Clearlake panel continues Burns Valley sports‑complex hearing after tribes press for AB 52 consultation

Clearlake’s Planning Commission on Sept. 27 paused action on a proposed Burns Valley sports complex after tribal leaders and archaeologists urged deeper consultation and, in some cases, further field work to resolve whether the site contains extensive tribal cultural resources.

The commission voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to Oct. 25 and to keep the record open while staff and tribal representatives pursue government‑to‑government consultation and, if needed, additional trenching to refine site boundaries.

Staff presented the project as a multi‑phase sports complex and recreation center at 14885 Burns Valley Road with baseball, softball, soccer fields and a proposed recreation center of 15,000–28,000 square feet. Staff said current funding commitments total roughly $8 million for the sports‑complex elements (including a $3 million Prop 68 allocation and a pending congressional earmark), with an additional roughly $12 million needed to build the recreation center portion.

City‑contracted archaeologist Dr. White told the commission he excavated a systematic grid of trenches and identified two subsurface archaeological deposits with integrity that warrant avoidance measures. "I dug a grid of 38 trenches ... I was able to only define 2 locations, where archaeological sites were present in the subsurface context," he said, and recommended avoidance and monitoring protocols where intact deposits were identified.

Representatives of the Koi Nation and other tribal representatives disputed aspects of the city’s process and urged stricter consultation under AB 52. Dino Beltran, vice chairman of the Koi Nation of Northern California, said the tribe "is pro‑development" but insisted "the law, CEQA, AB 52 be followed," adding tribal archaeologists consider the site eligible for the California Register. Tribal counsel Holly Roberson said government‑to‑government consultation is legally required and warned that the record contains a "fair argument" that impacts could be significant—an issue that can require an environmental impact report rather than a mitigated negative declaration.

Archaeologist John Parker, who conducted a peer review, commended Dr. White’s work and said the area’s depositional history can bury older layers. "I don't think any more study is needed to determine that the site is significant, and I think the mitigation recommendations are good," he said, while also suggesting the deposits may be part of one larger site rather than two discrete sites.

City staff told the commission they had added mitigation measures (contractor cultural‑sensitivity training, tribal monitoring during ground‑disturbing work, and specific recommendations from Dr. White’s archaeological report) and do not believe recirculation of the MND is required under CEQA guidelines. Staff also said they are willing to perform additional field work to resolve differences between reports and to adjust site boundaries if needed.

Commissioners repeatedly expressed the desire to balance community benefits—several public commenters urged the project so youth have recreational options—with tribal cultural preservation. Commissioner McCarrick and others said a defined continuance with clear deliverables (government‑to‑government consultation and targeted field work) could allow progress without forgoing careful protection of resources.

The commission’s motion to continue, made by Commissioner McCarrick and seconded by Vice Chair Coker, passed on a roll‑call vote. The public hearing will remain open until Oct. 25, when the commission will reconvene the item and consider any revised mitigation, additional field work results, or further consultation outcomes.

What happens next: staff and the Koi Nation are expected to pursue government‑to‑government consultation and, if agreed, additional targeted trenching and adjustments to mitigation measures. The commission will revisit the item on Oct. 25; if further legal or technical issues remain unresolved, the hearing could require additional review or environmental analysis.