Clear Lake council denies Koi Nation appeal but adds tribal coordination to mitigation

Clear Lake — The City Council voted unanimously to deny an appeal filed by the Koi Nation challenging the City’s environmental review and Planning Commission approval of a proposed hotel and an Eighteenth Avenue extension, but the council added language to require tribal coordination and tribal-led cultural sensitivity training before ground-disturbing work.

The appeal centered on whether the city complied with Assembly Bill 52’s tribal consultation requirements during preparation of the mitigated negative declaration for the hotel and related road work near the airport (project: CUP2022-02, DR2022-02; CEQA IS 2022-06; APN 042-121-25). Koi Nation representatives told the council they had documented tribal cultural resources (TCRs) near the project area and said consultation had not been completed.

Tribal historic preservation officer Robert Geary told the council that “the tribe is not against this, as far as the project itself,” but urged more meaningful consultation and on-site tribal monitoring during ground disturbance, noting “there are 10 prehistoric sites that are within a quarter of a mile” and that the closest site is approximately 118 feet from the project area. Attorney Bill Chisholm for the Koi Nation said consultation “is not concluded” and urged the council to continue the matter or adopt additional mitigation to avoid substantive impacts.

City CEQA counsel read a prepared analysis concluding the city met AB 52 timing requirements, that consultants found no TCRs in the project footprint, and that the MND includes mitigation for the remote possibility of discoveries during construction. In that presentation the attorney summarized the record, noting the city held a formal consultation meeting on March 9, 2022, circulated the MND on Oct. 26, 2022, and the Planning Commission approved the project on Dec. 13, 2022.

Council members questioned both tribe representatives and staff about the consultation timeline, the distribution and receipt of cultural resource reports, and whether spoil piles and previously disturbed fill near the airport could contain relocated cultural soils. Tribal witnesses said confidential maps and prior studies indicate high sensitivity in the broader area and that a tribal treatment protocol and tribal monitoring were proposed during consultation but not adopted. City staff said the archaeological investigation (CRI/Subterra) did not identify TCRs in the project footprint and that the MND includes mitigation steps (including worker sensitivity training) for unlikely finds.

After deliberation, a council member moved to deny the appeal but to amend the cultural-resources mitigation language. The council directed the project owner to use a qualified cultural resources consultant who will coordinate with a tribal cultural resources consultant from a tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area, and explicitly required that the first-day contractor sensitivity training be provided by tribal personnel or under tribal direction. The council then approved the motion by unanimous roll-call vote.

The council’s action distinguishes between process and mitigation: it upheld the Planning Commission’s decision while adding specific procedural safeguards the city said would improve coordination if discoveries occur. The decision leaves open the potential for future disputes: tribal counsel warned that adopting the MND without concluding consultation can invite CEQA litigation, while city counsel argued the administrative record supports the MND.

Next steps outlined by staff include finalizing the mitigation language in the MND and continuing coordination with tribal representatives during design and pre-construction. The council closed the public hearing and moved on to other business.