantially Progressed
As admitted in the staff report, the City policy states that specific plans should be approximately 200 acres. The Project is nearly five times that size. Moreover, previously approved development is still under construction. The Crossroads West Specific Plan, for instance, has only built about 17 percent of the homes planned. Annexation of the Project area does not meet the City’s own criteria for new growth and annexation areas.

II. NEW INFORMATION REQUIRING RECIRCULATION
An EIR must be recirculated when significant new information is added after public review has commenced, including a new, previously undisclosed significant environmental impact. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5, subd. (a)(1).)

City of Riverbank
September 22, 2026

A. Sanitary Sewer System Would Have Substantially More Severe Impacts
Construction of the sanitary sewer force mains crossing the Stanislaus River will be performed using Horizontal Direction Drilling. (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 5.0-26.) According to the City, “[c]onstruction of the sewer force mains under the river corridor will require a host of permits from various agencies such as the California State Lands Commission, US Army Corps of Engineers, and the Central Vally Water Quality Control Board.” (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 5.0-27.) Yet the FEIR discloses no design details supporting its conclusion of no impact to the riparian corridor or wetlands. (FEIR, Vol. II, pp. 5.0-61 to

5.0-64.) The FEIR further discloses 0.2 million gallons per day of Wastewater Treatment Plant capacity not previously identified in the DEIR, said to accommodate 31 percent of the Specific Plan’s wastewater capacity needs. (FEIR, Vol. I, p. 3.0-39; FEIR, Vol. II, p.

5.0-102.) This information was never available for public review during the DEIR comment period and materially alters the Project’s water infrastructure analysis.

B. New Biological Resources Identified
Section 5.0 Errata opens with a blanket assertion that its revision “do not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitute significant new information, and do not alter the conclusion of the environmental analysis that would warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR.” (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 5.0-1.) The Errata’s own content contradicts that assertion. It reveals that the Reserve Area was never field surveyed, yet species presence determinations are applied there without explanation. (FEIR, Vol. II, pp. 5.0-44 to 5.0-

45.) It also adds three special-status invertebrates never identified in the circulated DEIR —the American bumble bee (Bombus penslyvanicus), the Antioch mutilid wasp (Myrmosula pacifica), and the San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas trochilus)—increasing the documented special-status invertebrate count from nine to twelve. (FEIR, Vol. II, pp. 5.0-46 to 5.0-47.) The revised table newly discloses a “Moderate” presence finding for the American bumble bee. (Id. at 5.0-46.) This is precisely the kind of new information CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision (a)(1) is designed to reach. The Errata’s blanket recirculation determination does not address it.

C. Fiscal Analysis Was Only Released in September 2026
The City’s proposed CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (“CEQA Findings”) refers to the River Walk Specific Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis, which was prepared in November 2025, and is part of the evidence supporting the City’s decision to override significant and unavoidable environmental effects. This analysis claims that “[a]t full Project buildout, the Project is estimated to add over 5,000

City of Riverbank
September 22, 2026

new residents and over 1,100 new permanent employees in the commercial mixed-use areas, for a total of over 6,100 ‘persons served,’ a metric the FIA derives by counting all residents and one-half of employees.” (CEQA Findings, p. 89.) This document, however, was never made available to the public until September 2026. The City’s decision to withhold this document from pubic review has interfered with the public process and made it impossible for the public to review the City’s assumptions with respect to fiscal implications of the Project outweighing significant environmental effects.

III. SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY PROVIDE AN UNFAIR HEARING

AND MAKING A DECISION NOW IS UNFAIR
Prior to the City’s consideration of this matter, at least one City Council member has indicated that he would likely vote to approve the Project before the City’s CEQA review process, including preparation of the DEIR and FEIR, was completed. (See Exhibit 2.) Courts have cautioned that a decisionmaker who prejudges the outcome of a matter before completing legally required review may deny an applicant, or the public, a fair hearing. (See Petrovich Development Co. v. City of Sacramento (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 963, 976 [council member’s prehearing statements and conduct denied applicant a fair hearing].) When a council member is biased, s/he is not a neutral decision maker, there is a not a fair hearing, and the council member must recuse him or her self. (Ibid.)
We are concerned that the City Council will not be providing a fair hearing to the residents of Riverbank on the Project. Especially with Measure M on the ballot in November, we think it is unfair for the City to make any decision about this Project now.

Instead, as urged by numerous residents at the Planning Commission meeting in August, the City should allow the residents to decide their own future, rather than rushing a decision on this unpopular and unnecessary Project on the eve of the Measure M vote.

Thus, the timing as well as bias toward the Project by some council members makes the hearing unfair to Riverbank residents.

IV. CONCLUSION
The City Council is responsible for determining whether the FEIR complies with CEQA and other applicable requirements, and whether the Project should proceed. The DEIR fell short as a source of meaningful information, and the FEIR only deepens the City’s CEQA violations by failing to respond in good faith to public comments that identified the DEIR’s shortcomings. New information disclosed in the Errata and outside of the public review process independently triggers recirculation.

City of Riverbank
September 22, 2026

We respectfully urge the City Council not to certify the FEIR or approve the Project in its current form. The legal inadequacies of the City’s review process must be corrected before taking any action on the Project. The only principled action in conformance with public opinion and the record would be to deny all Project approvals, consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Such an action would leave open the possibility of a better designed, appropriately scaled project in this sensitive location.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Very truly yours,

SOLURI MESERVE
A Law Corporation
By:

Osha R. Meserve
cc: Joshua Mann, Director of Community Development, City of Riverbank, [email protected]
Attachments: Exhibit 1, Letter to Planning Commission regarding FEIR dated August 3, 2026
Exhibit 2, Facebook Comments, dated around or on August 11, 2026

EXHIBIT 1

August 3, 2026

SENT VIA EMAIL
[email protected]; [email protected]
Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk
City of Riverbank
6707 3rd Street, Suite A
Riverbank, California 95367
Re: Comments on Agenda Item No. 4.1 of the August 4, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting regarding the River Walk Specific Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report
Dear Ms. Hernandez:

These comments, submitted on behalf of Riverbank residents Annabel Gammon and Dr. J. Allen Gammon, pertain to the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) and the River Walk Specific Plan (“RWSP” or “Project”) prepared by the City of Riverbank (“City”). Specifically, these comments address the inadequacy of responses to this firm’s May 16, 2024 comment letter on the Project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) in contravention to the basic requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. [“CEQA”].) Also attached as Exhibit A is a letter from Dr. Shawn Smallwood explaining that he did not trespass on the Project site as alleged in the FEIR. (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 4.0-95.) The City continues to disregard the fact that these comments are submitted on behalf of Riverbank residents Annabel Gammon and Dr. J. Allen Gammon. Our DEIR comment letter noted that the DEIR mistakenly listed the Notice of Preparation comments submitted on behalf of Ms. Gammon and Dr. Gammon as having been submitted on behalf of Soluri Meserve and requested that the FEIR correct this error.

This error, however, has not been corrected. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-14, p. 4.0-2, fn. 1 [misattributing comments to law firm].) Then, the FEIR lists our May 16, 2024 DEIR comment letter as being submitted by Osha Meserve on behalf of Soluri Meserve. (FEIR, Vol. II, pp. 4.0-2, 4.0-191.) Again, as clearly stated in the comment letter, our firm prepared the comments for Riverbank residents Ms. Gammon and Dr. Gammon, whose names should have been listed in the FEIR.

City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026

I. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND FEIR FAIL TO REMEDY LEGAL

DEFICIENCIES OF DEIR
As the CEQA lead agency for the Project, the City must evaluate comments on the DEIR and prepare written responses in the FEIR. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d).) The FEIR must include a “detailed” written response to all “significant environmental issues” raised by commenters, and must provide a reasoned, good faith analysis. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq. [“CEQA Guidelines”], § 15088, subd. (c).) Failure to provide a substantive response renders the EIR legally inadequate. (Rural Landowners Association v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020.) If the public suggests a feasible mitigation measure or alternative, the agency may only decline to implement it if it provides substantial evidence that the mitigation measure or alternative is infeasible. (Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867.)
The responses to comments on a DEIR must state reasons for rejecting suggested mitigation measures and comments on significant environmental issues. “Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information” are not adequate responses. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15088, subds. (b), (c); Cleary v. County of Stanislaus (1981) 118 Cal.App.3rd 348; Environmental Protection Information Center v. Johnson (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 604, 628 [“Non-specific, general, or conclusory responses unsupported by empirical information, scientific authorities or explanatory information ‘fail to crystallize issues’”]; People v. County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 830, 841 [Responses to comments must “set forth in detail the reasons why the particular comments and objections were rejected . . . ”].) The need for a substantive, detailed response is particularly appropriate when experts or other agencies have raised comments. (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1367; People v. Kern (1976) 72 Cal.App.3d 761 [Berkeley Keep Jets].) A reasoned analysis of the issue and references to supporting evidence are required for substantive comments raised. (California Oak Foundation v. Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1219.)
The FEIR fails to meet these legal standards as it is riddled with conclusory and false statements lacking any factual support or analysis. Further, the FEIR also fails to comply with the duty of good faith by deploying a strategy of piecemealing public comments and the associated responses in order to avoid addressing the overall point of each comment.

City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026

A. Land Use and General Plan Consistency

1. The Response Does Not Disclose or Justify the Removal of the General Plan’s Agricultural Resource Conservation Area
Designation
An EIR must accurately describe the existing environmental setting, including the applicable land use and regulatory setting, because that setting provides the baseline against which the significance of Project impacts is measured. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (a); see Pub. Resources Code, § 21100, subd. (b)(1).) Eliminating or substantially altering an existing general plan land use designation is part of the “whole action” that is subject to CEQA review. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378, subd. (a); Gov.

Code, § 65300.5.) A lead agency cannot discharge that disclosure obligation by asserting bare consistency with the general plan without addressing the specific policy change at issue.

Comment R-15 of the May 16, 2024 DEIR comment letter explained that the Project would eliminate the General Plan’s Agricultural Resource Conservation Area (“ARCA”) designation under Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission’s (“Stanislaus LAFCO”) Agricultural Preservation Policy (“Policy 22”). Policy 22 contains Stanislaus LAFCO’s mandates for the preservation of agricultural land, including but not limited to fully considering the impacts a proposal will have on existing agricultural land.

Comment R-15 emphasized that Stanislaus LAFCO itself characterized the removal of the ARCA designation, in its NOP comments, as “a significant shift in General plan policies, the impacts of which will need to be fully discussed and considered.” (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-15, p. 4.0-34 [citing, Stanislaus LAFCO NOP comments, p. 3].) Response R-15 does not address Stanislaus LAFCO’s warning. In Response R-15, the City cross-references Master Responses 1, 2, and 7, and Responses to Comments N-4 and N-10 from Volume 1 of the FEIR. (FEIR, Vol. II, Response R-15, p. 4.0-208.) Each of these responses, however, addresses a different question than the one the comment raised. Master Responses 1, 2, and 7 concern the general adequacy of the Project’s agricultural mitigation measures, primarily where the one-to-one conservation easement ratio required by Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 satisfies CEQA. (FEIR, Vol. I, Master Response 1, pp. 2.0-3 to 2.0-4, Master Response 2 at pp. 2.0-4 to 2.0-9, Master Response 7 at 2.0-15 to 2.0-16.) Response N-10 furthers the lack of response as it also cross-references back to the same Master Responses 1, 2, and 7. (FEIR, Vol. I, Response N-10 at p. 3.0-106.) Response N-5 also does not address Comment R-15, as the analysis addresses whether Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 constitutes an impermissibly deferred mitigation measure lacking an identified performance standard. (FEIR, Vol. I, Response N-5 at pp. 3.0-91 to 3.0-94.) None of the five responses addresses LAFCO’s actual

City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026

comment: that eliminating the ARCA designation, independent of whatever mitigation applies to the resulting farmland conversion, is a significant change in City land use policy, the impacts of which the FEIR fails to disclose or analyze.

2. The Response Does Not Resolve the Williamson Act Analysis as to the Seven of Nine Affected Parcels
Response to Comment R-14 is inadequate, as it does not undergo the requested analysis regarding seven of the nine parcels of land under the Williamson Act. Comment R-14 explained that the Project’s three proposed approach to nine parcels under the Williamson Act—requiring the landowner to file a notice or nonrenewal and wait nine years, pay a cancellation fee equal to 12.5 percent of the land’s value, or a complete agricultural easement exchange—does not preserve agricultural land by merely resolving the existing conflict between the Williamson Act contract and the Project on terms that leave the underlying conversion impact unmitigated. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-14, pp.

4.0-32 to 4.0-34.) In response to Comment R-14 on the Williamson Act, the City responded solely with a cross-reference to Master Response 6. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-14, pp. 4.0-207 to 4.0-208.)
Master Response 6 addresses only two of the nine parcels, specifically those subject to the City’s 1976 protest to Stanislaus LAFCO under former Government Code section 51243.5, which was upheld by LAFCO Resolution 76-2397 (adopted April 19, 1978). (FEIR, Vol. I, Section 2.0 Agency Comments on Draft EIR and Responses, Master Response 6, pp. 2.0-14 to 2.0-15.) Master Response 6 explains that under Government Code section 51243.5 subdivision (e), these two contracts will become null and void as to the annexed land by operation of the law upon annexation, thus eliminating the conflict for those two parcels without resorting to the three proposed approaches. (Ibid.)
DEIR Table 3.2-7 confirms, by Assessor’s Parcel Number, that the two parcels Master Response 6 addresses (APN 074-003-013 and APN 074-003-014) are the only parcels whose protest was upheld in 1978; the remaining seven parcels under Williamson Act contract (APNs 074-001-001, 074-001-008, 074-001-009, 074-001-010, 074-001- 011, 074-002-024, and 074-002-025) are unaffected by that resolution. (DEIR, Vol. I, Section 3.2 Agricultural Resources, Table 3.2-7, p. 3.2-12; FEIR, Vol. I, Master Response 6, pp. 2.0-14 to 2.0-15.) The statement in Master Response 6 that “the other nine Williamson Act contracts” would not conflict with the Sphere of Influence/Reserve Area extension does not match this count—nine total parcels minus the two resolved leaves seven, not nine. (Id. at p. 2.0-15.) The response does not otherwise engage Comment R-14’s central point: that the three-option framework does not preserve agricultural land but merely resolves the legal conflict between the contract and the

City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026

Project on terms that leave the underlying conversion impact unmitigated. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-14, pp. 4.0-32 to 4.0-34.)
The Response’s silence as to the seven non-protested parcels, compounded by its miscount of their number, means the record does not establish that this unmitigated conflict has been resolved for the majority of the Williamson Act land at issue. The FEIR accordingly fails to remedy the deficiency identified in Comment R-14.

B. Water Supply and Groundwater Reliability

1. The Response Does Not Resolve the Department of Water Resources’ Specific Findings Regarding Subbasin-Wide
Groundwater Overdraft
Future water supplies must be identified and analyzed as an agency cannot rely on “paper water” whose actual future availability has not been demonstrated. (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 432.) An EIR’s water supply analysis “must address the impacts of likely future water sources” along with “a reasoned analysis of the circumstances affecting the likelihood of the water’s availability.” (Ibid.)
Comment R-10 cited to the California Department of Water Resources’ (“DWR”) January 2024 Staff Report evaluation of the January 2022 Modesto Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (“GSP”), which found the GSP’s baseline overdraft calculation underestimated the actual reported overdraft by more than a factor of ten, and estimated that correcting the actual reported storage loss at the GSP’s proposed implementation pace would require approximately 218 years. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-10, pp. 4.0-23 to 4.0-28.)
Response R-10 cross-referenced as Master Response 9 discloses that the GSP was revised in July 2024 and presents historical groundwater elevation data from a single representative well (“Langon Merle 241”) near the city, showing the GSP’s Minimum Threshold and Measurable Objective since 2016. (FEIR, Vol. II, Response R-10, p. 4.0- 205; see FEIR, Vol. 1, Master Response 9, pp. 2.0-26 to 2.0-32.) Master Response 9 does not resolve DWR’s specific concern because it answers a different and narrower question. Evidence that groundwater levels are stable at one representative well does not establish that the Subbasin-wide overdraft accounting methodology DWR specifically found deficient has since been corrected.

Response R-10 also cites Master Response 10, which addresses a further separate question: the Project’s own water demand relative to existing agricultural use on the site.

City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026

(FEIR, Vol. II, Response R-10, p. 4.0-205; see FEIR, Vol. I, Master Response 10, p. 2.0- 32 to 2.0-35.) Master Response 10 states the Project’s post-development groundwater demand (approximately 1,657 acre-feet annually, including a remaining orchard parcel) represents a net reduction of around 489 acre-feet from the approximately 2,146 acre-feet the Specific Plan Area’s existing agricultural irrigation demands today. (FEIR, Vol. I, Master Response 10, p. 2.0-34; see also FEIR Vol. II, p. 5.0-74.) That comparison also does not address DWR’s critique. Whether the Project’s own marginal water use goes up or down does not establish that the Subbasin-wide overdraft accounting underlying the GSP’s “highly reliable” supply conclusion is itself accurate. An incrementally smaller increase in demand in a high priority subbasin that is still in overdraft still creates significant effects on groundwater.

The FEIR also clarifies that three, rather than two new wells may be needed to serve the Project. (FEIR, Vol. I., p. 3.0-23.) Adding new wells to an overdrafted subbasin would logically worsen groundwater conditions in the region. In addition, the FEIR should not assume that a smaller demand on water from urban development under the Project would necessarily have less impact on limited groundwater supplies. Currently, water applied to irrigated agriculture is allowed to recharge groundwater over time. If the Project is built out, these same areas would largely be covered with impervious surfaces, reducing groundwater recharge. Thus, even if the overall water demand is smaller, there may be more impact on groundwater over the long term due to changes in runoff patterns from the addition of impervious surfaces.

The Errata attributes the 489-acre-foot reduction figure Master Response 10 relies upon to a technical memorandum by Rob Christensen, PE, dated October 4, 2024, after the DEIR’s public comment period had closed. (FEIR, Vol. II, pp. 5.0-397 to 5.0-403.) The memorandum also calculates a further potential reduction of up to 861 acre-feet based on the State Water Resources Control Board’s July 2024 water use objectives. (Id. at 5.0-400 to 5.30-401.) Both figures address only the Project’s own marginal groundwater demand; neither engages DWR’s Subbasin-wide overdraft findings or whether the GSP’s baseline accounting has been corrected within the FEIR.

The Response therefore does not resolve DWR’s specific, documented finding that the Subbasin’s overdraft accounting understated actual conditions by a factor of ten. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-10, pp. 4.0-23 to 4.0-28.) Nothing in the record establishes that the revised GSP’s baseline overdraft methodology corrects the deficiency DWR identified in the prior version upon which the DEIR relied. Absent that showing, the FEIR’s characterization of the Project’s water supply as “highly reliable” rests on a groundwater sustainability plan that in itself was underreporting the overdraft calculations. (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 5.0-71.)

City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026

2. The FEIR Does Not Resolve Uncertainty Regarding the Project’s Stormwater Infrastructure Design
Under CEQA, an EIR must describe the range of reasonable alternatives for a project that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives” of a project while avoiding or substantially lessening “any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” (Association of Irritated Residents v.

County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1400 [citing CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (a)] [Association of Irritated Residents].) The EIR must include sufficient information for each alternative for “meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project.” (Association of Irritated Residents, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at 1400 [citing CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (d)].)
Comment R-12 noted that the DEIR’s stormwater collection and detention design remains substantially undesigned: exact basin locations, pipe and swale layout, and the terms of the Project’s discharge arrangement with Modesto Irrigation District (“MID”) are all deferred to a future improvement-plan phased approach, with no disclosed fallback design should an agreement with MID not be reached. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-12, pp. 4.0-29 to 4.0-30.) The City’s Response to Comment R-12 describes the Project’s general stormwater design approach and the applicable regulatory permitting framework but does not address whether an agreement with MID has been executed nor does it disclose or analyze the alternative retention/infiltration design that would be required in its absence. (FEIR, Vol. II, Response R-12, p. 4.0-206.) The Response therefore does not cure the deficiency identified in Comment R-12.

Without confirmation that an agreement with MID has been executed, and without any disclosure of the fallback design that would govern in its absence, the DEIR’s stormwater and water quality remains based on undefined infrastructure rather than the reasonably foreseeable project features CEQA requires an agency to disclose and analyze. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subds. (a), (d).)
C. Biological Resources: Survey Methodology and Species Count

1. The FEIR Does Not Disclose Methodology Underlying the DEIR’s Baseline Biological Surveys
An EIR’s description of the existing environmental setting must be sufficiently detailed to allow the public to understand and meaningfully evaluate the agency’s findings. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (a); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v.

Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404-405 [EIR must include sufficient information to permit “informed decisionmaking and informed public

City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026

participation”].) Under CEQA, the agency must disclose relevant information when the failure to disclose the information precludes informed decision-making and public participation. (See Association of Irritated Residents, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at 1391.) A response directed at an unrelated topic does not constitute a good faith, reasoned response CEQA requires. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088, subd. (c).)
Comment R-5 identified specific, unanswered questions regarding the DEIR’s summary of four reconnaissance surveys conducted by Steven McMurtry in December 2019 and in March, May, and June 2020: the date and time of the surveys, the duration of the survey, if a species-needs checklist was used, and Mr. McMurtry’s qualifications. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-5, pp. 4.0-9 to 4.0-11.) Comment R-5 additionally noted that the City confirmed, by email, that no technical report memorializing these surveys was ever prepared. (Id. at pp. 4.0-9 to 4.0-10, fn. 3.)
In Response R-5, the City cross-referenced Master Response 11. Master Response 11, however, addresses the adequacy of the DEIR’s biological mitigation measures (enforceability of performance standards, propriety of preconstruction surveys as a mitigation tool) and the distinction between habitat assessments and the point-in-time detection surveys. (FEIR, Vol. I, Master Response 11, pp. 2.0-35-2.0 to 2.0-45.) It does not address the specific baseline-survey methodology questions Comment R-5 raises: no dates, times, durations, or checklist methodology for the McMurtry surveys appear in Master Response 11. No further response was provided to adequately respond to Comment R-5, leaving the comment unaddressed by the general response of Master Response 11. As the survey methodology underlying the DEIR’s biological baseline is undisclosed, the DEIR’s environmental setting description does not satisfy CEQA’s informational requirements.

2. The Response Mischaracterizes the Record Regarding SpecialStatus Species Omitted from the DEIR’s Analysis Comment R-6, supported by the report of Dr. Shawn Smallwood (Comment RAttachment 1), identified 101 special-status species warranting further analysis based on a review of the California Natural Diversity Data Base and the US Fish and Wildlife Service occurrence records, categorized by distance from the Project site. (Comment RAttachment 1, Table 2, pp. 38-42 [FEIR, Vol II, pp. 4.0-75 to 4.0-79].) Comment R-6 highlights the fact that the DEIR analyzed occurrence likelihood for only 24 of these species, leaving 77 species entirely unaddressed, including 10 species that were documented within the Specific Plan Area itself. (FEIR, Vol II, p. 4.0-14.) The City’s Response to Comment R-6 states that “the commenter does not provide a list of the 77 species, does not identify any specific species, [and] does not provide the

City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026

records of occurrences and locations of these species.” This statement ignores the fact that Table 2 of the Smallwood Report, marked as Comment R-Attachment 1, is precisely such a list, organized by occurrence-distance category. (See FEIR, Vol II, pp. 4.0-75 to

4.0-79.) The Response’s assertion that no such list was provided is incorrect, as both the comment letter cited the table and Dr. Smallwood’s report containing the table was submitted to the City.

The City’s response to a separate comment, Response G-58, reveals the City’s actual position: California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (“CDFW”) silence affirmatively establishes that no special-status species are missing from the DEIR’s analysis, citing Gentry v. City of Murrietta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1380 (Gentry). (FEIR, Vol. I, Response G-58, p. 2.0-158.) The City appears to extend this same reasoning in Comment R-6, treating CDFW’s silence as the basis for disregarding Dr.

Smallwood’s data-supported identification, in Table 2 of his report, of 77 species the DEIR’s analysis omits. (FEIR, Vol. II, Response R-6, p. 4.0-199.) This approach inverts the burden from the lead agency (the City) to the commenter. As noted in Santa Clarita Organization for Planning v. County of Los Angeles, “it is not enough for the EIR simply to contain information submitted by the public and experts.” An inference drawn from an agency’s silence is not substantial evidence of anything in particular but at most the absence of evidence that cannot substitute for the reasoned, fact-based analysis CEQA requires once an expert’s comments disclose new or conflicting data. (Clearly v. County of Stanislaus (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 348, 357 [where a responsible expert’s comments disclose new or conflicting data, “these comments may not simply be ignored. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response”]; Berkeley Keep Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1367 [heightened need for substantive, detailed responses to comments from experts and responsible agencies].)
The City’s reliance on the Gentry case does not excuse this defect. Gentry applies when the reviewing agency had the opportunity and occasion to notice the specific omission at issue. (36 Cal.App.4th at 1380.) CDFW did submit comments on the DEIR, but those comments reflect a review of the DEIR’s own special-status species table (DEIR Table 3.4-7), which lists only 24 species—not a review of Table 2 of the Smallwood Report, an attachment to our Original Comments identifying 77 additional species the DEIR’s table omits. (FEIR, Vol. I, Comment F, pp. 2.0-78 to 2.0-84.) Nothing in the record establishes that CDFW was ever presented with Table 2 or had the opportunity to compare it against the DEIR’s own table. A reviewing agency cannot be said to have noticed, and implicitly approved, an omission it was never shown.

Substituting this unsupported inference for actual analysis is precisely the kind of conclusory response, unsupported by empirical information or explanatory analysis, that fails to crystallize the issue a comment raises. (Environmental Protection Information Center, supra, 170 Cal.App.3d at 628; County of Kern, supra, 39 Cal.App.3d at 841.)

City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026

Because the Response does not substantively engage the 77 species Table 2 identifies, the DEIR’s occurrence-likelihood analysis remains unsupported as to each of them, and the City’s failure to provide a substantive response renders the DEIR’s biological resources analysis legally inadequate in this respect. (Rural Landowners Assn. v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020.)

3. The Response Does Not Resolve the Circularity in the DEIR’s Cumulative Biological Impact Analysis
Under CEQA Guidelines, a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact may be found less than cumulatively considerable only where the agency identifies facts and analysis showing the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of mitigation measures designed to alleviate that cumulative impact. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15065, subd, (a)(3), 15130, subd. (a)(3).) Comment R-8 explained that the DEIR conflates these two questions, treating the fact that project-level mitigation has been “presented” as itself sufficient to support a finding that cumulative biological impacts are less than cumulatively considerable. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-8, pp. 4.0-17 to 4.0-18.) The City’s response to Comment R8 explains the DEIR’s methodology under CEQA Guidelines section 15130, subdivision (b)(1) and quantifies the relevant biological setting, but it does not explain why applying project-level mitigation also resolves the separate, cumulative-level question the comment raised. (FEIR, Vol. II, Response R-8, pp. 4.0-17 to 4.0-18.) Without an explanation connecting the two, the DEIR’s “less than cumulatively considerable” finding remains a conclusory statement unsupported by disclosed facts and analysis, the very deficiency CEQA Guidelines section 15130, subdivision (a)(3) rejects and the very deficiency Response R-8 claims to avoid.

4. The Response to Comment R-3 and R-Attachment 1 Relies on an Unsubstantiated Allegation Regarding the Commenter’s Biological Expert Rather Than Addressing His Analysis
A lead agency’s response to comments must address the significant environmental issues raised by the comment. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15088, subd. (c).) Comment R-3 presented the species extrapolation methodology set forth in the Smallwood Report, comparing observed detection rates at the Project site to two substantially larger prior survey datasets, from which Dr. Smallwood estimated that continued survey effort would likely detect approximately 196 vertebrate species, including around 34 special-status species, at the Project site.

City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026

The City’s response to Comment R-3 and Comment R-Attachment 1 do not address this extrapolation methodology. (FEIR, Vol. II, pp. 4.0-193 to 4.0-195, 4.0-208 to

4.0-215.) Instead, both responses state the property owner has represented that Dr.

Smallwood accessed the Berghill property without authorization and furthermore claim that the property owner photographed Dr. Smallwood and his vehicle during the alleged encounter (no such photographs were provided). As explained by Dr. Smallwood in the letter attached as Exhibit A, Dr. Smallwood conducted visual surveys of the Project site by foot along a social path adjacent to the Stanislaus River, which he accessed from Ms.

Gammon’s and Dr. Gammon’s property. Dr. Smallwood did not see any signage regarding private property during his field visits. Moreover, at no time did Dr.

Smallwood travel by vehicle on the Project site.

An allegation regarding a commenter’s expert’s conduct, unrelated to and unsupported within the response itself, does not constitute a response to the technical analysis presented in Comment R-3. The City’s false statements in the FEIR regarding Dr. Smallwood’s conduct, which are harmful to his professional reputation, must be corrected.

Substantively, the FEIR fails to acknowledge the extent to which agricultural land provides habitat values, which would be directly impacted by the Project. While the Response points to species richness in the riparian area along the river (FEIR, Vol. II, p.

4.0-194), it fails to recognize how agricultural land supports birds and other wildlife. For instance, the discussion of Swainson’s hawk fails to acknowledge the loss of foraging habitat on the Project site, and also makes the unsubstantiated assumption that hawks are not foraging there because there are nests in the area. (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 4.0-201.) II. NEW INFORMATION IN FEIR ERRATA REQUIRES RECIRCULATION A. Sanitary Sewer System Would Have Substantially More Severe Impacts
The FEIR discloses that Construction of the sanitary sewer force mains crossing the Stanislaus River would be performed using Horizontal Directional Drilling. (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 5.0-26.) According to the City, “Construction of the sewer force mains under the river corridor will require a host of permits from various agencies such as the California State Lands Commission, US Army Corps of Engineers, and the Central Vally Water Quality Control Board.” (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 5.0-27.) No description of the actual activities to be permitted is provided. While the FEIR claims that there would be no disturbance of the riparian corridor (and no impacts to wetlands), with no design details, the FEIR’s less than significant impact determination is without support. (FEIR, Vol. II, pp. 5.0-61 to 5.0-64.)

City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026

In addition, the FEIR somehow finds an additional .2 million gallons per day of capacity for the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plan than previously discussed in the DEIR. (FEIR, Vol. I, p. 3.0-39; FEIR, Vol. II, p. 5.0-102.) This allegedly would accommodate 31 percent of the wastewater capacity needs for the entire Specific Plan.

The FEIR project description is unstable and unsubstantiated with respect to necessary treatment of wastewater from the Project.

B. New Biological Resources Identified
Section 5.0 Errata opens with a blanket assertion that its revision “do not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitute significant new information, and do not alter the conclusion of the environmental analysis that would warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.” (FEIR, Vol. II, p.

5.0-1.) The Errata’s own content is in tension with the assertion. Table 3.4-1, as revised, identifies only six parcels that have been field surveyed within the Berghill Boundary, with the remaining parcels comprising the Reserve Area being separately listed in Table

3.4-3 as “Not Field Surveyed.” (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 5.0-45.) Table 3.4-7’s presence determinations for special-status wildlife and fish species, however, appear to apply across the full Project Area, including the not field surveyed Reserve Area parcels, with no accompanying explanation anywhere in the Errata or FEIR of the methodology used to reach a determination where no field survey occurred. (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 5.0-45.) Revisions in the Errata to the same table add three special-status invertebrates never identified in the circulated DEIR, the American bumble bee (Bombus penslyvanicus), the Antioch mutilid wasp (Myrmosula pacifica), and the San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas trochilus), increasing the documented special-status invertebrate count from nine to twelve. (FEIR, Vol. II, pp. 5.0-46 to 5.0-

47.) The revised table assigns the American bumble bee a “Moderate” potential to forage within the Project Area, a species-specific presence determination never before disclosed and, like every other entry in Table 3.4-7. unsupported by any stated methodology. (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 5.0-46.) A one-third increase in the documented special-status invertebrate count, including a new species-specific presence finding for a portion of the Project Area the record confirms was never field surveyed, is the kind of addition CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision (a) is designed to reach. The Errata’s blanket statement that none of its revisions constitute significant new information does not address this disclosure specifically, and the FEIR does not otherwise explain why recirculation is unnecessary.

City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026

III. CONCLUSION
The DEIR continues to fall short as a source of meaningful information, and the FEIR only deepens the City’s CEQA violations by failing to respond in good faith to public comments that identified the DEIR’s many shortcomings. Moreover, new information in the Errata portion of the FEIR triggers recirculation. For the reasons set forth above, the City must provide substantive, good-faith responses to each of the comments on the DEIR and in this letter, address the identified deficiencies in the FEIR, and then recirculate the FEIR before considering certifying the FEIR, or taking any action to approve the Project.

Very truly yours,

SOLURI MESERVE
A Law Corporation
By:

Osha R. Meserve
cc: Joshua Mann, Director of Community Development, City of Riverbank, [email protected]
Attachment: Exhibit A, Letter dated July 24, 2026, from Dr. Shawn Smallwood re:

Trespassing Allegation

EXHIBIT A

Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Miguel Galvez, Contract City Planner
City of fuverbanl
6707 3rd Street, Suite A
Riverbank, Califomia 95367
July 24,2026
Re: Correction to Final EIR Misstatements Regarding Access During 2024 Biological Surveys
Dear Mr. Galvez,
I prepared the biological report submitted as Attachment I to the May 16,2024 comment letter on the Draft Environmental Impact Report C'EIR') for the River Walk Specific Plan submitted on behalf of Riverbank residents Annabel Gammon and Dr. J. Allen Gammon. This letter pertains to misstatements in the City's Final EIR responses to the May 16, 2024 comment, designated as Comment R, which state that I accessed the Berghill prope4y without authorization during my 2024 site visits. (Final EIR for the River Walk Specific Plan, Vol. II, Section 4.0 Citizen DEIR Comments and Responses, Response R-3 & Response R-Attachment 1, pp. 4.0-195,4.0-209.) In fact, I reached the river corridor by way ofa social path along the Stanislaus River, accessing the area from Ms. Gammons' property. Nothing along that path or other marking distinguished it from any other social trail or indicated that the area was private property or closed to public access. In addition, I never traveled by vehicle on any portion of the project site.

I request that the City publicly correct the record with respect to its misstatements regarding trespassing, which are factually incorrect and are potentially damaging to my reputation as a professional biologist.

Sincerely,
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

I
JU_

EXHIBIT 2

Available at: https://www.facebook.com/VoteLuisUribe/photos/river-walk-update-imputting-in-the-homeworkim-meeting-with-our-fire-chief-polic/1585538290252534/

River Lowlands Farms Historic District
Traditional Cultural Place Rural Landscape Report
The Kroeber (1959) Lakisumne Name for the settlement is “Hiseti” Historic Burwood / Monroeville and Burneyville from 1852

PARCELS AND LINEAR FEATURES LOCATED IN THE STANISLAUS

RIVER LOWLANDS CULTURAL RESOURCES
of the HISTORIC FARMLANDS TRADITIONAL CULTURAL

PROPERTYSTANISLAUS & SAN JOAQUIN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA FOR THE CENTRAL VALLEY CONCERNED CITIZENS (CVCC)BULLETIN 30, BULLETIN 38, & SECTION 106 EVALUATION ABRIEVIATED DRAFT Prepared for the Central Valley Concerned Citizens (CVCC)

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

EXHIBIT N- CONTINUED

1 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

PARCELS AND LINEAR FEATURES

LOCATED IN THE

STANISLAUS RIVER LOWLANDS
CULTURAL RESOURCES of the

HISTORIC FARMLANDS TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTY

STANISLAUS & SAN JOAQUIN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA

FOR THE CENTRAL VALLEY CONCERNED CITIZENS (CVCC)
BULLETIN 30, BULLETIN 38, & SECTION 106 EVALUATION

ABRIEVIATED DRAFT
Prepared for the Central Valley Concerned Citizens (CVCC) Memorandum

2 RE: Notice of Proposed Plan for Initial Study for Section 106 Historic Properties Survey Inventory Report for Developing the Traditional Cultural Property Historic Farmlands of the Burwood-Burneyville Family Farms

The following cultural resources report provides detailed findings and explanations for this decision proposed by the qualified archaeological representative holding the qualifications that meet the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for archaeology. Private confidential consultation interviews are the basis for this preliminary draft. Qualifications of the individuals performing the original studies provided by the Central Valley Concerned Citizens (CVCC) are included in the records themselves, and the qualifications of the persons performing and receiving the record searches can be found in the documentation of the California Historic Resource Information System (CHRIS) located in Sacramento, California. Properties previously determined eligible or ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places have been included in the Record Searches #11265L, #11579L, draft surveys [ML-20-01, ML-20-02 Criterion D, ML-20-03 Criterion D, ML-20-04 Criterion B, ML-20-05] with additional private property resource contributions by the Farmers and Landowners of the Burwood-Burneyville Historic Farmlands.

Identification of any previously recorded historic properties following the requirements set forth in established codes [36 CFR Part 800.4(a)(2)] will indicate whether SHPO concurred on previous eligibility determinations. These findings should be reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) for recommendations as to the quality of preservation of the cultural heritage presented here. Since this is the introduction to an Initial Study and the required Record Search for developing a preservation plan, coordination between agencies represented across this broad range of the Riverbank and Escalon riparian Stanislaus River geographic quadrangles requires further preservation efforts be continued with this initial draft report as the basis for field research.

It is the opinion of the principal investigator and the CVCC, and not to be regarded as legal advice, that the preliminary historic property survey was performed using the best practices of the archaeological profession as stated in the ethical guidelines of the Register of Professional Archaeologists. Farm historians have been self-reporting confidential privileged family genealogical contributors to the documents. Since changes over time may occur under concurrent investigations and given the elements of nature, changes in the approach or attributes of a particular site may vary. Therefore, the investigator and associates shall be held harmless from any liability, financial or otherwise resulting from the activities of others regarding undertakings at these locations. There is no other warranty implied by the acceptance of the report presented as it is the responsibility of the lead agency or project proponent to apply the recommendations and ensure that the field operations conform to the mitigation measures.

Central Valley Concerned Citizens

Abstract
The River Lowlands Farming Historic District Traditional Cultural Place is the rural historic landscape along the north and south banks of the Stanislaus River between the communities of

3 Riverbank and Escalon, Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties, California. Upon review of the three sources of historic resources, the River Lowlands Farming Historic District Traditional Cultural Place has determined that a large body of evidence has been left unreported by these documents. This summary and analysis of the results of the archival research that informed the areas of potential effects (APE) of previous proposed project regions revealed any recorded historic properties [36 CFR Part 800.4(a)(2)] and indicated any State Historic Property Office (SHPO) eligibility determinations. The boundaries of the River Lowlands Farming Historic District Traditional Cultural Place include the western border of McHenry Avenue, the northern boundary of River Road, the eastern boundary of the Santa Fe Avenue over the Stanislaus River, and the southern boundary being the City of Riverbank and Highway 108 Patterson Road to where it intersects with McHenry Avenue. Physical evidence of the historic values inherent within this landscape are tangible elements of the environment signifying the beliefs, attitudes, traditions, and values of these people numbering approximately 27 parcels on the northern bank of the Stanislaus River and numbering approximately 61 parcels on the southern bank of the Stanislaus River. Although there is a recent proposal for annexation into the Riverbank Sphere Of Influence (SOI) to include a buffer of one-half mile radius from a perimeter of a proposed 1522 acreage out of a partial section of the total Assessor’s Parcel Numbers of approximately 88 parcels, the River Lowlands Farming Historic District Traditional Cultural Place is the overarching theme of rural historic farmland separated by the Army Corp of Engineers governance over the riparian zone along the Stanislaus River lying between the parcels.

Table of Contents

4 Memorandum ....................................................................................................................... ………2 Abstract ................................................................................................................................ ………3 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. 4 River Lowlands Farms Historic District Traditional Cultural Place .................................... ………5 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 6 Heritage Values .......................................................................................................... ………7 Historic Context Themes and Periods of Significance .............................................. ………8 Boundary Description and Chronology of Occupants ......................................................... ………9 Lakisumnes River, Rio Laquisimnes 1829 .......................................................................... 10 Yatch-a-chum’ne Northern Valley Yokut ............................................................................ 15 Significant People in History of Hise-ti ............................................................................. ………16 Names of Significant People on the Route of Appelimany / Hise-ti / Wallakumne .......... ………17 Significant People in History of Hise-ti Now Burneyville ................................................ ………18 Early Evidence of the Spanish Mexican Wars ............................................................................... 19 Cannon Ball of Preston Tucker ............................................................................... ………20 Original Name of the Lakisumne’s Settlement ...................................................... ………21 Delineating the Settlement of “Hise-ti” .................................................................. ………21 NAHC Stakeholders and Record Search Deficiencies................................................................... 22 Table of Project Timeline ................................................................................................... 24 Description for the Assessor Parcel Number Attributes .................................................... ………25 Heritage Values Inherent on the River Lowlands .............................................................. ………26 Architectural Investigations ..................................................................................... ………26 Flumes, Ditches, Canals, Water Conveyance and Wells ......................................... ………27 Wagon Roads and Ancient Trails ............................................................................ ………29 Historic Golf Club Features ..................................................................................... ………30 Railroad and River Ferry Crossing History ............................................................. ………31 Historic Farmland Heritage Family Names ............................................................. ………32 Viewshed Quality of Life ......................................................................................... ………33 Historic Farmland Heritage Family Names Numbered Resources .................................... ………33 Resource Attribute Code Chart & Quantities of Sites ....................................................... ………34 Resources Reported by Descendants of Historic Families ................................................ ………35 Deficiencies in the Cultural Resources Assessment 2021 ................................................. ………35 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as Amended (NHPA) ...................................... 36 State of California Environmental Quality Act ................................................................... 36 Significance Criteria ............................................................................................................ 37 Public Resources Code 5042 and 5024.5 ............................................................................. 38 Public Resources Code 5097.9/CA Health & Safety Code 7050.5/ PR Code 5097.9 ......... 38 California Natural Resources Agency Tribal Coordination Policy ...................................... 38 Analysis of Record Searches Requested but Not Received .......................................................... 39 References ...................................................................................................................................... 41 Map Resources Reviewed ........................................................................................ ………47 Appendix ........................................................................................................................................ 49 River Lowlands Farms Historic District Traditional Cultural Place Rural Landscape Report
The River Lowlands Farming Historic District Traditional Cultural Place is the rural historic landscape along the north and south banks of the Stanislaus River between the communities of Riverbank

5 and Escalon, Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties, California. Historic pioneer families’ remembrances and identification of ancient trails, historic roads, farming practices, riverboats and ferries, buildings, structures, objects, and sites in this landscape have identified places with significance to their pioneer family homesteads. Evaluations during previous Phases 1 and II Section 106 Identification of Historic Properties conducted report the results of these elements within the record searches obtained from the Central California Information Center. In 2019, 2021, and 2022 there were combined efforts to review and make additional submissions of historic records which were accessed through record search 1) file no. 11579L 12-4-2020; 2) file no. 112651L 12-18-2020, and 3) draft versions of the Peak and Associates (2021) archaeological field survey record forms data not yet included in any record search -the recent 2019-2022 findings. These record search perimeters consisted of only 1/16th of a mile radius along the boundary edge of the one parcel of 1522 acres having limited results. Upon review of the three sources of historic resources, the River Lowlands Farming Historic District Traditional Cultural Place has reviewed and determined that a large body of evidence has been left unreported by these documents. The Scope of Work (SOW) performed here provides a description of the archival research and oral history interviews conducted in order to identify elements of the environment to be preserved within the rural historic landscape and provides evidence of properties.

This summary and analysis of the results of the archival research that informed the areas of potential effects (APE) of previous proposed project regions revealed any recorded historic properties [36 CFR Part 800.4(a)(2)] and indicated any State Historic Property Office (SHPO) eligibility determinations.

The boundaries of the River Lowlands Farming Historic District Traditional Cultural Place include the western border of McHenry Avenue, the northern boundary of River Road, the eastern boundary of the Santa Fe Avenue over the Stanislaus River, and the southern boundary being the City of Riverbank and Highway 108 Patterson Road to where it intersects with McHenry Avenue. The name given to Riverbank habitation areas is “Hise-ti” described by a Yokut informant according to the interviews with Louis in 1923 by Gifford and Kroeber (Hall, 1978) and Joe Guzman by C. H. Merriam in 1934. Physical evidence of the historic values inherent within this landscape are tangible elements of the environment signifying

6 the beliefs, attitudes, traditions, and values of these people numbering more than 27 parcels on the northern bank of the Stanislaus River and numbering more than 61 parcels on the southern bank of the Stanislaus River. The river lowlands do extend further upstream and downstream with evidence from oral interviews reported of the old golf course and of the old residence of Chester Smith, a historic musician.

Each traditional landscape elevation is characterized by a viewshed unique to each elevation and viewpoint. Fields, pastures, open plains and traces of the wagon ruts and farm roads on the lowlands are tangible contours covered by layers of alluvium silt deposited over centuries of flood waters leaving high points where ancient settlement and trails were traversed by the Spanish and Gold Rush colonization of the pioneers that settled here. Although there is a recent proposal for annexation into the Riverbank Sphere Of Influence (SOI) to include a buffer of one-sixteenth mile radius from a perimeter of a proposed 1522 acreage out of a partial section of the total Assessors Parcel Numbers of approximately 88 parcels, the River Lowlands Farming Historic District Traditional Cultural Place is the overarching theme of rural historic farmland separated by the Army Corp of Engineers governance over the riparian zone along the Stanislaus River lying between the parcels.

Purpose of This Study
An analysis conducted by the project proponent team members of the CVCC during the preparation of the application to the lead agency addresses the most recent oral interviews, historic features of the private property farming communities and previous historic resources reviewed within this area of potential effects between Burwood and Burneyville along the Stanislaus River, California to formulate a historic resource overview. Before pre-field activities commenced, full archaeological and architectural surveys were requested by the CVCC archaeological consultant, which at this time have not been received. Three resource surveys were obtained from the City of Riverbank of the most recent investigations of the work along the central natural ditch system on the south side of the Stanislaus River were received, but the 2019-2021 field work which consisted of the full record searches were not received.

7 Review of the established previously recorded historic properties following the requirements set forth in established codes [36 CFR Part 800.4(a)(2)] were only able to be reviewed through the bibliography of the record searches which were not given to the CVCC. These titles in the bibliography indicated whether SHPO concurred on previous eligibility determinations. The record search would have allowed the determination of whether past projects were in the coverage area when provided with the project name, and the agency who initially evaluated the resource. All survey, evaluation, and assessment must be conducted by or under the direct supervision of a qualified professional in the appropriate field meeting the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR 61) in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines (48 FR 44716-42). Providing a broad narrative historical overview of the overarching forces surrounding the project environmental, geographical, social, cultural, political, governmental, and technological elements which have shaped land use patterns of the Stanislaus River corridor from lowlands to foothills and mountains can provide a backdrop for understanding any significance according to the requirements of context. The historic eras in California Indigenous, Spanish Mission, Mexican, Gold Rush colonization, and American civil and foreign war inductions inform the more recent history of the population and development of the built environment of the area under consideration.

Heritage Values
The historical patterns present within the archival reports about the areas of potential effects on the two 7.5 quadrangle maps of Escalon and Riverbank follow specific themes. The environmental and cultural influences of the human influence in prehistoric California and the built environment hold varying levels of significance. Significant individuals and groups relevant to the context theme of this broad area may relate to prehistoric habitation patterns, phases of colonization history, and current events surrounding geography and agriculture. An overview of this broad area falls within specific types of interpretation depending upon the intent or scope of work for each region and reasoning for the impact

8 upon the land. In order to construct the consistent theme related to the construction of the entire agricultural lowlands, the significance of the architectural elements, the physical plant, the underlying geological constituents, and periods in history where all locations under review reveal concurrent themes connecting them even though the area is so broad.

Historic Context Themes and Periods of Significance
For the purpose of the evaluation of the properties listed within the record search outline letters obtained from the Central California Information Center of 2019, 2021, and 2022 and additional submissions of historic records which were accessed through record search 1) file no. 11579L 12-4-2020; 2) file no. 112651L 12-18-2020, and 3) draft versions of the Peak and Associates (2021) archaeological field survey record forms data which have not yet been received, additional research was conducted by the CVCC. The historic eras have been considered following these year descriptions: Prehistoric; Precolonial (1500-1769); Spanish Mexican (1769-1848); Early American (1848-1880); Turn of the Century (1880-1914); Early Twentieth Century (1914-1945); Post World War II (1945-). Since the records contain the temporal definitions based upon resource type and age, the Historic Periods previously mentioned hold particular characteristics in order to identify the timeframe. These classifications are listed in these records as Prehistoric, Protohistoric, and Historic. For these definitions the source is the California Office of Historic Preservation (1995) publications.

Prehistoric sites minimally consist of a single feature, or at least three associated artifacts (if less than three items then the item is listed as an isolate), and it must be at least older than 45 years. A prehistoric location can also be defined because of oral history, recorded history of an event or significant person occurring before the recent dominant culture. Within the California floodplains the physiological conditions that altered the landscape require a particular concern where these alterations require a depth of understanding of what occurred on the land during the above-named year descriptions of eras. Since any of these types of resources required human intervention to alter the natural form on the landscape, then evidence of human activity more than 45 years old was examined.

9 Archaeological resources can also include architectural construct within the definition of a site.

These are considered to be built environment features within the survey records obtained and include fragments and full concrete canals older than 45, ditches or agricultural features including levees, dams, weirs, flumes, railroad grades or roadbeds, retaining walls or rock walls, fences, ranch related items such as fencing, corals, and poles or posts. Historic period buildings are identified within these records, with some having applications for historic significance.

Boundary Description and Chronology of Occupants
Reviewing the evidence for creating the boundaries of the River Lowlands Farming Historic District Traditional Cultural Place, oral history, physical evidence, and archival compilation from local museums and farming group chapters contributed to the basis for these boundary demarcations. The boundary and historical knowledge can range beyond these markers, but most of the concerns for the natural habitat, early farming practices, and flood plain occur within the western border of McHenry Avenue, the northern boundary of River Road, the eastern boundary of the Santa Fe Avenue over the Stanislaus River, and the southern boundary being the City of Riverbank and Highway 108 Patterson Road to where it intersects with McHenry Avenue. Family contributions for the archival collection of physical and literary objects and stories attributed to these 88 assessors parcel number plots of acreage have been compiled here to demonstrate the rich cultural values inherent to the rural historic farmland of the River Lowlands Farming Historic District Traditional Cultural Place.

Original Government Land Office maps, early topographic maps, and aerial photography accessed through the partnership with the McHenry Museum from a time before the New Melones Dam was constructed, show a biodiverse landscape tended by the farming families. The footprint of the River Lowlands Farming Historic District Traditional Cultural Place boundary began in the contact period before the Spanish Land Grants were established. Evidence of the ancient trail system ran along both sides of the river both on the upper cliffs and along the riparian zones. Evidence of these trails have been found in the oral history of the Elders interviewed for the ethnographic studies of the New Melones Dam prehistory work, along with oral history from Elders of the upstream Native American Indian groups

10 (Suchuchumu and Chakachina), and from handwritten ethnographic field notes from the post-contact period describing these trails systems (Hall, 1978, Dyer, 1972).

Lakisumnes River, Rio Laquisimnes 1829
Combining the ethnographic record with the cultural history over time of the Central Valley region has been given eras of classification based upon the findings of earlier archaeological evaluations for the Windmiller Culture, the Cosumnes Culture, and Hotchkiss Culture these 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 the Elder’s stories explain 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 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 inhabitants family groups who remained on the farms and ranches when these places 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

11 nondisclosure of sacred sites. Efforts for consultation and stakeholder information during the scoping of major projects often times remain secret until an archaeologist uncovers physical evidence of their existence.

In order to give a description of the region of the River Lowlands Farming Historic District Traditional Cultural Place boundary, 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 at the three settlements at Knights Ferry there was a ten-mile stretch of land between the Stanislaus and 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 fire lookout tower was the meeting grounds for trading and later used as a Pow-wow grounds (Fahey, 1962). 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. 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”, on the south side of the river Lakiu/Lukusu and 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.

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 Siyante (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

12 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 Siyante 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. 166168). Oral history 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 particular locations (not yet recorded) are on private property along the length of the river from Knights Ferry down past Salida and the confluence with the San Joaquin River. Evidence in the Riverwalk DEIR public record show archaeological locations where even after many years of flood waters surface surveys showed that there

13 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 the River Lowlands Farming Historic District Traditional Cultural Place locate other possible resource areas lying under layers of silt from the flood years. One MiwokYokut 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.

Evidence in the oral history from the Cucunuchi (Coocoonoon) Yokut descendants describe that the captains of the village at Oakdale (upstream from Riverbank settlement) were the same captains of the settlement at the old Big Bear Park in Waterford (Tagualames) and likely of Hise-ti at Riverbank. 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).

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). 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

14 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 and it is in an unprotected area.

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, Crowslanding-Modesto, Stockton, Milton, Lockford, Copperopolis, Knights Ferry, Cooperstown, Paulsell, Merced Falls, and Merced. This interview took place in Knights Ferry in 1906 when the population was more condensed into this area. The location of the River Lowlands Farming Historic District Traditional Cultural Place being below Oakdale (Wallakumne) on the Stanislaus River is along this route, confirming another oral history of other members of this transient population in Riverbank.

Cultures of that time period were transient between the settlements at elevations and seasons along the Stanislaus River. Each settlement along the River system was occupied by the extended family preserving their family use route just as the ethnographers had described. Archaeological findings found in the local archives, museums, and oral history of locations surrounding the river and City of Riverbank show that there was human occupation above the river bottom along River Road and south within the city itself on the upper benches of the riparian zone. Recent news articles showed that the cliffs and caves

15 were able to be occupied by the homeless in 2023-24. These common knowledge artifacts and locations are separate from the non-disclosed record search resources which have not been shared.

In summary of the river of Lakisumnes, the Rio Laquisimnes of 1829 and the inhabitants of the area settlements in the years before 1840, the river lowlands were permanent settlements on the bottoms during low river levels, and on the cliffs during flood times. Native people with pre-contact permanent residences located at the confluence of the San Joaquin River and the Stanislaus River, along the shores at Ripon and Salida, at “Hise-ti” or Riverbank, near the old Keeler Ferry, near Orangeblossom bridge, and further up river surrounding the rancho and Knight’s Ferry continue to yield physical evidence and oral history of their existence. Movement around a family use route was common with ceremonial structures at these convergence locations. The settlements existed along the waterways at certain points where the lineages owned crossings or fishing spots, and where soil surveys in recent history locate evidence of “kitchen middens” or soils impacted by human use patterns with a more oily consistency. These types of soils indicate the possible presence of hearths, fire pits, milling sites, lithic scatter and groups of human remains buried following the customs of the time (Arkley, 1959). The ancient trail system described in this section relates the isolates found at this location as part of a larger cultural system of commerce including traditional cultural uses predating the River Lowlands Farming Historic District Traditional Cultural Place. To follow are some of the prehistoric artifacts and features which have historically been discovered and described by the historic farmers of these bottom lands as they tilled the early 1850s farms.

Yachicumnes/ Yatch-a-chum’-ne Northern, Lakisumnes Central Northern Valley Yokut (Yachicumnes/ Yatch-a-chum’-ne) relationships to the Stanislaus River were not recorded by the ethnographers either early or during the ethnographic interviews for this region (Taylor-Smith, 1860; Guzman, 1934; Gilbert, 1879). Plains Yokut of the Stanislaus River were Lakisumnes. When reviewing the list of the California Native American Tribes listed by the NAHC for consultation, there were entities not contacted. The tribes were also not contacted until two years after the ground disturbance occurred, and not by the consulting archaeologist but by the City of Riverbank officials after being reprimanded by the NAHC. The Native American California Indian tribes which should be contacted for consultation for the Riverbank (Hise-ti) settlement prehistoric or historic information would be entities from the Calaveras River, the Stanislaus River, and the Tuolumne River.

16 Typical communication between tribal entities exists where once a tribe is contacted, they will refer the consultation duty to the lineages and people more responsible for consulting on that particular location.

Entities which would have been the appropriate Most Likely Descendants to consult would be to add the Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Miwuk Indians to the consultation requirements. Yachicumnes/ Yatchachum’-ne lineages begin at the Calaveras River and north and consult as Northern Valley Yokut north of Stockton with Calaveras River as the southern extremity.

In the records of Frank Latta (1977) there is confirmation of the names of the locations of the Yache people confirming the interviews with Joe Guzman by Kroeber and Gifford. In Pinart (1910) Alexander Taylor Smith recorded that his head village was a mound in Stockton that in 1852 was a remnant of his tribe. It was on a levee in front of Weber’s residence. Also he reported that in records from 1813 the Yachicumnes were in French Camp up the Calaveras River. The earliest contact by Jedediah Smith calling the area as Appelaminy is the same as the information that the Apelumne in Latta (p. 97) were from Stockton, Sand Plains, Escalon, Manteca, Lathrop. This is also reported by Santos (2002, p. 1).

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 local 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 Hiseti 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.

17 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 foot hills 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 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 up river about Oakdale a settlement was 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 LakisumneLukusu, the Siakumne- Cha-pa-er-sy, Chapairsy, and the Takin’, Tam-kan with three 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 school house 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.

Names of Significant 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

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

Significant People in 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 down stream 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 it 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 farm house. 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.

19 Many names from history continue on in the Burneyville and Burwood heritage. 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.

Early Evidence of the Spanish Mexican Wars
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, 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).

20 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 acorn. According to Branch (2010) the location is consistent with the battle recorded in the Brotherton (2008) 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. The mortars shot from the swivel gun could reach targets beyond obstructions by using a high angle of firing aim which could have easily reach 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 specialist determined had been carried there by the Spanish military (Riverbank Museum, 2023).

21 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 up 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 the 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

22 approximately behind the Setliff’s property, showed the locations of the cave dwellings being used by the homeless of today.

Delineating the Settlement of “Hise-ti”
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 from various areas around the lowlands can contribute data. Prehistoric Archaeological site attribute definitions where evidence can be seen for these sorts of human occupation are: 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 may have been 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.

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

23 found arrowheads as a regular occurrence. Tractor operators were allowed to discard or take the objects that they found during plowing the fields. Historic farm equipment has been included into a registry by the farming families following the oral histories. Some of the historic families are the inventors of specific industrial innovations having their beginnings in Burwood and Burneyville. These have been inventoried and listed by numbers on the table of resource attribute codes.

NAHC Stakeholders and Record Search Deficiencies
After searching through the many paged document for the letters to tribes, there were no sample correspondence with the NAHC or the tribes listed in the document for consultation. Constructing a timeline of the contact regarding communication with the Most Likely Descendants revealed a delay in contact, and a contact list that did not include many of the stakeholders. The formal Confidential Appendix C did not contain the information regarding any notification to any tribal entities. No copy of the letter they sent to NAHC nor any letter from NAHC, nor letters to tribes with no copies of the responses.

The cultural resource management agency failed to follow protocol for Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination, 2014 CEQA Assembly Bill 52, and the only communication from the NAHC was in the form of a reprimand letter with instructions for remedying the failure. The NAHC agency does not mention the contacts or the NAHC list of Most Likely Descendants only the letter to the City telling how to consult. The reprimand from NAHC was only after they received the Notice Of Preparation (NOP) as this was the first that the NAHC heard of the project and notified the City of Riverbank that they were out of compliance. A reconstruction of the timeline has been charted keeping in mind the requirements: CEQA Timeline: California State Regulation Section 21080.3.1= 14 days to notify of a project approval / 30 days for receipt of formal notification / IF THE RIGHT TRIBES ARE NOTIFIED and a requirement that the list of the NAHC has the correct tribes listed for consultation.

Requests were made by the CVCC for the Confidential Appendix C and the Record Searches.

Typically the initial record search contains the required records for an entire project, but in this case, two searches were performed a year apart. The only materials received by the CVCC archaeologist of record were the cover letters for the record searches without any of the attached reports or archaeological site

24 surveys. Consideration of the contact information regarding the timing of the NAHC contacts, and the items received were previous cover sheets for the past two record searches.

All attachments from these three separate actions required had not been received. Letters of clarification for delivery of the documents were sent twice to the City of Riverbank:
1) Record Search 11265L dated 12-18-2019
2) Record Search 11579L dated 12-4-2020
3) Recorded draft site surveys ML-20-01, ML-20-02 Criterion D, ML-20-03 Criterion D, ML-20- 04 Criterion B, ML-20-05

TABLE OF THE PROJECT TIMELINE
Date Timeline Item
2019 The job was contracted for cultural resources review 12-18-2019 Neuenschwander ordered the first record search 2020 “All work was completed during the due diligence phase in 2020” February and March 2020 field work with no consultation attempted 12-4-2020 Gerry- A second record search was ordered for the San Joaquin County side of the river (sewer plant archaeology)
Before June 9, 2021 Notice of Preparation was received by the NAHC and other agencies June 9, 2021
Received by the City of
Riverbank on June 15, 2021
NAHC out of compliance - City of Riverbank receives the Reprimand from the NAHC
September 2021 Date on the Appendix C Confidential Report January 12, 2022 Tribal consultation by City of Riverbank not the CRM Peak 1-12-2022 (3.5-11-12) 1-12-2022
January 2024 Report release
There is a three year lapse of
consultation with tribes. No
effort to identify Tribal
Cultural Resources
DEIR Consultation summary (3.5-11-12) 1-12-2022 List of tribes:

California Valley Miwok Tribe,
Northern Valley Yokut Tribe,
Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation,
Tule River Indian Tribe,
Tuolumne Band of Me-wuk Indians
2-10-2022 NAHC letter dated showing Negative results on the sacred lands search 2-11-2022 Tuolumne Response Andrea Reich provided a letter which does not show up in Appendix C
1-31-2024 Release of the DEIR document and the beginning of a timeline to respond

25 Not included in the record searches provided for the current 2020 archaeological data are the present archaeological records for the items: ML-20-01, ML-20-02 Criterion D, ML-20-03 Criterion D, ML-20-04 Criterion B, ML-20-05. SHPO Criterion A-D were not exhaustive in nature with no adequate representation of appropriate interviews or historical documentation to negate any of the necessary background investigation. The two previous years of research by the landowner group has compiled detailed information regarding the locations Criterion documentation to challenge the lack of finding of significance, pending an appeal to SHPO for an audience. Records in oral history and personal maps indicate that other ditch irrigation systems existed, and evidence of these functional attributes can still be identified. The historic levee development for both elevations of the river holds significant information relating to the historic locations and river channel history. The key reason for the request for these confidential materials is to 1) prove that throughout the ground disturbance they never contacted the correct tribal entities, 2) prove that they did not do any oral interviews, research in external sources (local museums), or 3) make any other contacts throughout the previous archaeological survey work with the stakeholders of the correct Tribes.

Notes on historic interviews with local residents and farmers are absent from the reporting in the cultural resources report. Timelines for proper consultation were not followed, and stakeholders for the region of the project were excluded from consultation. Typically the correspondence between the tribes is included in the reports for showing due diligence. Confidential Appendix C is almost identical to the

3.5.11 section in the DEIR. The only pages left out of the public record were the historical proofs for the tribal identities beginning with the 1820s fur traders, the history of the Spanish and Mexican incursions, and the background for the indigenous nomenclature in Yokut and Miwok language for territorial labeling. The purpose of this document has been to answer the lack of clarity from the Confidential Appendix C provided to the CVCC qualified individual and describe the relationship between the stages of history on these parcels. The two pages of information left out of the public record were the brief outline of historic resources surveys which were not reviewed in depth by the contractor.

Description for the Assessor Parcel Number Attributes

26 Physical evidence of the historic values inherent within this landscape are tangible elements of the environment signifying the beliefs, attitudes, traditions, and values of these people numbering families from the 27 parcels on the northern bank of the Stanislaus River and numbering more than 61 parcels on the southern bank of the Stanislaus River. Each traditional landscape elevation is characterized by a viewshed unique to each elevation and viewpoint. Fields, pastures, open plains and traces of the wagon ruts and farm roads on the lowlands are tangible contours covered by layers of alluvium silt from centuries of flood waters leaving high points where ancient settlement and trails were traversed by the Spanish and Gold Rush colonization of the pioneers that settled here. Current farm family residents have provided historic interviews, maps, descriptions of objects, descriptions of the agricultural products and processes, photographs of farm equipment, accounts of resource related locations, with all of this information listed in a confidential bibliography of the family members that contributed to the effort.

Heritage Values Inherent on the River Lowlands
The term 'heritage values' refers to the meanings and values that individuals or groups of people bestow on heritage (including collections, buildings, archaeological sites, landscapes and intangible expressions of culture, such as traditions). Heritage values are dependent upon the evidence brought forward by the individuals that hold the place or item in high esteem (Parker & King, 1998). These values have been a key factor in the legitimation of heritage protection and management, although the understanding of what they are has varied over time and there are nuances between one country and another. There are many classifications of values, including historical, aesthetic, economic, social, scientific and otherwise according to Azzopardi et al. (2022).

Architectural Investigations
The built environment holds many variables when looking at preservation values. The structure itself is subject to the era or period of design elements, but also the significance of the persons that built it and lived in the place according to a chronology of local history. The vernacular based upon architectural historic guidelines are important as well as the period of time and the events of that period. Whenever possible according to Sprinkle (2014), it is important to preserve the record of the community’s cultural

27 heritage “reflecting the values, beliefs, and traditions of past generations” whenever these structures maintain the cultural fabric to future generations.

Historic attribute code (HP20) is used for the various categories of architectural features were reported for both sides of the Stanislaus River and they were: HP2-Single Family Property; HP4- Ancillary buildings like barns, outhouses, detached garages, carriage houses, sheds, and others; HP33-a farm or ranch; HP11-an engineering structure or feature not covered in any other category like a dock, runway, water tower, ferry piling or footing, and other categories; HP15 – educational building any building used for educational purposes; HP17 Railroad related features; and HP19-Bridges or any overpass for automobiles, trains, pedestrians. Historic architectural structures were reported in the Cal Trans study for the bridge at the McHenry Avenue crossing of the Stanislaus River. Archaeological site attribute definitions where building structures may be involved are AH2-foundations; AH4-privy, trash pits, scatters or dumps, or other accumulation of debris related to the location of a structure; AH11- walls or fences including postholes, posts or supports placed at intervals, post-cairns, fences, jetties, and breakwaters; AH12-grave or cemetery or any single or multiple burial location; and AH13- wharf or piling or remains of a built structure at the shore of a river for docking boats.

Finally Prehistoric Archaeological site attribute definitions where evidence can be seen for these sorts of human occupation: 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; AP10- a cache used to store tools or food of natural or constructed local elements; and AP14- rock shelter or caves- a concavity within a rock surface evidencing human use.

There were also architectural studies during the San Joaquin County Sewer expansion projects. Interview and oral history for this current study show that there were features reported for the Burwood APN Resources North of the Stanislaus and Hogue Road APN Resources South of the Stanislaus have been entered into the totals of resources signifying their existence as part of a farmland traditional cultural property. Locations of the original post office, the home of the postmaster, the original school, the home

28 of school teacher, the farming ancillary buildings, the crops farmed, the marketing of different crops and the families who own and farm the lands.

Flumes, Ditches, Canals, Water conveyance and Wells
Historic irrigation ditches and canals may be simply water conveyance systems or can be part of flood control. These elements are part of the designed landscape where human interference in natural processes are performed for specific reasons. In historic preservation they are considered linear features and begin at one point and end at another point. On the benches of the lowlands, there were uses as flood control, water conveyance, and for uses by neighbors as a means of controlling the boundaries of their irrigated lands. One such use was a ditch that began somewhere near Jacobs Meyers Park on the south side of the river and continued in a line over to a place near McHenry Avenue where it ran under the road toward what is now the old lily pad lake and flowing through a historic walnut orchard which has been removed. Residents remember the large carp which were fished from this waterway ditch. Other ditches and canals were earthen structures designed to retain the water flow onto the landowners property from the river in contrast to the ditches of the other landowners. These built environmental modifications would be recorded following the historic resources attribute codes.

Historic attribute code (HP20) is used for the various water conveyance systems include earthen construction of an artificial waterway that can include pipes, conduits and bridge-like structures above ground for carrying water which can be identified as flumes. Prehistoric Archaeological site attribute definitions where evidence can be seen AH6- a water conveyance system or any device constructed to transport water over a distance. Burwood APN Resources North of the Stanislaus and Hogue Road APN Resources South of the Stanislaus such as historic 1910 brick structures, dairy drainage and water holding tanks, the Hogue Spillway used by the Modesto Irrigation District before the canal system, irrigation both flood and sprinkler, the ditches, the boils located at the low points when flood waters rose, and other water related fixtures. When comparing the area on the 1953 Escalon topographic map in Sections 21 and 16, this shows the river benches and elevations before the 1955 flood. The 1953 ditches are very clear showing the areas where the informants used to fish not in the river, but in the ditches.

29 During oral interviews with farmers from both sides of the river, in three instances the farmers had confidence in the New Melones dam but also mentioned the failure of the Oroville Dam a few years back. They agreed that flood control is not infallible and shared concerns for their orchards and fields.

Different farmers talked about the levees before the dam was built and the efforts of them all in keeping the levees built up and viable during the storms. Flood irrigation during the 1960s was most common with them all, and some used well water for irrigation. Storm water retention ponds were more dominant on the south side of the river in conversations, and they described the water as sandy. The sand was a concern with the pumps and the filters. The ponds could be dug as deep as river level before the water appeared in the bottom of the hole. There was consensus regarding the pump at the end of the ditch at the end where the lotus ponds used to be. There was discussion about the annual water still within the Hogue Spillway which was the source of the water which ended up at the pump near McHenry by the lotus pond.

The old swimming hole was not far from the old McHenry Bridge where there were deeper swimming ponds in the river. When the storm water retention ponds were deep, they were also used and explored for swimming.

Heritage crops or orchards have been reported on some of the farms. There are persimmon trees over 100 years of age. There are grape vines purported to be from Spanish mission origin at a location.

There was a report of some 150 year old olive trees left from an orchard. The seed saving and records of heritage crops was something that was a concern of some of the families.

Wagon Roads and Ancient Trails
Recorded history began in the field reports of the fur traders and of the Spanish mission Priests of the early 1800s for this region. Oral history from the oldest residents of the settlements of the Stanislaus River interviewed by ethnographers described the trail systems. The Spanish records of the incursion to the table mountain reported the massacre at the rock corral circle just below the table mountain. Ancient trails doubled as animal trails that followed up and down both sides of the Stanislaus River. Trails recorded by Sample (1950) and Davis (1974) revealed routes aligning with the river courses. The earliest

30 fur trade records of Jedediah Smith show interactions with Northern Miwuk in the 1820s, and of conflict between the Spanish Priests and the fur traders for the conscription of the Indigenous labor force. The ancient trails became Spanish military routes, then the Spanish land grants of Thompson and then the Rancheria Del Rio Estanislao increasing the use of the trail system to expand to wagon roads.

Historic attribute code (HP37 or AH7) is used for any roadway from a built freeway down to the level of a footpath labeled Highway or Trail in the historic period. These are a road, trail or railroad bed having linear construction, either depressed or elevated, or at ground level designed to facilitate the transportation of people or vehicles including a bridge, railroad grade, trail, wagon road, or other types.

Prehistoric Archaeological site attribute definitions where evidence can be seen can be mapped (AP13) as linear features where intermittent evidence may be used where there are only traces of the feature. These features would be seen as natural or constructed elements indicating human use such as earthworks, windrows, or stone trail steps. Burwood APN Resources North of the Stanislaus and Hogue Road APN Resources South of the Stanislaus consisted of the trails used previous to colonization in the Spanish wars with the indigenous, the wagon trails leading to the prominent crossings, and the later developed trails leading to the ferries and finally the railroad crossings. The river crossings would have changed over the centuries since the meander of the river changes each year even after the New Melones Dam.

Historic Golf Club Features
Based upon the evidence found in the document written by Ristau (2007) after the railroad reached Modesto in 1870, it took until before or early 1920 when George Nelson acquired a parcel of land east of McHenry Avenue and built a three-hole course which was expanded to nine holes. This parcel was located on what is today APN 074-001-001 owned by Huddelson Company. At the time it was a nine hole course with cottonwood trees and natural oak trees on the last three holes. The club was incorporated in 1920 with 300 members. There was a large home on the property which served as the clubhouse. In 1942 the Army Corp of Engineers trimmed and denuded the underbrush, dredged up fill to form a massive levee, which when spring floods collapsed the levee spreading a thick layer of mud over the green course.

Based upon the soil survey by Arkley (1959) the soil types were listed as along the river on the lower

31 bench 29-Grangeville very fine sandy loam, then up one bench to 28- Grangeville fine sandy loam, and on the same level 95-riverwash, and toward the last bench 67- Tujunga loamy sand with a 3-to-8% slope uphill. When comparing the area on the 1953 Escalon topographic map in Sections 21 and 16, this shows the river benches and elevations before the 1955 flood. Before the 1942 levee building and dredging an early caddy was Don Monaco of Modesto who reported to the author of the memoires of the old Del Rio golf course. Economics and the war effort caused the failure of the location on this parcel of land.

Also located on this parcel was a local garbage dump where illegal dumping occurred for a period of years (Hopper, A., 2023 and Hopper, B., 2024). When family would visit the area under the bridge along the river in the 1ate 1970s and early 1980s there was a landing and location where they would fish.

At this spot they would dig in the soil and find that there was an approximately 1860s dump where they unearthed old bottles and items such as cast iron toys and other garbage items. At this location and further west along the river bank, the evidence of the ditch where the farmers (Escalon Museum, 2023) reported the location of the carp fishing spot in the 1950s. During the McHenry Avenue bridge expansion project, previous archaeological surveys took place referenced in the record search of 2020 and 2021.

Another reference from some farmers explained the location of other family dump sites and places where strangers would use the opportunity to dump foreign materials. One dump site can still be seen in the heavy rains because the sand washes away and the historic bottles show up in the soil where they were dumped years ago. The old bottles were from the 1920s and 1930s where people went to the bluff and threw the trash over. Another dump area was removed and cleaned up when some others were using the family land to build houses.

Railroad and River Ferry Crossing History
Since Riverbank was originally begun as a ferry crossing both at Islip’s Ferry and Burney Ferry, it became a town along the wagon road from San Francisco to Yosemite trail where one route went east to Knights Ferry, and another went in the direction of Modesto. The railroad crossing at the site of the Burney Ferry made river crossings obsolete. Early on the mail stop was at Burwood on the north side of the river. Riverbank would have to receive the mail and deliveries in Burwood. The early ferry crossing

32 town was called Burneyville in about 1850 (Santos, 2002). 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.

Historic attribute code (HP19) is used for a built bridge or overpass used for automobiles, trains, pedestrians; AH7- linear construction of a railroad bed- bridge or railroad bed elevated or depressed; there are no train stations or buildings along the stretch of railroad at this location. There were archaeological studies performed in the bibliography of the record searches which were not made available to the CVCC.

Historic attribute code HP19 can also be used for detailing the structures and ships and docking and pully systems. Evidence 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. There is also northern shore information for the trail or wagon road from the ferry structure to the town of Burwood. The earliest fords may have been built up through elevating the rock bed of the stream when the indigenous controlled the waterway.

The farmers constructed the sand bridge to get from one crop section to another field on the other side of the river without having to go to the roads and use the bridge over McHenry avenue as was described in interviews.

Historic Farmland Heritage Family names
The farms and ranches (HP33) of the River Lowlands of Burwood and Burneyville which were partly recorded during the McHenry Avenue bridge replacement and the sewer facility resources surveys show some of the culturally affiliated properties of original families descended from the founders. The town of Burwood began as Monroeville in 1859 when Ishmael Monroe was farming the area. He received a commission from Abraham Lincoln to be the postmaster of the location. Monroe’s ranch was the location of the post office and mail was received two-to-three times a week (Hillman & Covello, 1985, pp. 198-199). The homes of the Monroe brothers still stand today, and they were active in the community from 1862 through 1885. By 1866 there was a brick school house erected for the Burwood town. When the school had discontinued use, the land was returned to the Monroe Family. In the early 1880s there were other businesses in Burwood a general merchandise store, the Cahill Hotel, two blacksmiths, two merchants, a butcher shop, a shoemaker, a clergyman who was a farmer there, and two music teachers

33 listed in the county directory. One ranch farmstead was located south of River Road and north of the river and was a historic home which became famous as Chester Smith’s home (Escalon Museum, 2023).

Three of the farming families had evidence of historic farm equipment still existing, and some old equipment still in working condition. Orchard farmers of walnut had hullers and were offering photographs of the older equipment. Five farm family names still hold the historic large equipment. Some of the equipment is out of site and was made available to the CVCC team to photograph. Before George Reed began the gravel pit, this farmland was used for dry farming beans and other crops.

Burneyville on the south side of the Stanislaus River consisted at first of a home for James Burney’s family and the ferry docks and pulleys and the ferry boat business (Branch, 1996). Burwood or Monroeville began when Ishmael Monroe purchased the land and began farming which caused other farms to begin and a small town developed which gained a post office. When Riverbank was beginning to be built, the upper benches of the river were beginning to be converted from farmland to home and business property. The farmland of Sneidegar and Leighton were some of the farmers that changed their land to building sites from growing crops.

Viewshed Quality of Life
Planning terminology for the visual field of a culturally sensitive place, where an unobstructed view is important to the meaning of the unspoken story of a sacred place. Viewsheds contain elements having special meaning to the culture in question which are deemed worthy of preservation. The visuospatial vantage point of the river lowlands from the surrounding farms and ranches consists of the river flow, the density of the natural plants, and the clear view of the elements of the natural environment.

Visibility analysis is an essential evaluation for environmental health and predicts impacts on human perspective over time when the viewshed is impacted. Landmarks and open space affect the human perspective in various ways. The view from the cliffs along the Stanislaus River has not changed for a thousand years. The meander of the central current of the river has changed the oxbows and curves of the channel, but the lowlands from Burwood and from Hogue Road has remained unchanged except for the crop cover. Visual significance of a perceived terrain is influential to the human perception of the

34 environment is affected by the slope, aspect, distance, and elevation to arrive at a specific viewscape.

These factors affect human well-being and behaviors when the focus of attention has shifted through a change in the natural environment which cannot be mitigated.

Historic Farmland Heritage Family Names Numbered Resources The historic families descended from the original farmers and ranchers of the river lowlands of Burneyville, Burwood, Monroeville, and the transitional town names for the place at the crossing of the Stanislaus River have compiled a listing of 154 resources identified through a cursory few oral histories and interviews.

RESOURCE ATTRIBUTE CODE CHART & QUANTITIES OF SITES
Resource Attribute Code Item (totals from confidential interviews from March-May 2024) APN # Architectural-Historic
7 HP2 Single family property
8 HP23 Vessel able to navigate inland waters
9 HP4 Ancillary Building-barns, outhouse, sheds
28 HP33 Farm/Ranch- any place where crops or animals are raised 2 HP11 Engineering structure-docks, water towers
1 HP15 Educational Building- school, library, museum
5 HP14 Government Building- post office, city hall, court 3 HP17 Railroad related
2 HP19 Bridge for pedestrian, train, auto, overpass
2 HP34 Military property- owned by US armed services
1 HP45 Unreinforced masonry building
2 HP5 Hotel/Motel
3 HP42 Sports areas- (rodeo, go carts, golf course etc) 1 HP44 Adobe structure
6 HP21 Dam any barrier constructed to hold back water AH8-Dam 2 HP32 Rural open space any area that has little to no development in a city limit 2 HP30 Riparian areas with Old Growth Oak Trees
3 HP40 Cemetery and private family burials
Architectural-Prehistoric
1 AP7 Architectural feature any feature indicating human presence 1 AP8 Stone features arrangement of rocks
3 AP9 Burial contains human bone
1 AP10 Cache feature for storing goods (cave)
1 AP14 Rock shelter

35 Various locations AP2 Lithic Scatter
Flumes, Ditches, Canals, Water conveyance and Wells-Historic 9 HP20 Canal aqueduct ditch – waterway, irrigation, drainages, bridge like structure for water
Wagon Roads and Ancient
Trails: Historic
10 HP37 Trail highway any roadway footpath to highway/ AH7-Roads, trails, railroad grades
3 AH2 Foundations structures pads
12 AH10 Machinery-mechanical device- farm equipment mills windmills 7 AH5 Wells cisterns receptacle designed to hold water
Various in use AH6 Water conveyance system any device to transport water over a distance Various in use AH3 Landscaping evidence of plantings hedgerows, orchards, terraces, ponds 3 AH4 Privies, Dumps, Trash scatter
Prehistoric
2 AP13 Trail linear earthworks
8 AP2 Lithic scatter
6 AP15 Habitation debris
Railroad and River Ferry
Crossing History-Historic
3 HP19 Bridge trestle
Total 154 RESOURCES

These interviews are from regions of the Hise-ti / Burneyville / Burwood Stanislaus River farming area not including the record search findings which have yet to be delivered to the cultural resource’s representative of the CVCC. These physical and aesthetic cultural resources can be categorized according to the Resource Attribute Codes of the Guidelines for Recording Historical Resources by the Office of Historic Preservation of the State of California. The number and configuration of the findings from the interviews with the historic families is listed in a separate document and correlated to a topographic geographic location map. The resources cited do not include the resources reported in any of the previous archaeological survey results. Interviews took place at the Riverbank Museum, the Escalon Museum, via telephonic communication with families and neighbors and are confidential communications. Some families were for the development but wanted to preserve the history of the place before it was destroyed, but others were anti-development and wanted to see farmlands preserved. The

36 interviews were performed by the local residents themselves, and compiled and scored as to the contents of archaeological evidence by the secretary of the interior professional to determine whether the resources would be eligible for listing if they were ever surveyed.

Resources Reported by Descendants of Historic Families
Historic Family Names (including the descendant name not necessarily in order of the 1850 original names): Hogue, Wigley, Monroe, Huntley, Roberson, Bodell, Kimberling, Abersenti, Bellino, Johnsons, McManis Winery, Crow Brothers, William Crow (Lou, Susan, Charlie), Frederick, Dickey, Hogue and other names as are listed by the interviewer. The list of residents and farmers is not exhaustive, and interviews were made confidential with no one family being named as informants for any region in order to conceal the locations of the resources.

Deficiencies in the Cultural Resources Assessment 2021
While comparing the proposed cultural resources confidential appendix to the Draft Environmental Impact Report CRM section, the identical information appeared in the public version and the confidential draft except for two pages where there is a historical review of the Indian naming of the people from the first contacts and Indian wars. These two pages are a prehistory and historic description of the Central Valley of California from an overview of the time period from 1769 and the missions to the Gold Rush period land use. The Confidential Appendix C is almost verbatim with only one section removed in the public version. The following are some of the regulatory statements that are to be followed when working on a historic resources survey.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA) Section 106 of the NHPA (54 USC § 306108) requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, through a process described at 36 CFR Part 800.

Historic properties are cultural resources that are included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

State of California Environmental Quality Act